Search

The clinical performance of the BD Veritor System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen (Veritor), a chromatographic immunoassay used for SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care testing, was evaluated using nasal specimens from individuals with COVID-19 symptoms. Two studies were completed to determine clinical performance. In the first study, nasal specimens and either nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal specimens from 251 participants with COVID-19 symptoms (≤7 days from symptom onset [DSO], ≥18 years of age) were utilized to compare Veritor with the Lyra SARS-CoV-2 PCR assay (Lyra). In the second study, nasal specimens from 361 participants with COVID-19 symptoms (≤5 DSO, ≥18 years of age) were utilized to compare performance of Veritor to that of the Sofia 2 SARS Antigen FIA test (Sofia 2). The positive, negative, and overall percent agreement (PPA, NPA, and OPA, respectively) were the primary outcomes. In study 1, the PPA for Veritor, compared to Lyra, ranged from 81.8 to 87.5% across the 0 to 1 and 0 to 6 DSO ranges. In study 2, Veritor had PPA, NPA, and OPA values of 97.4, 98.1, and 98.1%, respectively, with Sofia 2. Discordant analysis showed one Lyra positive missed by Veritor and five Lyra positives missed by Sofia 2; one Veritor positive result was negative by Lyra. Veritor met FDA emergency use authorization (EUA) acceptance criteria for SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing for the 0 to 5 and 0 to 6 DSO ranges (PPA values of 83.9% and 82.4%, respectively). Veritor and Sofia 2 showed a high degree of agreement for SARS-CoV-2 detection. The Veritor test allows for more rapid COVID-19 testing utilizing easy-to-collect nasal swabs but demonstrated

The US Food and Drug Administration supports innovations to facilitate new indications for high-risk human papillomavirus testing. This report describes the retrospective testing of stored specimens and analysis of existing data to efficiently and cost-effectively support a new indication for the Onclarity human papillomavirus assay (Becton, Dickinson and Company, BD Life Sciences - Integrated Diagnostic Solutions, Sparks, MD). The performance of this index test was compared with that of a predicate test, the cobas human papillomavirus assay (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN). Both human papillomavirus assays are based on real-time polymerase chain reaction platforms that detect the presence of 14 high-risk human papillomavirus genotypes. The predicate assay reports human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 as individual results and the other 12 human papillomavirus genotypes as 1 pooled result. The index assay reports 9 independent results (human papillomavirus types 16, 18, 31, 33/58, 35/39/68, 45, 51, 52, and 56/59/66). Both the index and predicate assays are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for cervical cancer screening, but at the time that this study was initiated, the index human papillomavirus assay was not approved for use with cervical specimens collected in PreservCyt (Hologic, Inc, San Diego, CA) liquid-based cytology media. The performance of the index human papillomavirus assay was compared with that of the predicate human papillomavirus assay for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 or greater and 3 or greater (≥CIN2 or ≥CIN3) using PreservCyt liquid-based cytology specimens collected from women aged 21 to 65 years. In addition, the ability of the index test's extended genotyping to stratify ≥CIN2 and ≥CIN3 risks, using these specimens, was evaluated. The New Mexico HPV Pap Registry was used to select an age- and cytology-stratified random sample of 19,879 women undergoing opportunistic cervical screening and follow-up in routine clinical practice across New Mexico. A subset (n = 4820) of PreservCyt specimens was selected from 19,879 women for paired testing by the index and predicate human papillomavirus assays within age and cytology strata and included women with or without cervical biopsy follow-up. Point estimate differences and ratios were calculated for cervical disease detection and positivity rates, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals to determine statistical significance. The cumulative risk of ≥CIN2 or ≥CIN3, with up to 5-year follow-up, was estimated for the index assay using Kaplan-Meier methods. The 5-year cumulative ≥CIN3 detection rates were 5.6% for the index assay and 4.6% for the predicate assay (difference, 1.0%; 95% confidence interval, 0.5%–1.5%). The ≥CIN3 positivity rates within <1 year were 95.3% for the index assay and 94.5% for the predicate assay (ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.98–1.06). The ≥CIN3 cumulative positivity rates for the index and predicate assays were also similar at 5 years. Among cases of ≥CIN3, the positive agreement rates between the index and predicate assays for human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 were 100.0% (95% confidence interval, 95.0%–100.0%) and 90.9% (95% confidence interval, 62.3%–98.4%), respectively. Human papillomavirus type 16 carried the highest ≥CIN2 or ≥CIN3 risk, followed by human papillomavirus types 18/31/33/58/52/45 and human papillomavirus types 35/56/59/51/56/59/66. The index and predicate human papillomavirus assays demonstrated equivalent performance, and extended human papillomavirus genotyping, using the index assay, provided effective ≥CIN2 and ≥CIN3 risk stratification, supporting a new indication for use of the index assay with PreservCyt. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We systematically reviewed evidence addressing the effectiveness of nitrous oxide for the management of labor pain, the influence of nitrous oxide on women's satisfaction with their birth experience and labor pain management, and adverse effects associated with nitrous oxide for labor pain management., Methods: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases for articles published in English. The study population included pregnant women in labor intending a vaginal birth, birth attendees or health care providers who may be exposed to nitrous oxide during labor, and the fetus/neonate., Results: We identified a total of 58 publications, representing 59 distinct study populations: 2 studies were of good quality, 11 fair, and 46 poor. Inhalation of nitrous oxide provided less effective pain relief than epidural analgesia, but the quality of studies was predominately poor. The heterogeneous outcomes used to assess women's satisfaction with their birth experience and labor pain management made synthesis of studies difficult. Most maternal adverse effects reported in the literature were unpleasant side effects that affect tolerability, such as nausea, vomiting, dizziness, and drowsiness. Apgar scores in newborns whose mothers used nitrous oxide were not significantly different from those of newborns whose mothers used other labor pain management methods or no analgesia. Evidence about occupational harms and exposure was limited., Conclusions: The literature addressing nitrous oxide for the management of labor pain includes few studies of good or fair quality. Further research is needed across all of the areas examined: effectiveness, satisfaction, and adverse effects.

Objective: This review evaluates the effectiveness of quality improvement (QI) strategies in reducing disparities in health and health care., Data Sources: We identified papers published in English between 1983 and 2011 from the MEDLINE® database, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science Social Science Index, and PsycINFO., Review Methods: All abstracts and full-text articles were dually reviewed. Studies were eligible if they reported data on effectiveness of QI interventions on processes or health outcomes in the United States such that the impact on a health disparity could be measured. The review focused on the following clinical conditions: breast cancer, colorectal cancer, diabetes, heart failure, hypertension, coronary artery disease, asthma, major depressive disorder, cystic fibrosis, pneumonia, pregnancy, and end-stage renal disease. It assessed health disparities associated with race or ethnicity, socioeconomic status, insurance status, sexual orientation, health literacy/numeracy, and language barrier. We evaluated the risk of bias of individual studies and the overall strength of the body of evidence based on risk of bias, consistency, directness, and precision., Results: Nineteen papers, representing 14 primary research studies, met criteria for inclusion. All but one of the studies incorporated multiple components into their QI approach. Patient education was part of most interventions (12 of 14), although the specific approach differed substantially across the studies. Ten of the studies incorporated self-management; this would include, for example, teaching individuals with diabetes to check their blood sugar regularly. Most (8 of 14) included some sort of provider education, which may have focused on the clinical issue or on raising awareness about disparities affecting the target population. Studies evaluated the effect of these strategies on disparities in the prevention or treatment of breast or colorectal cancer, cardiovascular disease, depression, or diabetes. Overall, QI interventions were not shown to reduce disparities. Most studies have focused on racial or ethnic disparities, with some targeted interventions demonstrating greater effect in racial minorities--specifically, supporting individuals in tracking their blood pressure at home to reduce blood pressure and collaborative care to improve depression care. In one study, the effect of a language-concordant breast cancer screening intervention was helpful in promoting mammography in Spanish-speaking women. For some depression care outcomes, the collaborative care model was more effective in less-educated individuals than in those with more education and in women than in men., Conclusions: The literature on QI interventions generally and their ability to improve health and health care is large. Whether those interventions are effective at reducing disparities remains unclear. This report should not be construed to assess the general effectiveness of QI in the health care setting; rather, QI has not been shown specifically to reduce known disparities in health care or health outcomes. In a few instances, some increased effect is seen in disadvantaged populations; these studies should be replicated and the interventions studied further as having potential to address disparities.