Mary Gaeddert

Bio: Mary Gaeddert is an academic researcher from University Hospital Heidelberg. The author has contributed to research in topics: Tuberculosis & Medicine. The author has an hindex of 9, co-authored 19 publications receiving 294 citations. Previous affiliations of Mary Gaeddert include Boston University & Boston Medical Center.

Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract: Background SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being integrated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs. Methods and findings We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix, bioRvix, and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 up until 30 April 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses, and rated study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 assessment tool. From a total of 14,254 articles, we included 133 analytical and clinical studies resulting in 214 clinical accuracy datasets with 112,323 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 71.2% (95% CI 68.2% to 74.0%) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6% to 99.1%), respectively. Sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.1% to 79.2%) if analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers’ instructions. LumiraDx showed the highest sensitivity, with 88.2% (95% CI 59.0% to 97.5%). Of instrument-free Ag-RDTs, Standard Q nasal performed best, with 80.2% sensitivity (95% CI 70.3% to 87.4%). Across all Ag-RDTs, sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, i.e., <20 (96.5%, 95% CI 92.6% to 98.4%) and <25 (95.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 97.8%), in comparison to those with Ct ≥ 25 (50.7%, 95% CI 35.6% to 65.8%) and ≥30 (20.9%, 95% CI 12.5% to 32.8%). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (83.8%, 95% CI 76.3% to 89.2%) compared to testing after 1 week (61.5%, 95% CI 52.2% to 70.0%). The best Ag-RDT sensitivity was found with anterior nasal sampling (75.5%, 95% CI 70.4% to 79.9%), in comparison to other sample types (e.g., nasopharyngeal, 71.6%, 95% CI 68.1% to 74.9%), although CIs were overlapping. Concerns of bias were raised across all datasets, and financial support from the manufacturer was reported in 24.1% of datasets. Our analysis was limited by the included studies’ heterogeneity in design and reporting. Conclusions In this study we found that Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2-infected persons within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load. Thus, they can have high utility for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease, making them a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization in conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data.

Head-to-head comparison of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test with self-collected nasal swab versus professional-collected nasopharyngeal swab.

Abstract: A number of antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 are now commercially available and can result in rapid decisions on patient care, isolation and contact tracing at the point-of-care [1]. Two Ag-RDTs using nasopharyngeal (NP) swab samples meet WHO targets and are now approved through the WHO Emergency Use Listing procedure [2–4]. Heike Rossig, Chiara Manon Rohardt, Claudia Hulso, Elisabeth Linzbach, Susen Burock, Katja von dem Busche, Stephanie Padberg, Melanie Bothmann, Zumrut Tuncer, Stefanie Lunow, Beate Zimmer, Astrid Barrera Pesek, Sabrina Pein, Nicole Buchholz, Verena Haack, Oliver Deckwart.

Cough Aerosols of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in the Prediction of Incident Tuberculosis Disease in Household Contacts

Abstract: Background Tuberculosis disease develops in only 5%-10% of humans infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis The mechanisms underlying this variability remain poorly understood. We recently demonstrated that colony-forming units of M. tuberculosis in cough-generated aerosols are a better predictor of infection than the standard sputum acid-fast bacilli smear. We hypothesized that cough aerosol cultures may also predict progression to tuberculosis disease in contacts. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 85 patients with smear-positive tuberculosis and their 369 household contacts in Kampala, Uganda. Index case patients underwent a standard evaluation, and we cultured M. tuberculosis from cough aerosols. Contacts underwent a standard evaluation at enrollment, and they were later traced to determine their tuberculosis status. Results During a median follow-up of 3.9 years, 8 (2%) of the contacts developed tuberculosis disease. In unadjusted and adjusted analyses, incident tuberculosis disease in contacts was associated with sputum Mycobacterial Growth Indicator Tube culture (odds ratio, 8.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-59.2; P = .04), exposure to a high-aerosol tuberculosis case patient (6.0, 1.4-25.2; P = .01), and marginally, human immunodeficiency virus in the contact (6.11; 0.89-41.7; P = .07). We present data demonstrating that sputum and aerosol specimens measure 2 related but different phenomena. Conclusions We found an increased risk of tuberculosis progression among contacts of high-aerosol case patients. The hypothesis that a larger infectious inoculum, represented by high aerosol production, determines the risk of disease progression deserves evaluation in future prospective studies.

Intensity of exposure to pulmonary tuberculosis determines risk of tuberculosis infection and disease

Abstract: Household contacts of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) patients are at increased risk of TB infection and disease. However, their risk in relation to the intensity of exposure remains unknown. We studied smear-positive TB cases and their household contacts in Vitoria, Brazil. We collected clinical, demographic and radiographic information from TB cases, and obtained tuberculin skin test (TST) and QuantiFERON-TB Gold (QFT) results from household contacts. We measured intensity of exposure using a proximity score and sleep location in relation to the TB index case and defined infection by TST ≥10 mm or QFT ≥0.35 UI·mL −1 . We ascertained secondary TB cases by reviewing local and nationwide case registries. We included 160 TB index cases and 894 household contacts. 464 (65%) had TB infection and 23 (2.6%) developed TB disease. Risk of TB infection and disease increased with more intense exposures. In an adjusted analysis, the proximity score was associated with TB disease (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.25–2.08; p Intensity of exposure increased risk of TB infection and disease among household contacts; however, its diagnostic performance was still suboptimal. A biomarker to target preventive therapy is urgently needed in this at-risk population.

Head-to-head comparison of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test with professional-collected nasal versus nasopharyngeal swab.

Abstract: Professional nasal sampling is a reliable alternative to nasopharyngeal sampling when using a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test. This less invasive method can be performed with less training and can facilitate rapid scaling of antigen testing strategies.

Comparison of seven commercial SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care antigen tests: a single-centre laboratory evaluation study.

Abstract: Summary Background Antigen point-of-care tests (AgPOCTs) can accelerate SARS-CoV-2 testing. As some AgPOCTs have become available, interest is growing in their utility and performance. Here we aimed to compare the analytical sensitivity and specificity of seven commercially available AgPOCT devices. Methods In a single-centre, laboratory evaluation study, we compared AgPOCT products from seven suppliers: the Abbott Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test, the RapiGEN BIOCREDIT COVID-19 Ag, the Healgen Coronavirus Ag Rapid Test Cassette (Swab), the Coris BioConcept COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip, the R-Biopharm RIDA QUICK SARS-CoV-2 Antigen, the nal von minden NADAL COVID-19 Ag Test, and the Roche-SD Biosensor SARS-CoV Rapid Antigen Test. Tests were evaluated on recombinant SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein, cultured endemic and emerging coronaviruses, stored respiratory samples with known SARS-CoV-2 viral loads, stored samples from patients with respiratory pathogens other than SARS-CoV-2, and self-sampled swabs from healthy volunteers. We estimated analytical sensitivity in terms of approximate viral concentrations (quantified by real-time RT-PCR) that yielded positive AgPOCT results, and specificity in terms of propensity to generate false-positive results. Findings In 138 clinical samples with quantified SARS-CoV-2 viral load, the 95% limit of detection (concentration at which 95% of test results were positive) in six of seven AgPOCT products ranged between 2·07 × 106 and 2·86 × 107 copies per swab, with an outlier (RapiGEN) at 1·57 × 1010 copies per swab. The assays showed no cross-reactivity towards cell culture or tissue culture supernatants containing any of the four endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV‑229E, HCoV‑NL63, HCoV‑OC43, or HCoV‑HKU1) or MERS-CoV, with the exception of the Healgen assay in one repeat test on HCoV-HKU1 supernatant. SARS-CoV was cross-detected by all assays. Cumulative specificities among stored clinical samples with non-SARS-CoV-2 infections (n=100) and self-samples from healthy volunteers (n=35; cumulative sample n=135) ranged between 98·5% (95% CI 94·2–99·7) and 100·0% (97·2–100·0) in five products, with two outliers at 94·8% (89·2–97·7; R-Biopharm) and 88·9% (82·1–93·4; Healgen). False-positive results did not appear to be associated with any specific respiratory pathogen. Interpretation The sensitivity range of most AgPOCTs overlaps with SARS-CoV-2 viral loads typically observed in the first week of symptoms, which marks the infectious period in most patients. The AgPOCTs with limit of detections that approximate virus concentrations at which patients are infectious might enable shortcuts in decision making in various areas of health care and public health. Funding EU's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, German Ministry of Research, German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, German Ministry of Health, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Performance of Saliva, Oropharyngeal Swabs, and Nasal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Abstract: Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs are considered the highest-yield sample for diagnostic testing for respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. The need to increase capacity for SARS-CoV-2 testing in a variety of settings, combined with shortages of sample collection supplies, have motivated a search for alternative sample types with high sensitivity. We systematically reviewed the literature to understand the performance of alternative sample types compared to NP swabs. We systematically searched PubMed, Google Scholar, medRxiv, and bioRxiv (last retrieval 1 October 2020) for comparative studies of alternative specimen types (saliva, oropharyngeal [OP], and nasal [NS] swabs) versus NP swabs for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis using nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). A logistic-normal random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate % positive alternative-specimen, % positive NP, and % dual positives overall and in subgroups. The QUADAS 2 tool was used to assess bias. From 1,253 unique citations, we identified 25 saliva, 11 NS, 6 OP, and 4 OP/NS studies meeting inclusion criteria. Three specimen types captured lower % positives (NS [82%, 95% CI: 73 to 90%], OP [84%, 95% CI: 57 to 100%], and saliva [88%, 95% CI: 81 to 93%]) than NP swabs, while combined OP/NS matched NP performance (97%, 95% CI: 90 to 100%). Absence of RNA extraction (saliva) and utilization of a more sensitive NAAT (NS) substantially decreased alternative-specimen yield of positive samples. NP swabs remain the gold standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, although alternative specimens are promising. Much remains unknown about the impact of variations in specimen collection, processing protocols, and population (pediatric versus adult, late versus early in disease course), such that head-to head studies of sampling strategies are urgently needed.

Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract: Background SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being integrated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs. Methods and findings We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix, bioRvix, and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 up until 30 April 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses, and rated study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 assessment tool. From a total of 14,254 articles, we included 133 analytical and clinical studies resulting in 214 clinical accuracy datasets with 112,323 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 71.2% (95% CI 68.2% to 74.0%) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6% to 99.1%), respectively. Sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.1% to 79.2%) if analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers’ instructions. LumiraDx showed the highest sensitivity, with 88.2% (95% CI 59.0% to 97.5%). Of instrument-free Ag-RDTs, Standard Q nasal performed best, with 80.2% sensitivity (95% CI 70.3% to 87.4%). Across all Ag-RDTs, sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, i.e., <20 (96.5%, 95% CI 92.6% to 98.4%) and <25 (95.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 97.8%), in comparison to those with Ct ≥ 25 (50.7%, 95% CI 35.6% to 65.8%) and ≥30 (20.9%, 95% CI 12.5% to 32.8%). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (83.8%, 95% CI 76.3% to 89.2%) compared to testing after 1 week (61.5%, 95% CI 52.2% to 70.0%). The best Ag-RDT sensitivity was found with anterior nasal sampling (75.5%, 95% CI 70.4% to 79.9%), in comparison to other sample types (e.g., nasopharyngeal, 71.6%, 95% CI 68.1% to 74.9%), although CIs were overlapping. Concerns of bias were raised across all datasets, and financial support from the manufacturer was reported in 24.1% of datasets. Our analysis was limited by the included studies’ heterogeneity in design and reporting. Conclusions In this study we found that Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2-infected persons within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load. Thus, they can have high utility for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease, making them a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization in conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data.

Immunological mechanisms of human resistance to persistent Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection

Abstract: Mycobacterium tuberculosis is a leading cause of mortality worldwide and establishes a long-lived latent infection in a substantial proportion of the human population. Multiple lines of evidence suggest that some individuals are resistant to latent M. tuberculosis infection despite long-term and intense exposure, and we term these individuals ‘resisters’. In this Review, we discuss the epidemiological and genetic data that support the existence of resisters and propose criteria to optimally define and characterize the resister phenotype. We review recent insights into the immune mechanisms of M. tuberculosis clearance, including responses mediated by macrophages, T cells and B cells. Understanding the cellular mechanisms that underlie resistance to M. tuberculosis infection may reveal immune correlates of protection that could be utilized for improved diagnostics, vaccine development and novel host-directed therapeutic strategies. Resisters are individuals who show resistance to infection despite long-term, high exposure to Mycobacterium tuberculosis. In this Review, Simmons and colleagues discuss potential mechanisms underlying this resistance, such as those mediated by macrophages, T cells and B cells, and how an understanding of these mechanisms might aid in the development of therapies for tuberculosis.