Multicentre Performance Evaluation of the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Immunoassay as an Aid in Determining Previous Exposure to SARS-CoV-2

Introduction We performed a multicentre evaluation of the Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics), an assay utilising a recombinant protein representing the nucleocapsid (N) antigen, for the in vitro qualitative detection of antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Methods Specificity was evaluated using serum/plasma samples from blood donors and routine diagnostic specimens collected before September 2019 (i.e., presumed negative for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies); sensitivity was evaluated using samples from patients with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Method comparison was performed versus commercially available assays. Results Overall specificity for the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay (n = 9575) was 99.85% (95% CI 99.75–99.92): blood donors (n = 6714; 99.82%), routine diagnostic specimens (n = 2861; 99.93%), pregnant women (n = 2256; 99.91%), paediatric samples (n = 205; 100.00%). The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay demonstrated significantly higher specificity versus LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG (99.71% vs. 98.48%), EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (100.00% vs. 94.87%), ADVIA Centaur SARS-CoV-2 Total (100.00% vs. 87.32%) and iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgM (100.00% vs. 99.58%) assays, and comparable specificity to ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG (99.75% vs. 99.65%) and iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgG (100.00% vs. 100.00%) assays. Overall sensitivity for Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay samples drawn at least 14 days post-PCR confirmation (n = 219) was 93.61% (95% CI 89.51–96.46). No statistically significant differences in sensitivity were observed between the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay versus EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (90.32% vs. 95.16%) and ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG (84.81% vs. 87.34%) assays. The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay showed significantly lower sensitivity versus ADVIA Centaur SARS-CoV-2 Total (85.19% vs. 95.06%) and iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgG (86.25% vs. 93.75%) assays, but significantly higher sensitivity versus the iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgM assay (86.25% vs. 33.75%). Conclusion The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay demonstrated very high specificity and high sensitivity in samples collected at least 14 days post-PCR confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, supporting its use to aid in determination of previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2

Video versus direct laryngoscopy to improve the success rate of nasotracheal intubations in the neonatal intensive care setting: a randomised controlled trial

Objective To assess whether video laryngoscopy (VL) for tracheal intubation of neonates results in a higher first-attempt success rate and fewer adverse tracheal intubation-associated events (TIAEs) when compared with direct laryngoscopy (DL).Design Single-centre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial.Setting University Medical Centre Mainz, Germany.Patients Neonates <440/7 weeks postmenstrual age in whom tracheal intubation was indicated either in the delivery room or in the neonatal intensive care unit.Intervention Intubation encounters were randomly assigned to either VL or DL at first attempt.Primary outcome First-attempt success rate during tracheal intubation.Results Of 121 intubation encounters assessed for eligibility, 32 (26.4%) were either not randomised (acute emergencies (n=9), clinicians’ preference for either VL (n=8) or DL (n=2)) or excluded from the analysis (declined parental consent (n=13)). Eighty-nine intubation encounters (41 in the VL and 48 in the DL group) in 63 patients were analysed. First-attempt success rate was 48.8% (20/41) in the VL group compared with 43.8% (21/48) in the DL group (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.88).The frequency of adverse TIAEs was 43.9% (18/41) and 47.9% (23/48) in the VL and DL group, respectively (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.97). Oesophageal intubation with concomitant desaturation never occurred in the VL group but in 18.8% (9/48) of intubation encounters in the DL group.Conclusion This study provides effect sizes for first-attempt success rates and frequency of TIAEs with VL compared with DL in the neonatal emergency setting. This study was underpowered to detect small but clinically important differences between the two techniques. The results of this study may be useful in planning future trials

The Perseverative Thinking Questionnaire (PTQ): Validation of a content-independent measure of repetitive negative thinking

Repetitive negative thinking (RNT) has been found to be involved in the maintenance of several types of emotional problems and has therefore been suggested to be a transdiagnostic process. However, existing measures of RNT typically focus on a particular disorder-specific content. In this article, the preliminary validation of a content-independent self-report questionnaire of RNT is presented. The 15-item Perseverative Thinking Questionnaire was evaluated in two studies (total N = 1832), comprising non-clinical as well as clinical participants. Results of confirmatory factor analyses across samples supported a second-order model with one higher-order factor representing RNT in general and three lower-order factors representing (1) the core characteristics of RNT (repetitiveness, intrusiveness, difficulties with disengagement), (2) perceived unproductiveness of RNT and (3) RNT capturing mental capacity. High internal consistencies and high re-test reliability were found for the total scale and all three subscales. The validity of the Perseverative Thinking Questionnaire was supported by substantial correlations with existing measures of RNT and associations with symptom levels and clinical diagnoses of depression and anxiety. Results suggest the usefulness of the new measure for research into RNT as a transdiagnostic process