scispace - formally typeset
Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1016/J.JIAC.2021.02.029

The evaluation of a newly developed antigen test (QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag) for SARS-CoV-2: A prospective observational study in Japan.

04 Mar 2021-Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy (Elsevier)-Vol. 27, Iss: 6, pp 890-894
Abstract: Introduction Several antigen tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been developed worldwide, but their clinical utility has not been well established. In this study, we evaluated the analytical and clinical performance of QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag, a newly developed antigen test in Japan. Methods This prospective observational study was conducted at a PCR center between October 7 and December 5, 2020. The included patients were referred from a local public health center and 89 primary care facilities. We simultaneously obtained two nasopharyngeal samples with flocked swabs; one was used for the antigen test and the other for real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR). Using the results of real-time RT-PCR as a reference, the performance of the antigen test was evaluated. Results A total of 1186 patients were included in this study, and the real-time RT-PCR detected SARS-CoV-2 in 105 (8.9%). Of these 105 patients, 33 (31.4%) were asymptomatic. The antigen test provided a 98.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 98.0%–99.4%) concordance rate with real-time RT-PCR, along with a sensitivity of 86.7% (95% CI: 78.6%–92.5%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI: 99.7%–100%). False-negatives were observed in 14 patients, 8 of whom were asymptomatic and had a low viral load (cycle threshold (Ct) > 30). In symptomatic patients, the sensitivity was 91.7% (95% CI: 82.7%–96.9%). Conclusion QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag showed high specificity and sufficient sensitivity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. This test is a promising potential diagnostic modality especially in symptomatic patients.

... read more

Citations
  More

17 results found


Open accessPosted ContentDOI: 10.1101/2021.02.26.21252546
01 Mar 2021-medRxiv
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.

... read more

17 Citations


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PMED.1003735
12 Aug 2021-PLOS Medicine
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.

... read more

12 Citations


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1038/S41598-021-90026-8
Yuto Takeuchi1, Yusaku Akashi, Kato Daisuke, Miwa Kuwahara  +6 moreInstitutions (1)
18 May 2021-Scientific Reports
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.

... read more

Topics: Sample collection (59%)

8 Citations


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0249588
22 Apr 2021-PLOS ONE
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Different levels of control measures were introduced to contain the global COVID-19 pandemic, many of which have been controversial, particularly the comprehensive use of diagnostic tests. Regular testing of high-risk individuals (pre-existing conditions, older than 60 years of age) has been suggested by public health authorities. The WHO suggested the use of routine screening of residents, employees, and visitors of long-term care facilities (LTCF) to protect the resident risk group. Similar suggestions have been made by the WHO for other closed facilities including incarceration facilities (e.g., prisons or jails), wherein parts of the U.S., accelerated release of approved inmates is taken as a measure to mitigate COVID-19. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Here, the simulation model underlying the pandemic preparedness tool CovidSim 1.1 (http://covidsim.eu/) is extended to investigate the effect of regularly testing of employees to protect immobile resident risk groups in closed facilities. The reduction in the number of infections and deaths within the risk group is investigated. Our simulations are adjusted to reflect the situation of LTCFs in Germany, and incarceration facilities in the U.S. COVID-19 spreads in closed facilities due to contact with infected employees even under strict confinement of visitors in a pandemic scenario without targeted protective measures. Testing is only effective in conjunction with targeted contact reduction between the closed facility and the outside world-and will be most inefficient under strategies aiming for herd immunity. The frequency of testing, the quality of tests, and the waiting time for obtaining test results have noticeable effects. The exact reduction in the number of cases depends on disease prevalence in the population and the levels of contact reductions. Testing every 5 days with a good quality test and a processing time of 24 hours can lead up to a 40% reduction in the number of infections. However, the effects of testing vary substantially among types of closed facilities and can even be counterproductive in U.S. IFs. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of COVID-19 in closed facilities is unavoidable without a thorough screening of persons that can introduce the disease into the facility. Regular testing of employees in closed facilities can contribute to reducing the number of infections there, but is only meaningful as an accompanying measure, whose economic benefit needs to be assessed carefully.

... read more

Topics: Mass screening (52%), Population (51%)

5 Citations


Open accessPosted ContentDOI: 10.1101/2021.04.01.21254813
Yoshihiko Kiyasu1, Yuto Takeuchi1, Yusaku Akashi1, Kato Daisuke  +7 moreInstitutions (1)
07 Apr 2021-medRxiv
Abstract: IntroductionAntigen testing may help screen for and detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in asymptomatic individuals. However, limited data regarding the diagnostic performance of antigen tests for this group are available. MethodsWe used clinical samples to prospectively evaluate the analytical and clinical performance of the antigen test QuickNavi-COVID19 Ag. This study was conducted at a PCR center between October 7, 2020 and January 9, 2021. Two nasopharyngeal samples per patient were obtained with flocked swabs; one was used for the antigen test, and the other for real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR). The diagnostic performance of the antigen test was compared between asymptomatic and symptomatic patients, and the RT-PCR results were used as a reference. ResultsAmong the 1,934 collected samples, SARS-CoV-2 was detected by real-time RT-PCR in 188 (9.7%); 76 (40.4%) of these samples were from asymptomatic individuals. Over half of the total samples (1,073; 55.5%) were obtained from asymptomatic volunteers. The sensitivity of the antigen test was significantly lower for asymptomatic group than for symptomatic patients (67.1% vs 89.3%, p < 0.001). The specificity was 100% for both groups, and no false positives were observed among all 1,934 samples. The median Ct value for the asymptomatic group was significantly higher than that of the symptomatic group (24 vs 20, p < 0.001). ConclusionsThe QuickNavi-COVID19 Ag showed a lower sensitivity for asymptomatic group than for symptomatic patients. However, its specificity was consistently high, and no false positives were found in this study.

... read more

Topics: Asymptomatic (60%)

4 Citations


References
  More

14 results found


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1093/CID/CIAA638
Jared Bullard1, Jared Bullard2, Kerry Dust2, Duane J. Funk3  +22 moreInstitutions (3)
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has become the primary method to diagnose viral diseases, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). RT-PCR detects RNA, not infectious virus; thus, its ability to determine duration of infectivity of patients is limited. Infectivity is a critical determinant in informing public health guidelines/interventions. Our goal was to determine the relationship between E gene SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values from respiratory samples, symptom onset to test (STT), and infectivity in cell culture. METHODS: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, we took SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-confirmed positive samples and determined their ability to infect Vero cell lines. RESULTS: Ninety RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2-positive samples were incubated on Vero cells. Twenty-six samples (28.9%) demonstrated viral growth. Median tissue culture infectious dose/mL was 1780 (interquartile range, 282-8511). There was no growth in samples with a Ct > 24 or STT > 8 days. Multivariate logistic regression using positive viral culture as a binary predictor variable, STT, and Ct demonstrated an odds ratio (OR) for positive viral culture of 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI], .49-.84; P   24. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 Vero cell infectivity was only observed for RT-PCR Ct   24 and duration of symptoms > 8 days may be low. This information can inform public health policy and guide clinical, infection control, and occupational health decisions. Further studies of larger size are needed.

... read more

Topics: Viral culture (57%), Infectivity (55%), Infectious dose (52%) ... read more

694 Citations


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1126/SCIADV.ABD5393
Daniel B. Larremore1, Bryan Wilder2, Evan Lester1, Evan Lester3  +8 moreInstitutions (4)
01 Jan 2021-Science Advances
Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic has created a public health crisis. Because SARS-CoV-2 can spread from individuals with presymptomatic, symptomatic, and asymptomatic infections, the reopening of societies and the control of virus spread will be facilitated by robust population screening, for which virus testing will often be central. After infection, individuals undergo a period of incubation during which viral titers are too low to detect, followed by exponential viral growth, leading to peak viral load and infectiousness and ending with declining titers and clearance. Given the pattern of viral load kinetics, we model the effectiveness of repeated population screening considering test sensitivities, frequency, and sample-to-answer reporting time. These results demonstrate that effective screening depends largely on frequency of testing and speed of reporting and is only marginally improved by high test sensitivity. We therefore conclude that screening should prioritize accessibility, frequency, and sample-to-answer time; analytical limits of detection should be secondary.

... read more

Topics: Mass screening (61%), Viral load (57%)

463 Citations


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013705
Abstract: 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.

... read more

Topics: Sample collection (53%), Predictive value of tests (53%), Population (51%) ... read more

429 Citations


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1001/JAMAINTERNMED.2020.3862
Seung-Jae Lee1, Tark Kim1, Eun Jung Lee1, Cheolgu Lee1  +10 moreInstitutions (2)
Abstract: Importance There is limited information about the clinical course and viral load in asymptomatic patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Objective To quantitatively describe SARS-CoV-2 molecular viral shedding in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Design, Setting, and Participants A retrospective evaluation was conducted for a cohort of 303 symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 6 and March 26, 2020. Participants were isolated in a community treatment center in Cheonan, Republic of Korea. Main Outcomes and Measures Epidemiologic, demographic, and laboratory data were collected and analyzed. Attending health care personnel carefully identified patients’ symptoms during isolation. The decision to release an individual from isolation was based on the results of reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay from upper respiratory tract specimens (nasopharynx and oropharynx swab) and lower respiratory tract specimens (sputum) for SARS-CoV-2. This testing was performed on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 of isolation. On days 10, 17, 18, and 19, RT-PCR assays from the upper or lower respiratory tract were performed at physician discretion. Cycle threshold (Ct) values in RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 detection were determined in both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Results Of the 303 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the median (interquartile range) age was 25 (22-36) years, and 201 (66.3%) were women. Only 12 (3.9%) patients had comorbidities (10 had hypertension, 1 had cancer, and 1 had asthma). Among the 303 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 193 (63.7%) were symptomatic at the time of isolation. Of the 110 (36.3%) asymptomatic patients, 21 (19.1%) developed symptoms during isolation. The median (interquartile range) interval of time from detection of SARS-CoV-2 to symptom onset in presymptomatic patients was 15 (13-20) days. The proportions of participants with a negative conversion at day 14 and day 21 from diagnosis were 33.7% and 75.2%, respectively, in asymptomatic patients and 29.6% and 69.9%, respectively, in symptomatic patients (including presymptomatic patients). The median (SE) time from diagnosis to the first negative conversion was 17 (1.07) days for asymptomatic patients and 19.5 (0.63) days for symptomatic (including presymptomatic) patients (P = .07). The Ct values for the envelope (env) gene from lower respiratory tract specimens showed that viral loads in asymptomatic patients from diagnosis to discharge tended to decrease more slowly in the time interaction trend than those in symptomatic (including presymptomatic) patients (β = −0.065 [SE, 0.023];P = .005). Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who were isolated in a community treatment center in Cheonan, Republic of Korea, the Ct values in asymptomatic patients were similar to those in symptomatic patients. Isolation of asymptomatic patients may be necessary to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

... read more

Topics: Asymptomatic (61%), Interquartile range (51%)

285 Citations


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.7883/YOKEN.JJID.2020.061
Kazuya Shirato1, Naganori Nao1, Harutaka Katano, Ikuyo Takayama  +9 moreInstitutions (1)
Abstract: During the emergence of novel coronavirus 2019 (nCoV) outbreak in Wuhan city, China at the end of 2019, there was movement of many airline travelers between Wuhan and Japan, suggesting that the Japanese population was at high risk of infection by the virus. Hence, we urgently developed diagnostic systems for detection of 2019 nCoV. Two nested RT-PCR and two real-time RT-PCR assays were adapted for use in Japan. As of February 8, 2020, these assays have successfully detected 25 positive cases of infection in Japan.

... read more

Topics: Coronavirus (50%)

265 Citations