Infectious disease diagnostics often depend on costly serological testing with poor sensitivity, low specificity, and long turnaround time. Here, we demonstrate proof of the principle for simultaneous detection of two tick-borne pathogens from a single test sample using barcoded magnetic bead technology on the BioCode 2500 system. Specific primer sets complementary to the conserved genes of Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Borrelia burgdorferi were used in PCR amplification of the target, followed by the hybridization of the resulting biotinylated PCR products with specific probes tethered to the barcoded magnetic beads for simultaneous detection, using a fluorophore with high quantum yield. The assay has an extremely high signal to background ratio, with a limit of detection (LOD) of 2.81 50% tissue culture infection dose (TCID50)/mL and 1 CFU/mL for A. phagocytophilum and B. burgdorferi, respectively. The observed LOD for gene blocks was 1.8 copies/reaction for both the pathogens. The assay demonstrated 100% positive and negative agreement on performance evaluation using patient specimens and blood samples spiked with 1 × LOD of pathogen stock. No cross-reactivity was observed with other related tick-borne pathogens and genomic DNA of human, cattle, and canine origin. The assay can be upgraded to a sensitive and cost-effective multiplex diagnostic approach that can simultaneously detect multiple clinically important tick-borne pathogens in a single sample with a short turnaround time. IMPORTANCE The low pathogen load in the tick-borne disease test samples and the lack of highly sensitive multiplex diagnostic approaches have impacted diagnosis during clinical testing and limited surveillance studies to gauge prior insight about the prevalence of tick-borne infections in a geographical area. This article demonstrates proof of the principle for simultaneous detection of two important tick-borne pathogens from a single test sample using digital barcoded magnetic bead technology. Using a fluorophore of high quantum yield, the diagnostic approach showed high sensitivity and specificity. The LOD was 1.8 genome copies per reaction for both A. phagocytophilum and B. burgdorferi. The assay can be upgraded for the detection of all clinically important tick-borne pathogens from a single patient sample with high sensitivity and specificity. The assay can provide a diagnostic answer to the clinician in a short turnaround time to facilitate speedy therapeutic intervention to infected patients and implement public health measures to prevent community spread.

The VALHUDES framework (NCT03064087) was established to evaluate the clinical accuracy of HPV testing on self-samples compared with HPV testing on matched clinician-taken cervical samples. Women referred to colposcopy due to previous cervical abnormalities were recruited at five Belgian colposcopy centers. A total of 486 pairs of matched cervical samples and vaginal self-samples were included in the analysis (228 collected with Evalyn Brush and 258 with Qvintip). The dry vaginal brushes were transferred into 20 mL ThinPrep PreservCyt solution. All specimens were tested with the Abbott RealTime High Risk HPV assay (Abbott RT). Testing on vaginal and cervical specimens was considered the index and comparator tests, respectively, and colposcopy and histology as the reference standard. The clinical sensitivity for CIN2+ of Abbott RT (cutoff ≤32 cycle number [CN]) on vaginal self-samples (Evalyn Brush and Qvintip combined) was 8% lower than on the cervical clinician-collected samples (ratio = 0.92 [95% CI, 0.87 to 0.98]), while the specificity was similar (ratio = 1.04 [95% CI, 0.97 to 1.12]). Sensitivity (ratio = 0.95 [95% CI, 0.89 to 1.02]) and specificity (ratio = 1.11 [95% CI, 0.995 to 1.23]) on Evalyn Brush samples was similar to cervical, while on Qvintip samples, the sensitivity was 12% lower than cervical samples (ratio = 0.88 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.998]) with similar specificity (0.99 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.10]). Exploratory cutoff optimization (cutoff ≤35 CN) resulted in an improvement of the relative sensitivity (self-sampling versus clinician sampling: ratio = 0.96 [95% CI, 0.91 to 1.02]) but yielded a loss in relative specificity (ratio = 0.92 [0.85 to 1.00]). The clinical accuracy of Abbott RT differed from the self-sampling device. However, after cutoff optimization, the sensitivity on self-samples taken with either of two vaginal brushes became similar to clinician-collected samples. IMPORTANCE Self-samples are becoming a crucial part of HPV-based cervical cancer screening programs to reach nonattendee women and increase screening coverage. Therefore, the VALHUDES framework was established to validate and evaluate HPV tests and devices on self-samples. Here, in the present manuscript, we evaluated the accuracy of the RealTime High Risk HPV assay (Abbott RT) on two different vaginal devices to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade two or higher (CIN2+). The study results demonstrated that the Abbott RT assay is similarly accurate on vaginal self-samples as on matched clinician-taken cervical samples after adjusting cutoff values. Moreover, we observed that some vaginal devices perform better than others in CIN2+ detection. We also underline the necessity of standardization and validation of general workflow and sample handling procedures for vaginal self-samples.

The objective of our study was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of rapid antigen detection tests versus those of reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) using oral, anterior nasal, and nasopharyngeal swabs. The underlying prospective, diagnostic case-control-type accuracy study included 87 hospitalized and nonhospitalized participants in a positive and a negative sample cohort between 16 March and 14 May 2021 in two hospitals in Vienna. SARS-CoV-2 infection status was confirmed by RT-PCR. Participants self-performed one oral and one anterior nasal swab for the rapid antigen test, immediately followed by two nasopharyngeal swabs for the rapid antigen test and RT-PCR by the investigator. Test results were read after 15 min, and participants completed a questionnaire in the meantime. Test parameters were calculated based on the evaluation of 87 participants. The overall sensitivity of rapid antigen detection tests versus that of RT-PCR with oral, anterior nasal, and nasopharyngeal samples was 18.18% (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.19% to 32.71%), 63.04% (95% CI 47.55% to 76.79%), and 73.33% (95% CI 58.06% to 85.4%), respectively. All sampling methods had a test specificity of 100% regardless of the cycle threshold (CT) value. Rapid antigen detection tests using self-collected anterior nasal swabs proved to be as sensitive as and more tolerable than professionally collected nasopharyngeal swabs for CT values up to 30 determined by RT-PCR. This finding illustrates the reliability of tests obtained by adequate self-collected anterior nasal specimen. Sensitivity was dependent upon the CT value for each sampling method. While the main advantage of rapid antigen detection tests is the immediate availability of results, PCR should be preferred in crucial settings wherever possible. IMPORTANCE Rapid antigen detection devices for SARS-CoV-2 represent a valuable tool for monitoring the spread of infection. However, the reliability of the tests depends largely on the test performance and the respective sampling method. Nasopharyngeal swabs mark the gold standard for sample collection in suspected respiratory tract infections but are unsuitable for widespread application, as they must be performed by medically trained personnel. With the underlying study, the head-to-head test performance and the usability of self-collected samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection using rapid antigen detection devices were evaluated. The results confirm similar sensitivity of self-collected anterior nasal swabs to that of professionally collected nasopharyngeal swabs for patients with a CT of < 30 determined by RT-PCR.

Rapid coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) antigen tests can be used to aid in quickly identifying positive cases, which can help mitigate the spread of COVID-19 infection. Using previously characterized Omicron-positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), non-Omicron-positive SARS-CoV-2, and negative samples, we evaluated five brands of at-home rapid COVID-19 antigen tests (On/Go at-home COVID-19 rapid antigen self-test, iHealth COVID-19 antigen rapid test, QuickVue SARS antigen test, Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 card home test, and InBios SCoV-2 Ag detect rapid self-test). Our results showed that these rapid tests had similar levels of sensitivity to Omicron and non-Omicron variants (On/Go, 76.4% and 71.0%; iHealth, 73.0% and 71.0%; QuickVue, 84.3% and 74.3%; BinaxNOW, 69.7% and 71.0%; and InBios, 66.3% and 64.5%, respectively). In conclusion, rapid COVID-19 antigen tests can continue to be used as part of public health measures to combat the spread of the Omicron variant, as their sensitivity was not significantly affected. IMPORTANCE The emergence of the Omicron variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is due to mutations as part of the virus evolution process. These mutations might affect the sensitivity of diagnostic tests that are currently being used to detect the virus. Because rapid coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) antigen tests are commonly used in the general population, it is important to assess their performance in detecting the Omicron variant. Here, we compared the performance of five brands of rapid tests against Omicron and non-Omicron variants using nasopharyngeal swab samples in viral transport media. Our result found no difference in their performance, suggesting no reduction in sensitivity when used to detect the Omicron variant.

Pediatric acute respiratory illness (ARI) is one of the most common reasons for evaluation at peripheral health centers in sub-Saharan Africa and is frequently managed based on clinical syndrome alone. Although most ARI episodes are likely caused by self-limited viral infections, the majority are treated with antibiotics. This overuse contributes to the development of antimicrobial resistance. To evaluate the preliminary feasibility and potential impact of adding pathogen-specific and clinical biomarker diagnostic testing to existing clinical management algorithms, we conducted a prospective, observational cohort study of 225 children presenting with malaria-negative, febrile ARI to the outpatient department of a semi-urban peripheral health facility in southwestern Uganda from October 2019 to January 2020. In addition to routine clinical evaluation, we performed influenza and Streptococcus pneumoniae antigen testing and measured levels of C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and lactate in the clinic's laboratory, and conducted a follow-up assessment by phone 7 days later. Almost one-fifth of participants (40/225) tested positive for influenza. Clinical biomarker measurements were low with C-reactive protein of >40 mg/L in only 11% (13/222) of participants and procalcitonin >0.25 ng/mL in only 13% (16/125). All but two children received antibiotic treatment; only 3% (7/225) were admitted. At follow-up, 59% (118/201) of caregivers reported at least one persistent symptom, but fever had resolved for all children. Positive influenza testing was associated with persistent symptoms. In summary, we demonstrate that simple, rapid pathogen-specific testing and biomarker measurement are possible in resource-limited settings and could improve syndromic management and, in turn, antibiotic stewardship. IMPORTANCE Globally, respiratory illness is one of the most common reasons that children seek care. It is often treated inappropriately with antibiotics, which can drive the development of antibiotic resistance. In resource-rich settings, testing for specific pathogens or measurement of clinical biomarkers, such as procalcitonin and C-reactive protein, is often employed to help determine which children should receive antibiotics. However, there are limited data on the use of these tests in resource-constrained, outpatient contexts in sub-Saharan Africa. We enrolled children with respiratory illness presenting to a clinic in southwestern Uganda and performed testing for influenza, Streptococcus pneumoniae, C-reactive protein, and procalcitonin on-site. Almost all children received antibiotics. We demonstrate that employing clinical algorithms that include influenza and clinical biomarker testing could significantly decrease antibiotic prescriptions. Our study therefore provides preliminary data to support the feasibility and potential utility of diagnostics to improve management of respiratory illness in resource-constrained settings.

Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are ubiquitous among children in the community. A prospective observational study was performed to evaluate the diagnostic performance and quality of at-home parent-collected (PC) nasal and saliva swab samples, compared to nurse-collected (NC) swab samples, from children with RTI symptoms. Children with RTI symptoms were swabbed at home on the same day by a parent and a nurse. We compared the performance of PC swab samples as the test with NC swab samples as the reference for the detection of respiratory pathogen gene targets by reverse transcriptase PCR, with quality assessment using a human gene. PC and NC paired nasal and saliva swab samples were collected from 91 and 92 children, respectively. Performance and interrater agreement (Cohen's κ) of PC versus NC nasal swab samples for viruses combined showed sensitivity of 91.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.47 to 95.73%) and κ of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.88), respectively; the respective values for bacteria combined were 91.4% (95% CI, 86.85 to 94.87%) and κ of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.80 to 0.89). In saliva samples, viral and bacterial sensitivities were lower at 69.0% (95% CI, 57.47 to 79.76%) and 78.1% (95% CI, 71.60 to 83.76%), as were κ values at 0.64 (95% CI, 0.53 to 0.72) and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.76), respectively. Quality assessment for human biological material (18S rRNA) indicated perfect interrater agreement. At-home PC nasal swab samples performed comparably to NC swab samples, whereas PC saliva swab samples lacked sensitivity for the detection of respiratory microbes. IMPORTANCE RTIs are ubiquitous among children. Diagnosis involves a swab sample being taken by a health professional, which places a considerable burden on community health care systems, given the number of cases involved. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has seen an increase in the at-home self-collection of upper respiratory tract swab samples without the involvement of health professionals. It is advised that parents conduct or supervise swabbing of children. Surprisingly, few studies have addressed the quality of PC swab samples for subsequent identification of respiratory pathogens. We compared NC and PC nasal and saliva swab samples taken from the same child with RTI symptoms, for detection of respiratory pathogens. The PC nasal swab samples performed comparably to NC samples, whereas saliva swab samples lacked sensitivity for the detection of respiratory microbes. Collection of swab samples by parents would greatly reduce the burden on community nurses without reducing the effectiveness of diagnoses.

Accurate and early diagnoses are prerequisites for prompt treatment. For coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), it is even more crucial. Currently, choice of methods include rapid diagnostic tests and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) using samples mostly of respiratory origin and sometimes saliva. We evaluated two rapid diagnostic tests with three specimen types using viral transport medium (VTM) containing naso-oropharyngeal (NOP) swabs, direct nasal and direct nasopharyngeal (NP) samples from 428 prospective patients. We also performed RT-PCR for 428 NOP VTM and 316 saliva samples to compare results. The sensitivity of the SD Biosensor Standard Q COVID-19 antigen (Ag) test kit drastically raised from an average of 65.55% (NOP VTM) to 85.25% (direct nasal samples), while RT-PCR was the gold standard. For the CareStart kit, the sensitivity was almost similar for direct NP swabs; the average was 84.57%. The specificities were ≥95% for both SD Biosensor Standard Q and CareStart COVID-19 Ag tests in all platforms. The kits were also able to detect patients with different variants as well. Alternatively, RT-PCR results from saliva and NOP VTM samples showed high sensitivities of 96.45% and 95.48% with respect to each other as standard. The overall results demonstrated high performance of the rapid tests, indicating the suitability for regular surveillance at clinical facilities when using direct nasal or direct NP samples rather than NOP VTM. Additionally, the analysis also signifies not showed that RT-PCR of saliva can be used as an choice of method to RT-PCR of NOP VTM, providing an easier, non-invasive sample collection method. IMPORTANCE There are several methods for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and the choice of methods depends mostly on the resources and level of sensitivity required by the user and health care providers. Still, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has been chosen as the best method using direct naso-oropharyngeal swabs. There are also other methods of fast detection, such as rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), which offer result within 15 to 20 min and have become quite popular for self-testing and in the clinical setting. The major drawback of the currently used RT-PCR method is compliance, as it may cause irritation, and patients often refuse to test in such a way. RDTs, although inexpensive, suffer from low sensitivity due to technical issues. In this article, we propose saliva as a noninvasive source for RT-PCR samples and evaluate various specimen types at different times after infection for the best possible output from COVID-19 rapid tests.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a mild to severe respiratory illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The diagnostic accuracy of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)- or World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended real-time PCR (RT-qPCR) primers in clinical practice remains unproven. We conducted a prospective study on the accuracy of RT-qPCR using an in-house-designed primer set (iNP) targeting the nucleocapsid protein as well as various recommended and commercial primers. The accuracy was assessed by culturing or seroconversion. We enrolled 12 confirmed COVID-19 patients with a total of 590 clinical samples. When a cutoff value of the cycle threshold (Ct) was set to 35, RT-qPCRs with WHO RdRp primers and CDC N1, N2, and N3 primers showed sensitivity of 42.1% to 63.2% and specificity of 90.5% to 100% in sputum, and sensitivity of 65.2% to 69.6% and specificity of 65.2% to 69.6% in nasopharyngeal samples. The sensitivity and specificity of iNP RT-qPCR in sputum and nasopharyngeal samples were 94.8%/100% and 69.6%/100%, respectively. Sputum testing had the highest sensitivity, followed by nasopharyngeal testing (P = 0.0193); self-collected saliva samples yielded better characteristics than oropharyngeal samples (P = 0.0032). Our results suggest that iNP RT-qPCR has better sensitivity and specificity than RT-PCR with WHO (P < 0.0001) or CDC (N1: P = 0.0012, N2: P = 0.0013, N3: P = 0.0012) primers. Sputum RT-qPCR analysis has the highest sensitivity, followed by nasopharyngeal, saliva, and oropharyngeal assays. Our study suggests that considerable improvement is needed for the RT-qPCR WHO and CDC primer sets for detecting SARS-CoV-2. IMPORTANCE Numerous research campaigns have addressed the vast majority of clinical and diagnostic specificity and sensitivity of various primer sets of SARS-CoV2 viral detection. Despite the impressive progress made to resolve the pandemic, there is still a need for continuous and active improvement of primers used for diagnosis in clinical practice. Our study significantly exceeds the scale of previously published research on the specificity and sensitivity of different primers comparing with different specimens and is the most comprehensive to date in terms of constant monitoring of primer sets of current usage. Henceforth, our results suggest that sputum samples sensitivity is the highest, followed by nasopharyngeal, saliva, and oropharyngeal samples. The CDC recommends the use of oropharyngeal specimens, leading to certain discrepancy between the guidelines set forth by the CDC and IDSA. We proved that the oropharyngeal samples demonstrated the lowest sensitivity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Seroepidemiological studies to monitor antibody kinetics are important for assessing the extent and spread of SARS-CoV-2 in a population. Noninvasive sampling methods are advantageous for reducing the need for venipuncture, which may be a barrier to investigations, particularly in pediatric populations. Oral fluids are obtained by gingiva-crevicular sampling from children and adults and are very well accepted. Enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) based on these samples have acceptable sensitivity and specificity compared to conventional serum-based antibody EIAs and are suitable for population-based surveillance. We describe the development and evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 IgG EIAs using SARS-CoV-2 viral nucleoprotein (NP) and spike (S) proteins in IgG isotype capture format and an indirect receptor-binding-domain (RBD) IgG EIA, intended for use in children as a primary endpoint. All three assays were assessed using a panel of 1,999 paired serum and oral fluids from children and adults participating in school SARS-CoV-2 surveillance studies during and after the first and second pandemic wave in the United Kingdom. The anti-NP IgG capture assay was the best candidate, with an overall sensitivity of 75% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 71 to 79%) and specificity of 99% (95% CI: 78 to 99%) compared with paired serum antibodies. Sensitivity observed in children (80%, 95% CI: 71 to 88%) was higher than that in adults (67%, CI: 60% to 74%). Oral fluid assays (OF) using spike protein and RBD antigens were also 99% specific and achieved reasonable but lower sensitivity in the target population (78%, 95% CI [68% to 86%] and 53%, 95% CI [43% to 64%], respectively). IMPORTANCE We report on the first large-scale assessment of the suitability of oral fluids for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibody obtained from healthy children attending school. The sample type (gingiva-crevicular fluid, which is a transudate of blood but is not saliva) can be self collected. Although detection of antibodies in oral fluids is less sensitive than that in blood, our study suggests an optimal format for operational use. The laboratory methods we have developed can reliably measure antibodies in children, who are able to take their own samples. Our findings are of immediate practical relevance for use in large-scale seroprevalence studies designed to measure exposure to infection, as they typically require venipuncture. Overall, our data indicate that OF assays based on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are a tool suitable for population-based seroepidemiology studies in children and highly acceptable in children and adults, as venipuncture is no longer necessary.

The continued need for molecular testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the potential for self-collected saliva as an alternative to nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs for sample acquisition led us to compare saliva to NP swabs in an outpatient setting without restrictions to avoid food, drink, smoking, or tooth-brushing. A total of 385 pairs of NP and saliva specimens were obtained, the majority from individuals presenting for initial evaluation, and were tested on two high-sensitivity reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) platforms, the Abbott m2000 and Abbott Alinity m (both with limits of detection [LoD] of 100 copies of viral RNA/ml). Concordance between saliva and NP swabs was excellent overall (Cohen's κ = 0.93) for both initial and follow-up testing, for both platforms, and for specimens treated with guanidinium transport medium as preservative as well as for untreated saliva (κ = 0.88 to 0.95). Viral loads were on average 16× higher in NP specimens than saliva specimens, suggesting that only the relatively small fraction of outpatients (∼8% in this study) who present with very low viral loads (<1,600 copies/ml from NP swabs) would be missed by testing saliva instead of NP swabs when using sensitive testing platforms. Special attention was necessary to ensure leak-resistant specimen collection and transport. The advantages of self-collection of saliva, without behavioral restrictions, will likely outweigh a minor potential decrease in clinical sensitivity in individuals less likely to pose an infectious risk to others for many real-world scenarios, especially for initial testing. IMPORTANCE In general, the most accurate COVID-19 testing is hands-on and uncomfortable, requiring trained staff and a "brain-tickling" nasopharyngeal swab. Saliva would be much easier on both fronts, since patients could collect it themselves, and it is after all just spit. However, despite much interest, it remains unclear how well saliva performs in real-world settings when just using it in place of an NP swab without elaborate or cumbersome restrictions about not eating/drinking before testing, etc. Also, almost all studies of COVID-19 testing, whether of NP swabs, saliva, or otherwise, have been restricted to reporting results in the abstruse units of "CT values," which only mean something in the context of a specific assay and testing platform. Here, we compared saliva versus NP swabs in a real-world setting without restriction and report all results in natural units-the amount of virus being shed-showing that saliva is essentially just as good as NP swabs.