MATERIALS AND METHODS: A review of multiple reports and kit inserts on the diagnostic performance of rapid tests from various manufacturers that are commercially available were performed. Only preliminary data are available currently.
RESULTS: From a total of nine rapid detection test (RDT) kits, three kits offer total antibody detection, while six kits offer combination SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG detection in two separate test lines. All kits are based on colloidal gold-labeled immunochromatography principle and one-step method with results obtained within 15 minutes, using whole blood, serum or plasma samples. The sensitivity for both IgM and IgG tests ranges between 72.7% and 100%, while specificity ranges between 98.7% to 100%. Two immunochromatography using nasopharyngeal or throat swab for detection of COVID-19 specific antigen are also reviewed.
CONCLUSIONS: There is much to determine regarding the value of serological testing in COVID-19 diagnosis and monitoring. More comprehensive evaluations of their performance are rapidly underway. The use of serology methods requires appropriate interpretations of the results and understanding the strengths and limitations of such tests.
METHODS: Ninety five first-time male attendees of the Genito-urinary Medicine Clinic in Hospital Kuala Lumpur were included in this cross-sectional study. The detection of C. trachomatis was achieved through direct fluorescence antibody (DFA) staining of urethral swabs and real-time polymerase chain reaction testing (Xpert® CT/NG assay) on urine specimens. N. gonorrhoeae was detected through Gram staining and culture of urethral swabs and Xpert® CT/ NG assay on urine specimens.
RESULTS: From the Xpert® CT/NG results, 11 (11.6%) attendees had chlamydia, 23 (24.2%) had gonorrhoea and 8 (8.4%) had both STIs. The sensitivity and specificity of DFA in detecting chlamydia compared to Xpert® CT/NG were 5.3% (95% CI: 0-28) and 94.7% (95% CI: 86-98), respectively. For gonorrhoea, the sensitivity and specificity of Gram staining were 90.3% (95% CI: 73-98) and 95.3% (86-99), respectively, whereas the sensitivity and specificity of culture compared to Xpert® CT/NG were 32.2% (95% CI: 17-51) and 100% (95% CI: 93-100), respectively.
CONCLUSION: Although Gram-stained urethral swab smears are sensitive enough to be retained as a screening tool for gonorrhoea, culture as well as DFA lack sensitivity and are poorly suited to screen for gonorrhoea and chlamydia, respectively. However, owing to their high specificity, conventional detection methods are still suitable as confirmatory tests for gonorrhoea and chlamydia.
OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the relative sensitivity for HPV detection of self-collection compared with practitioner-collected cervical specimens in the context of the Australian National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP).
STUDY DESIGN: 303 women aged ≥18 years attending a single tertiary referral centre took their own sample using a flocked-swab, and then had a practitioner-collected sample taken at colposcopy. All samples were tested at a single laboratory on the six PCR-based HPV assays which can be utilised in the NCSP; Roche cobas 4800 and cobas, Abbott RealTime, BD Onclarity, Cepheid Xpert, and Seegene Anyplex.
RESULTS: HPV16/18 results had high observed agreement between self- and practitioner-collected samples on all assays (range: 0.94-0.99), with good agreement for non-HPV16/18 oncogenic HPV types (range: 0.64-0.73).
CONCLUSIONS: Self-collection for HPV-based cervical screening shows good concordance and relative sensitivity when compared to practitionercollected samples across assays in the NCSP.
METHODS: This evaluation was performed in seven centers across China, South Korea, and Malaysia. Imprecision (repeatability and reproducibility), assay accuracy, and lot-to-lot reagent variability were tested. The Elecsys ECLIAs were compared with commercially available immunoassays (Architect, Dimension, and Viva-E systems) using whole blood samples from patients with various transplant types (kidney, liver, heart, and bone marrow).
RESULTS: Coefficients of variation for repeatability and reproducibility were ≤5.4% and ≤12.4%, respectively, for the tacrolimus ECLIA, and ≤5.1% and ≤7.3%, respectively, for the cyclosporine ECLIA. Method comparisons of the tacrolimus ECLIA with Architect, Dimension, and Viva-E systems yielded slope values of 1.01, 1.14, and 0.897, respectively. The cyclosporine ECLIA showed even closer agreements with the Architect, Dimension, and Viva-E systems (slope values of 1.04, 1.04, and 1.09, respectively). No major differences were observed among the different transplant types.
CONCLUSIONS: The tacrolimus and cyclosporine ECLIAs demonstrated excellent precision and close agreement with other immunoassays tested. These results show that both assays are suitable for ISD monitoring in an APAC population across a range of different transplant types.