Search

As population immunity to SARS-CoV-2 evolves and new variants emerge, the role and accuracy of antigen tests remain active questions. To describe recent test performance, the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by antigen testing was compared with that by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and viral culture testing during November 2022-May 2023. Participants who were enrolled in a household transmission study completed daily symptom diaries and collected two nasal swabs (tested for SARS-CoV-2 via RT-PCR, culture, and antigen tests) each day for 10 days after enrollment. Among participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the percentages of positive antigen, RT-PCR, and culture results were calculated each day from the onset of symptoms or, in asymptomatic persons, from the date of the first positive test result. Antigen test sensitivity was calculated using RT-PCR and viral culture as references. The peak percentage of positive antigen (59.0%) and RT-PCR (83.0%) results occurred 3 days after onset, and the peak percentage of positive culture results (52%) occurred 2 days after onset. The sensitivity of antigen tests was 47% (95% CI = 44%-50%) and 80% (95% CI = 76%-85%) using RT-PCR and culture, respectively, as references. Clinicians should be aware of the lower sensitivity of antigen testing compared with RT-PCR, which might lead to false-negative results. This finding has implications for timely initiation of SARS-CoV-2 antiviral treatment, when early diagnosis is essential; clinicians should consider RT-PCR for persons for whom antiviral treatment is recommended. Persons in the community who are at high risk for severe COVID-19 illness and eligible for antiviral treatment should seek testing from health care providers with the goal of obtaining a more sensitive diagnostic test than antigen tests (i.e., an RT-PCR test)., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Edwin J. Asturias reports grant support from Pfizer, consulting fees from Hillevax and Moderna, and payment from Merck for a lecture delivered at the Latin American Vaccine Summit. Carlos G. Grijalva reports support from the Food and Drug Administration and grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Syneos Health. Son H. McLaren reports institutional support from the Respiratory Virus Transmission Network, receipt of the Ken Graff Young Investigator Award from the American Academy of Pediatrics, Section on Emergency Medicine, institutional support from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation COVID-19 Fund to Retain Clinician-Scientists. Suchitra Rao reports grant support from Biofire. Melissa S. Stockwell reports institutional support from the University of Washington, Boston Children’s Hospital, Westat, and New York University, and service as the Associate Director of the American Academy of Pediatrics Pediatric Research in Office Settings Research Network (payment to the trustees of Columbia University). Huong Q. Nguyen reports research support from CSL Seqirus, GSK, and ModernaTX, and an honorarium from ModernaTX for participating in a consultancy group, outside the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Background: Behavior change is integral to the prevention and treatment of many disorders associated with deleterious lifestyles. Rigorous scientific testing of behavior change interventions is an important goal for nursing research., Approach: The stage model for behavioral therapy development is recommended as a useful framework for evaluating behavior change strategies. The NIH model specifies three stages from initial testing of novel behavioral therapies to their dissemination in community settings. Definitions of each step in a Stage I trial and a case example of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) in therapeutic community treatment are provided., Results: It is feasible to adapt a behavioral therapy such as MBSR using the stage model framework. Steps in the process include: (a) determining pilot study design and describing the population; (b) modifying the intervention and developing the manual; (c) training the teachers; (d) implementing a pilot study; and (e) monitoring treatment integrity., Discussion: The development of behavior therapies requires the same scientific rigor used in pharmacotherapy research. Stage I of the model enables consideration of the "dose" of a behavioral intervention necessary to achieve behavior change in a defined population. The stage model offers an excellent approach to achieving rigor in a variety of potentially useful therapies of interest to nurse researchers.

Monetary reinforcers have not been widely used as contingent reinforcers in the treatment of drug abuse, despite their demonstrated effectiveness. This is primarily due to concern that drug abusers will use monetary reinforcers to procure drugs. The present study addressed this concern by examining 48 cocaine-dependent outpatients' biweekly self-reports of how they used their earned reinforcers. For each subject, their reinforcement usage was classified into 12 higher-order categories and 34 subcategories. Usage proportions were calculated for each. Results indicated that monetary reinforcers were used very infrequently to acquire drugs or alcohol (2%). Reinforcers were used primarily for daily life activities (25%) (e.g., food and gas), money-related uses (18%) (e.g., savings and repaying debts), personal use (15%) (e.g., cosmetics and clothes), and household items (11%) (e.g., rent and bills). These findings challenge the concern that drug abusers use monetary reinforcers to purchase drugs and have important implications for the use of contingent monetary reinforcers in treatment settings.

Transplant centers often rely on CD34+ cell quantitation by flow cytometry to ensure adequacy of hematopoietic progenitor cell collection. Because of variation in interpretation, a lack of interlaboratory proficiency studies, and no generally accepted methodology, comparison of CD34 data from site to site is difficult. Twenty-one samples from marrow and peripheral blood stem cell collections were shipped to 10 participating North American laboratories for analysis. Duplicate samples were included to assess reproducibility. Participants were surveyed for methodology. Three centers had previously attempted to standardize their methodology among themselves. The variability observed in the CD34 values ranged from a max/min. reported value per sample of 2.9 to 749 (median 76). Exclusion of two outlying sites reduced the variability of results to 1.2 to 27 (median 3.1). Variation among the three standardized sites ranged from 1.2 to 4.4 (median 1.6). Overall reproducibility (excluding the outlying sites B and G) ranged from a minimum of 0-16.5 (percent mean difference) for site C to a maximum of 4.1-133 for site H. Strategies for gating were found to largely influence results. We observed an alarming variation among the CD34 cell counts reported from different laboratories. Standardization substantially reduced observed variation. The need for standardized methodology, reporting, quality control, and proficiency testing is underscored by these findings.