Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Background
Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection could contribute to clinical and public health strategies to manage the COVID‐19 pandemic. Point‐of‐care antigen and molecular tests to detect current infection could increase access to testing and early confirmation of cases, and expediate clinical and public health management decisions that may reduce transmission.

Objectives
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point‐of‐care antigen and molecular‐based tests for diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups.

Search methods
Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register and the COVID‐19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 30 Sept 2020. We checked repositories of COVID‐19 publications and included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics and the Diagnostics Global Health website to 16 Nov 2020. We did not apply language restrictions.

Selection criteria
We included studies of people with either suspected SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, known SARS‐CoV‐2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point‐of‐care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards that define the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) tests and established diagnostic criteria).

Data collection and analysis
Studies were screened independently in duplicate with disagreements resolved by discussion with a third author. Study characteristics were extracted by one author and checked by a second; extraction of study results and assessments of risk of bias and applicability (made using the QUADAS‐2 tool) were undertaken independently in duplicate. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and pooled data using the bivariate model separately for antigen and molecular‐based tests. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status.

Main results
Seventy‐eight study cohorts were included (described in 64 study reports, including 20 pre‐prints), reporting results for 24,087 samples (7,415 with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2). Studies were mainly from Europe (n = 39) or North America (n = 20), and evaluated 16 antigen and five molecular assays.

We considered risk of bias to be high in 29 (37%) studies because of participant selection; in 66 (85%) because of weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection; and in 29 (37%) for participant flow and timing. Studies of antigen tests were of a higher methodological quality compared to studies of molecular tests, particularly regarding the risk of bias for participant selection and the index test. Characteristics of participants in 35 (45%) studies differed from those in whom the test was intended to be used and the delivery of the index test in 39 (50%) studies differed from the way in which the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (97%) defined the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 based on a single RT‐PCR result, and none included participants meeting case definitions for probable COVID‐19.

Antigen tests

Forty‐eight studies reported 58 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies. There were differences between symptomatic (72.0%, 95% CI 63.7% to 79.0%; 37 evaluations; 15530 samples, 4410 cases) and asymptomatic participants (58.1%, 95% CI 40.2% to 74.1%; 12 evaluations; 1581 samples, 295 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (78.3%, 95% CI 71.1% to 84.1%; 26 evaluations; 5769 samples, 2320 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (51.0%, 95% CI 40.8% to 61.0%; 22 evaluations; 935 samples, 692 cases). Sensitivity was high in those with cycle threshold (Ct) values on PCR ≤25 (94.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 96.7%; 36 evaluations; 2613 cases) compared to those with Ct values >25 (40.7%, 95% CI 31.8% to 50.3%; 36 evaluations; 2632 cases). Sensitivity varied between brands. Using data from instructions for use (IFU) compliant evaluations in symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities ranged from 34.1% (95% CI 29.7% to 38.8%; Coris Bioconcept) to 88.1% (95% CI 84.2% to 91.1%; SD Biosensor STANDARD Q). Average specificities were high in symptomatic and asymptomatic participants, and for most brands (overall summary specificity 99.6%, 95% CI 99.0% to 99.8%).

At 5% prevalence using data for the most sensitive assays in symptomatic people (SD Biosensor STANDARD Q and Abbott Panbio), positive predictive values (PPVs) of 84% to 90% mean that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 6 positive results will be a false positive, and between 1 in 4 and 1 in 8 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence applying the same tests in asymptomatic people would result in PPVs of 11% to 28% meaning that between 7 in 10 and 9 in 10 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed.

No studies assessed the accuracy of repeated lateral flow testing or self‐testing.

Rapid molecular assays

Thirty studies reported 33 evaluations of five different rapid molecular tests. Sensitivities varied according to test brand. Most of the data relate to the ID NOW and Xpert Xpress assays. Using data from evaluations following the manufacturer’s instructions for use, the average sensitivity of ID NOW was 73.0% (95% CI 66.8% to 78.4%) and average specificity 99.7% (95% CI 98.7% to 99.9%; 4 evaluations; 812 samples, 222 cases). For Xpert Xpress, the average sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 88.1% to 100%) and average specificity 97.2% (95% CI 89.4% to 99.3%; 2 evaluations; 100 samples, 29 cases). Insufficient data were available to investigate the effect of symptom status or time after symptom onset.

Authors' conclusions
Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID‐19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. The assays shown to meet appropriate criteria, such as WHO's priority target product profiles for COVID‐19 diagnostics (‘acceptable’ sensitivity ≥ 80% and specificity ≥ 97%), can be considered as a replacement for laboratory‐based RT‐PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT‐PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. Positive predictive values suggest that confirmatory testing of those with positive results may be considered in low prevalence settings. Due to the variable sensitivity of antigen tests, people who test negative may still be infected.

Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts was limited. Test accuracy studies cannot adequately assess the ability of antigen tests to differentiate those who are infectious and require isolation from those who pose no risk, as there is no reference standard for infectiousness. A small number of molecular tests showed high accuracy and may be suitable alternatives to RT‐PCR. However, further evaluations of the tests in settings as they are intended to be used are required to fully establish performance in practice.

Several important studies in asymptomatic individuals have been reported since the close of our search and will be incorporated at the next update of this review. Comparative studies of antigen tests in their intended use settings and according to test operator (including self‐testing) are required.

/pdf/rapid-point-of-care-antigen-and-molecular-based-tests-for-2a2qjx1fq9.pdf

Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The recent outbreak of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) causing COVID-19 disease spreads rapidly in the world. Rapid and early detection of SARS-CoV-2 facilitates early intervention and prevents the disease spread. Here, we present an All-In-One Dual CRISPR-Cas12a (AIOD-CRISPR) assay for one-pot, ultrasensitive, and visual SARS-CoV-2 detection. By targeting SARS-CoV-2's nucleoprotein gene, two CRISPR RNAs without protospacer adjacent motif (PAM) site limitation are introduced to develop the AIOD-CRISPR assay and detect the nucleic acids with a sensitivity of few copies. We validate the assay by using COVID-19 clinical swab samples and obtain consistent results with RT-PCR assay. Furthermore, a low-cost hand warmer (~$0.3) is used as an incubator of the AIOD-CRISPR assay to detect clinical samples within 20 min, enabling an instrument-free, visual SARS-CoV-2 detection at the point of care. Thus, our method has the significant potential to provide a rapid, sensitive, one-pot point-of-care assay for SARS-CoV-2.

/pdf/ultrasensitive-and-visual-detection-of-sars-cov-2-using-all-40peni3fhp.pdf

Ultrasensitive and visual detection of SARS-CoV-2 using all-in-one dual CRISPR-Cas12a assay.

COVID-19 diagnosis -A review of current methods.

Infections caused by non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) are increasing globally and are notoriously difficult to treat due to intrinsic resistance of these bacteria to many common antibiotics. NTM are diverse and ubiquitous in the environment, with only a few species causing serious and often opportunistic infections in humans, including Mycobacterium abscessus. This rapidly growing mycobacterium is one of the most commonly identified NTM species responsible for severe respiratory, skin and mucosal infections in humans. It is often regarded as one of the most antibiotic-resistant mycobacteria, leaving us with few therapeutic options. In this Review, we cover the proposed infection process of M. abscessus, its virulence factors and host interactions and highlight the commonalities and differences of M. abscessus with other NTM species. Finally, we discuss drug resistance mechanisms and future therapeutic options. Taken together, this knowledge is essential to further our understanding of this overlooked and neglected global threat. Non-tuberculous mycobacteria, such as Mycobacterium abscessus, are an increasing global health burden, in part due their extensive drug resistance. In this Review, Johansen, Herrmann and Kremer discuss the infection process, host interactions, mechanisms of drug resistance and drug development.

Non-tuberculous mycobacteria and the rise of Mycobacterium abscessus.

The increase in the prevalence and impact of infections caused by carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae is a global health concern. Therefore, rapid and accurate methods to detect these organisms in any clinical microbiology laboratory, including those in resource-limited settings, are essential to prevent and contain their spread. It is also important to differentiate between serine- and metal-dependent carbapenemases elaborated by carbapenemase-producing isolates for epidemiologic, infection control and prevention, and therapeutic purposes. Here, we describe the development and evaluation of the EDTA-modified carbapenem inactivation method (eCIM), an assay for discriminating between serine- and metal-dependent (i.e., metallo-β-lactamases [MBLs]) carbapenemases when used in conjunction with the modified carbapenem inactivation method (mCIM). The eCIM had an overall sensitivity and specificity of 100% and was adopted by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute as a method to use in combination with the mCIM to identify MBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae.

EDTA-Modified Carbapenem Inactivation Method: a Phenotypic Method for Detecting Metallo-β-Lactamase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae.

Sensitive quantitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical samples using digital warm-start CRISPR assay.

Burkholderia cepacia complex infections: More complex than the bacterium name suggest.


 The recent outbreak of novel Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of COVID-19 disease, has spread rapidly all over the world. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is another deadly virus and causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). Rapid and early detection of these viruses will facilitate early intervention and prevent disease spread. Here, we present an All-In-One Dual CRISPR-Cas12a (termed "AIOD-CRISPR") assay method for simple, rapid, ultrasensitive, specific, one-pot, and visual detection of coronavirus SARS-CoV- 2 and HIV-1 virus. In our AIOD-CRISPR assay, a pair of crRNAs was introduced to initiate dual CRISPR-Cas12a-based detection and improve both detection sensitivity and fluorescence signals. The AIOD-CRISPR assay method was utilized to detect nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) of the SARS-CoV-2 and HIV-1 with a sensitivity of few copies. We validated our AIOD-CRISPR method by using COVID-19 swab samples and obtained consistent results with that of RT-PCR method. More importantly, we successfully demonstrated to use a low- cost hand warmer (~$ 0.3) as an incubator of our AIOD-CRISPR assay and detect COVID-19 patient samples within 20 minutes, enabling an instrument-free, visual detection of COVID-19 at the point of care. Thus, our method has significant potential for developing next-generation point-of-care molecular diagnostics.

/pdf/all-in-one-dual-crispr-cas12a-aiod-crispr-assay-a-case-for-2wd5gdhsd9.pdf

All-in-One Dual CRISPR-Cas12a (AIOD-CRISPR) Assay: A Case for Rapid, Ultrasensitive and Visual Detection of Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and HIV virus at the Point of Care

Maroun M. Sfeir

Papers

Ultrasensitive and visual detection of SARS-CoV-2 using all-in-one dual CRISPR-Cas12a assay.

EDTA-Modified Carbapenem Inactivation Method: a Phenotypic Method for Detecting Metallo-β-Lactamase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae.

Sensitive quantitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical samples using digital warm-start CRISPR assay.

Burkholderia cepacia complex infections: More complex than the bacterium name suggest.

All-in-One Dual CRISPR-Cas12a (AIOD-CRISPR) Assay: A Case for Rapid, Ultrasensitive and Visual Detection of Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and HIV virus at the Point of Care