Search

Background: SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection has currently expanded the testing capacity for COVID-19, which yet relies on the SARS-CoV-2 RNA RT-PCR amplification. Objectives: To report on a COVID-19 testing algorithm from a tertiary care hospital emergency department (ED) that combines both antigen (performed on the ED) and RT-PCR (performed outside the ED) testing. Methods: Between December 2020 and January 2021, in a priori designated, spatially separated COVID-19 or non-COVID-19 ED areas, respectively, symptomatic or asymptomatic patients received SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing on nasopharyngeal swab samples. Antigen results were promptly accessible to guide subsequent, outside performed confirmatory (RT-PCR) testing. Results: Overall, 1083 (100%) of 1083 samples in the COVID-19 area and 1815 (49.4%) of 3670 samples in the non-COVID-19 area had antigen results that required confirmation by RT-PCR. Antigen positivity rates were 12.4% (134/1083) and 3.7% (66/1815), respectively. Compared to RT-PCR testing results, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of antigen testing were, respectively, 68.0%, 98.3%, 88.8%, and 94.1% in the COVID-19 area, and 41.9%, 97.3%, 27.3%, and 98.6% in non-COVID-19 area. Practically, RT-PCR tests were avoided in 50.6% (1855/3670) of non-COVID-19 area samples (all antigen negative) from patients who, otherwise, would have needed antigen result confirmation. Conclusions: Our algorithm had value to preserve RT-PCR from avoidable usage and, importantly, to save time, which translated into a timely RT-PCR result availability in the COVID-19 area.

We used nasopharyngeal swab samples of patients with a symptomatic (n = 82) or asymp-tomatic (n = 20) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis to assess the ability of antigen detection tests to infer active (potentially transmissible) or inactive (potentially non-transmissible) infection by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Using the subgenomic RNA (sgRNA) as an active replication marker of SARS-CoV-2, 48 (76.2%), 56 (88.9%), and 63 (100%) of 63 samples with sgRNA positive results tested positive with the SD BIOSENSOR STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag (Standard Q), the SD BIOSENSOR STANDARD F COVID-19 Ag FIA (Standard F), or the Fujirebio LUMIPULSE G SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Lumipulse) assay, respectively. Conversely, 37 (94.9%), 29 (74.4%), and 7 (17.9%) of 39 samples with sgRNA negative results tested negative with Standard Q, Standard F, or Lumipulse, respectively. Stratifying results by the number of days of symptoms before testing revealed that most antigen positive/sgRNA positive results were among samples tested at 2–7 days regardless of the assay used. Conversely, most antigen negative/sgRNA negative results were among samples tested at 16–30 days only when Standard Q or Standard F were used. In conclusion, based on our findings, a negative antigen test, especially with the Lumipulse assay, or a positive antigen test, especially with the Standard F assay, may suggest, respectively, the absence or presence of replication-competent SARS-CoV-2.

To support the clinical laboratory diagnosis of Pneumocystis jirovecii (PJ) pneumonia (PCP), an invasive fungal infection mainly occurring in HIV‐negative patients, in‐house or commercial PJ‐specific real‐time quantitative PCR (qPCR) assays are todays’ reliable options. The performance of these assays depends on the type of PJ gene (multi‐copy mitochondrial versus single‐copy nuclear) targeted by the assay. We described the development of a PJ‐PCR assay targeting the dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR)‐encoding gene. After delineating its analytical performance, the PJ‐PCR assay was used to test bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid samples from 200 patients (only seven were HIV positive) with suspected PCP. Of 211 BAL fluid samples, 18 (8.5%) were positive and 193 (91.5%) were negative by PJ‐PCR. Of 18 PJ‐PCR‐positive samples, 11 (61.1%) tested positive and seven (38.9%) tested negative with the immunofluorescence assay (IFA). All (100%) of the 193 PJ‐PCR‐negative samples were IFA negative. Based on IFA/PCR results, patients were, respectively, classified as having (n = 18) and not having (n = 182) proven (PJ‐ PCR+/IFA+) or probable (PJ‐PCR+/IFA−) PCP. For 182 patients without PCP, alternative infectious or non‐infectious etiologies were identified. Our PJ‐PCR assay was at least equivalent to IFA, fostering studies aimed at defining a qPCR‐based standard for PCP diagnosis in the future.

Diagnostic methods based on SARS-CoV-2 antigens detection are a promising alternative to SARS-CoV-2 RNA amplification. We evaluated the automated chemiluminescence-based Lumipulse® G SARS-CoV-2 Ag assay on saliva samples, using SimplexaTM COVID-19 Direct assay as a reference test. Analytical performance was established on a pool of healthy donors’ saliva samples spiked with the 2019-nCoV/Italy-INMI1 isolate, whereas clinical performance was assessed on fresh saliva specimens collected from hospitalized patients with suspect or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. The limit of detection (LOD) was 0.65 Log TCID50/mL, corresponding to 18,197 copies/mL of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Antigen concentrations and SARS-CoV-2 RNA were highly correlated (r = 0.99; p < 0.0001). Substantial agreement (80.3%) and significant correlation (r = −0.675; p = 0.0006) were observed between Lumipulse® G assay results and Ct values on clinical samples, with 52.4% sensitivity and specificity 94.1%. Sensitivity exceeded 90.0% when calculated on samples with Ct < 25, and specificity was 100% when excluding samples from recovered patients with previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Overall, chemiluminescence-based antigen assay may be reliably applied to saliva samples to identify individuals with high viral loads, more likely to transmit the virus. However, the low positive predictive value in a context of low SARS-CoV-2 prevalence underscores the need for confirmatory testing in SARS-CoV-2 antigen-positive cases.