Yusaku Akashi

Bio: Yusaku Akashi is an academic researcher from University of Tsukuba. The author has contributed to research in topics: Medicine & Antigen. The author has an hindex of 7, co-authored 28 publications receiving 106 citations.

Diagnostic performance and characteristics of anterior nasal collection for the SARS-CoV-2 antigen test: a prospective study.

Abstract: The clinical utility of antigen test using anterior nasal samples has not been well evaluated. We conducted a prospective study in a drive-through testing site located at a PCR center to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the antigen test QuickNavi-COVID19 Ag using anterior nasal samples and to compare the degrees of coughs or sneezes induction and the severity of pain between anterior nasal collection and nasopharyngeal collection. The study included a total of 862 participants, of which 91.6% were symptomatic. The median duration from symptom onset to sample collection was 2.0 days. Fifty-one participants tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 on reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) with nasopharyngeal samples, and all of them were symptomatic. In comparison to the findings of RT-PCR, the antigen test using anterior nasal samples showed 72.5% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI] 58.3–84.1%) and 100% specificity (95% CI 99.3–100%). Anterior nasal collection was associated with a significantly lower degree of coughs or sneezes induction and the severity of pain in comparison to nasopharyngeal collection (p < 0.001). The antigen test using anterior nasal samples showed moderate sensitivity in symptomatic patients who were at the early stages of the disease course but was less painful and induced fewer coughs or sneezes.

A Prospective Evaluation of the Analytical Performance of GENECUBE ® HQ SARS-CoV-2 and GENECUBE ® FLU A/B.

Abstract: Molecular tests are the mainstay of detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, their accessibility can be limited by the long examination time and inability to evaluate multiple samples at once. This study evaluated the analytical performance of the newly developed rapid molecular assays GENECUBE® HQ SARS-CoV-2 and GENECUBE® FLU A/B. This prospective study was conducted between 14 December 2020 and 9 January 2021 at a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) center. Samples were collected from the nasopharynx with flocked swabs. Molecular tests were performed with the GENECUBE® system and reference reverse transcription (RT)-PCR, and the results of the two assays were compared. Among 1065 samples, 81 (7.6%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 on the reference RT-PCR. Three showed discordance between GENECUBE® HQ SARS-CoV-2 and the reference RT-PCR; the total, positive, and negative samples of concordance for the two assays were 99.7%, 100%, and 99.7%, respectively. All discordant cases were positive with GENECUBE® HQ SARS-CoV-2 and negative with the reference RT-PCR. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in all three samples using another molecular assay for SARS-CoV-2. For GENECUBE® FLU A/B, the total, positive, and negative samples of concordance for the two assays were 99.5%, 100%, and 99.1%. The GENECUBE® HQ SARS-CoV-2 and GENECUBE® FLU A/B demonstrated sufficient analytical performance to detect SARS-CoV-2 and influenza virus A/B.

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.

The 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 We registered the review on PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix and bioRvix, FINDdx) for publications up until December 11th, 2020. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed and when more than four studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses ((1) performed con-form with manufacturer’s instructions for use (IFU) or not, (2) symptomatic vs. asymptomatic, (3) duration of symptoms less than seven days vs. more than seven days, (4) Ct-value Results From a total of 11,715 articles, we extracted 98 analytical and clinical data sets. 74 clinical accuracy data sets were evaluated that included 31,202 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity was 73.8% (CI 68.6 to 78.5). If analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers’ instructions using fresh upper respiratory swab samples, the sensitivity increased to 79.1% (95%CI 75.0 to 82.8). The SD Biosensor Standard Q and Abbott Panbio showed the highest sensitivity with 81.7% and 72.7%, respectively. The best Ag-RDT performance was found with nasopharyngeal sampling (77.3%, CI 72.0 to 81.9) in comparison to other sample types (e.g., anterior nasal or mid turbinate 63.5%, CI 49.5 to 75.5). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in higher sensitivity (87.5%, CI 86.0 to 89.1) compared to testing after one week (64.1%, CI 54.4 to 73.8). The tests performed markedly better on samples with lower Ct-values, i.e., Conclusion As Ag-RDTs detect most cases within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load, they can have high utility for screening purposes in the early phase of disease, and thus can be a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization of conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data. Summary In this living systematic review we analyzed 98 data sets for performance of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs compared to RT-PCR. Best-performing tests achieved a sensitivity of 81.7%. Highest sensitivity was found in patients within seven days of symptom onset when NP swabs were utilized.

Performance and Application of 16S rRNA Gene Cycle Sequencing for Routine Identification of Bacteria in the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory

Abstract: This review provides a state-of-the-art description of the performance of Sanger cycle sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene for routine identification of bacteria in the clinical microbiology laboratory. A detailed description of the technology and current methodology is outlined with a major focus on proper data analyses and interpretation of sequences. The remainder of the article is focused on a comprehensive evaluation of the application of this method for identification of bacterial pathogens based on analyses of 16S multialignment sequences. In particular, the existing limitations of similarity within 16S for genus- and species-level differentiation of clinically relevant pathogens and the lack of sequence data currently available in public databases is highlighted. A multiyear experience is described of a large regional clinical microbiology service with direct 16S broad-range PCR followed by cycle sequencing for direct detection of pathogens in appropriate clinical samples. The ability of proteomics (matrix-assisted desorption ionization-time of flight) versus 16S sequencing for bacterial identification and genotyping is compared. Finally, the potential for whole-genome analysis by next-generation sequencing (NGS) to replace 16S sequencing for routine diagnostic use is presented for several applications, including the barriers that must be overcome to fully implement newer genomic methods in clinical microbiology. A future challenge for large clinical, reference, and research laboratories, as well as for industry, will be the translation of vast amounts of accrued NGS microbial data into convenient algorithm testing schemes for various applications (i.e., microbial identification, genotyping, and metagenomics and microbiome analyses) so that clinically relevant information can be reported to physicians in a format that is understood and actionable. These challenges will not be faced by clinical microbiologists alone but by every scientist involved in a domain where natural diversity of genes and gene sequences plays a critical role in disease, health, pathogenicity, epidemiology, and other aspects of life-forms. Overcoming these challenges will require global multidisciplinary efforts across fields that do not normally interact with the clinical arena to make vast amounts of sequencing data clinically interpretable and actionable at the bedside.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection

Abstract: Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection would be a useful tool to help manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Testing strategies that use rapid antigen tests to detect current infection have the potential to increase access to testing, speed detection of infection, and inform clinical and public health management decisions to reduce transmission. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020.To assess the diagnostic accuracy of rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included setting and indication for testing, assay format, sample site, viral load, age, timing of test, and study design.We searched the COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) on 08 March 2021. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions.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 tests. We included evaluations of single applications of a test (one test result reported per person) and evaluations of serial testing (repeated antigen testing over time). Reference standards for presence or absence of infection were any laboratory-based molecular test (primarily reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)) or pre-pandemic respiratory sample.We used standard screening procedures with three people. Two people independently carried out quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and extracted study results. Other study characteristics were extracted by one review author and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test, and pooled data using the bivariate model. We investigated heterogeneity by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status.We included 155 study cohorts (described in 166 study reports, with 24 as preprints). The main results relate to 152 evaluations of single test applications including 100,462 unique samples (16,822 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly conducted in Europe (101/152, 66%), and evaluated 49 different commercial antigen assays. Only 23 studies compared two or more brands of test. Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (40, 26%); interpretation of the index test (6, 4%); weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection (119, 78%); and participant flow and timing 41 (27%). Characteristics of participants (45, 30%) and index test delivery (47, 31%) differed from the way in which and in whom the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (91%) used a single RT-PCR result to define presence or absence of infection. The 152 studies of single test applications reported 228 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies, with consistently high specificities. Average sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (73.0%, 95% CI 69.3% to 76.4%; 109 evaluations; 50,574 samples, 11,662 cases) compared to asymptomatic participants (54.7%, 95% CI 47.7% to 61.6%; 50 evaluations; 40,956 samples, 2641 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (80.9%, 95% CI 76.9% to 84.4%; 30 evaluations, 2408 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (53.8%, 95% CI 48.0% to 59.6%; 40 evaluations, 1119 cases). For those who were asymptomatic at the time of testing, sensitivity was higher when an epidemiological exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was suspected (64.3%, 95% CI 54.6% to 73.0%; 16 evaluations; 7677 samples, 703 cases) compared to where COVID-19 testing was reported to be widely available to anyone on presentation for testing (49.6%, 95% CI 42.1% to 57.1%; 26 evaluations; 31,904 samples, 1758 cases). Average specificity was similarly high for symptomatic (99.1%) or asymptomatic (99.7%) participants. We observed a steady decline in summary sensitivities as measures of sample viral load decreased. Sensitivity varied between brands. When tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, average sensitivities by brand ranged from 34.3% to 91.3% in symptomatic participants (20 assays with eligible data) and from 28.6% to 77.8% for asymptomatic participants (12 assays). For symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities for seven assays were 80% or more (meeting acceptable criteria set by the World Health Organization (WHO)). The WHO acceptable performance criterion of 97% specificity was met by 17 of 20 assays when tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, 12 of which demonstrated specificities above 99%. For asymptomatic participants the sensitivities of only two assays approached but did not meet WHO acceptable performance standards in one study each; specificities for asymptomatic participants were in a similar range to those observed for symptomatic people. At 5% prevalence using summary data in symptomatic people during the first week after symptom onset, the positive predictive value (PPV) of 89% means that 1 in 10 positive results will be a false positive, and around 1 in 5 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence using summary data for asymptomatic people, where testing was widely available and where epidemiological exposure to COVID-19 was suspected, resulting PPVs would be 38% to 52%, meaning that between 2 in 5 and 1 in 2 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed.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. Assays that meet appropriate performance standards, such as those set by WHO, could replace laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. However, they are more suitable for use as triage to RT-PCR testing. The variable sensitivity of antigen tests means that people who test negative may still be infected. Many commercially available rapid antigen tests have not been evaluated in independent validation studies. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts has increased, however sensitivity is lower and there is a paucity of evidence for testing in different settings. Questions remain about the use of antigen test-based repeat testing strategies. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of screening programmes at reducing transmission of infection, whether mass screening or targeted approaches including schools, healthcare setting and traveller screening.