Anterior nasal versus nasal mid-turbinate sampling for a SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test: does localisation or professional collection matter?

INTRODUCTION: Most SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests require nasopharyngeal sampling, which is frequently perceived as uncomfortable and requires healthcare professionals, thus limiting scale-up. Nasal sampling could enable self-sampling and increase acceptability. The term nasal sampling is often not used uniformly and sampling protocols differ. METHODS: This manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study, compared professional anterior nasal and nasal mid-turbinate sampling for a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test. The second group of participants collected a nasal mid-turbinate sample themselves and underwent a professional nasopharyngeal swab for comparison. The reference standard was real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) using combined oro-/nasopharyngeal sampling. Individuals with high suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection were tested. Sensitivity, specificity, and percent agreement were calculated. Self-sampling was observed without intervention. Feasibility was evaluated by observer and participant questionnaires. RESULTS: Among 132 symptomatic adults, both professional anterior nasal and nasal mid-turbinate sampling yielded a sensitivity of 86.1% (31/36 RT-PCR positives detected; 95%CI: 71.3-93.9) and a specificity of 100.0% (95%CI: 95.7-100). The positive percent agreement was 100% (95%CI: 89.0-100). Among 96 additional adults, self nasal mid-turbinate and professional nasopharyngeal sampling yielded an identical sensitivity of 91.2% (31/34; 95%CI 77.0-97.0). Specificity was 98.4% (95%CI: 91.4-99.9) with nasal mid-turbinate and 100.0% (95%CI: 94.2-100) with nasopharyngeal sampling. The positive percent agreement was 96.8% (95%CI: 83.8-99.8). Most participants (85.3%) considered self-sampling as easy to perform. CONCLUSION: Professional anterior nasal and nasal mid-turbinate sampling are of equivalent accuracy for an antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test in ambulatory symptomatic adults. Participants were able to reliably perform nasal mid-turbinate sampling themselves, following written and illustrated instructions. Nasal self-sampling will facilitate scaling of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing

SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern B.1.1.7: Diagnostic Sensitivity of Three Antigen-Detecting Rapid Tests.

Funder: Foundation for Innovative New DiagnosticsFunder: World Health OrganizationFunder: Ministry of Science, Research and Culture, State of Baden Wuerttemberg, German

Diagnostic accuracy and feasibility of patient self-testing with a SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test.

BACKGROUND: Considering the possibility of nasal self-sampling and the ease of use in performing SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs), self-testing is a feasible option. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was a head-to-head comparison of diagnostic accuracy of patient self-testing with professional testing using a SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study of nasal mid-turbinate self-sampling and self-testing with symptomatic adults using a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. Procedures were observed without intervention. For comparison, Ag-RDTs with nasopharyngeal sampling were professionally performed. Estimates of agreement, sensitivity, and specificity relative to RT-PCR on a combined oro-/nasopharyngeal sample were calculated. Feasibility was evaluated by observer and participant questionnaires. RESULTS: Among 146 symptomatic adults, 40 (27.4%) were RT-PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2. Sensitivity with self-testing was 82.5% (33/40; 95% CI 68.1-91.3), and 85.0% (34/40; 95% CI 70.9-92.9) with professional testing. At high viral load (≥7.0 log10 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/ml), sensitivity was 96.6% (28/29; 95% CI 82.8-99.8) for both self- and professional testing. Deviations in sampling and testing were observed in 25 out of the 40 PCR-positives. Most participants (80.9%) considered the Ag-RDT as easy to perform. CONCLUSION: Laypersons suspected for SARS-CoV-2 infection were able to reliably perform the Ag-RDT and test themselves. Procedural errors might be reduced by refinement of the instructions for use or the product design/procedures. Self-testing allows more wide-spread and frequent testing. Paired with the appropriate information of the public about the benefits and risks, self-testing may have significant impact on the pandemic

A 'snip' in time: what is the best age to circumcise?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Circumcision is a common procedure, but regional and societal attitudes differ on whether there is a need for a male to be circumcised and, if so, at what age. This is an important issue for many parents, but also pediatricians, other doctors, policy makers, public health authorities, medical bodies, and males themselves.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>We show here that infancy is an optimal time for clinical circumcision because an infant's low mobility facilitates the use of local anesthesia, sutures are not required, healing is quick, cosmetic outcome is usually excellent, costs are minimal, and complications are uncommon. The benefits of infant circumcision include prevention of urinary tract infections (a cause of renal scarring), reduction in risk of inflammatory foreskin conditions such as balanoposthitis, foreskin injuries, phimosis and paraphimosis. When the boy later becomes sexually active he has substantial protection against risk of HIV and other viral sexually transmitted infections such as genital herpes and oncogenic human papillomavirus, as well as penile cancer. The risk of cervical cancer in his female partner(s) is also reduced. Circumcision in adolescence or adulthood may evoke a fear of pain, penile damage or reduced sexual pleasure, even though unfounded. Time off work or school will be needed, cost is much greater, as are risks of complications, healing is slower, and stitches or tissue glue must be used.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>Infant circumcision is safe, simple, convenient and cost-effective. The available evidence strongly supports infancy as the optimal time for circumcision.</p

Quantifying HIV transmission flow between high-prevalence hotspots and surrounding communities: a population-based study in Rakai, Uganda

Background International and global organisations advocate targeting interventions to areas of high HIV prevalence (ie, hotspots). To better understand the potential benefits of geo-targeted control, we assessed the extent to which HIV hotspots along Lake Victoria sustain transmission in neighbouring populations in south-central Uganda. Methods We did a population-based survey in Rakai, Uganda, using data from the Rakai Community Cohort Study. The study surveyed all individuals aged 15–49 years in four high-prevalence Lake Victoria fishing communities and 36 neighbouring inland communities. Viral RNA was deep sequenced from participants infected with HIV who were antiretroviral therapy-naive during the observation period. Phylogenetic analysis was used to infer partial HIV transmission networks, including direction of transmission. Reconstructed networks were interpreted through data for current residence and migration history. HIV transmission flows within and between high-prevalence and low-prevalence areas were quantified adjusting for incomplete sampling of the population. Findings Between Aug 10, 2011, and Jan 30, 2015, data were collected for the Rakai Community Cohort Study. 25 882 individuals participated, including an estimated 75·7% of the lakeside population and 16·2% of the inland population in the Rakai region of Uganda. 5142 participants were HIV-positive (2703 [13·7%] in inland and 2439 [40·1%] in fishing communities). 3878 (75·4%) people who were HIV-positive did not report antiretroviral therapy use, of whom 2652 (68·4%) had virus deep-sequenced at sufficient quality for phylogenetic analysis. 446 transmission networks were reconstructed, including 293 linked pairs with inferred direction of transmission. Adjusting for incomplete sampling, an estimated 5·7% (95% credibility interval 4·4–7·3) of transmissions occurred within lakeside areas, 89·2% (86·0–91·8) within inland areas, 1·3% (0·6–2·6) from lakeside to inland areas, and 3·7% (2·3–5·8) from inland to lakeside areas. Interpretation Cross-community HIV transmissions between Lake Victoria hotspots and surrounding inland populations are infrequent and when they occur, virus more commonly flows into rather than out of hotspots. This result suggests that targeted interventions to these hotspots will not alone control the epidemic in inland populations, where most transmissions occur. Thus, geographical targeting of high prevalence areas might not be effective for broader epidemic control depending on underlying epidemic dynamics. Funding The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Child Health and Development, the Division of Intramural Research of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the World Bank, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Johns Hopkins University Center for AIDS Research, and the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Study protocol for the multicentre cohorts of Zika virus infection in pregnant women, infants, and acute clinical cases in Latin America and the Caribbean: The ZIKAlliance consortium

Background: The European Commission (EC) Horizon 2020 (H2020)-funded ZIKAlliance Consortium designed a multicentre study including pregnant women (PW), children (CH) and natural history (NH) cohorts. Clinical sites were selected over a wide geographic range within Latin America and the Caribbean, taking into account the dynamic course of the ZIKV epidemic. Methods: Recruitment to the PW cohort will take place in antenatal care clinics. PW will be enrolled regardless of symptoms and followed over the course of pregnancy, approximately every 4 weeks. PW will be revisited at delivery (or after miscarriage/abortion) to assess birth outcomes, including microcephaly and other congenital abnormalities according to the evolving definition of congenital Zika syndrome (CZS). After birth, children will be followed for 2 years in the CH cohort. Follow-up visits are scheduled at ages 1-3, 4-6, 12, and 24 months to assess neurocognitive and developmental milestones. In addition, a NH cohort for the characterization of symptomatic rash/fever illness was designed, including follow-up to capture persisting health problems. Blood, urine, and other biological materials will be collected, and tested for ZIKV and other relevant arboviral diseases (dengue, chikungunya, yellow fever) using RT-PCR or serological methods. A virtual, decentralized biobank will be created. Reciprocal clinical monitoring has been established between partner sites. Substudies of ZIKV seroprevalence, transmissio

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 self-testing/self-sampling with molecular and professional-use tests:a systematic review and meta-analysis

Self-testing is an effective tool to bridge the testing gap for several infectious diseases; however, its performance in detecting SARS-CoV-2 using antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) has not been systematically reviewed. This study aimed to inform WHO guidelines by evaluating the accuracy of COVID-19 self-testing and self-sampling coupled with professional Ag-RDT conduct and interpretation. Articles on this topic were searched until November 7th, 2022. Concordance between self-testing/self-sampling and fully professional-use Ag-RDTs was assessed using Cohen’s kappa. Bivariate meta-analysis yielded pooled performance estimates. Quality and certainty of evidence were evaluated using QUADAS-2 and GRADE tools. Among 43 studies included, twelve reported on self-testing, and 31 assessed self-sampling only. Around 49.6% showed low risk of bias. Overall concordance with professional-use Ag-RDTs was high (kappa 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88–0.94]). Comparing self-testing/self-sampling to molecular testing, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 70.5% (95% CI 64.3–76.0) and 99.4% (95% CI 99.1–99.6), respectively. Higher sensitivity (i.e., 93.6% [95% CI 90.4–96.8] for Ct &lt; 25) was estimated in subgroups with higher viral loads using Ct values as a proxy. Despite high heterogeneity among studies, COVID-19 self-testing/self-sampling exhibits high concordance with professional-use Ag-RDTs. This suggests that self-testing/self-sampling can be offered as part of COVID-19 testing strategies. Trial registration: PROSPERO: CRD42021250706.</p

Head-to-head performance comparison of self-collected nasal versus professional-collected nasopharyngeal swab for a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test

In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended two SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow antigen-detecting rapid diagnostics tests (Ag-RDTs), both initially with nasopharyngeal (NP) sample collection. Independent head-to-head studies are necessary for SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT nasal sampling to demonstrate comparability of performance with nasopharyngeal (NP) sampling. We conducted a head-to-head comparison study of a supervised, self-collected nasal mid-turbinate (NMT) swab and a professional-collected NP swab, using the Panbio™ Ag-RDT (distributed by Abbott). We calculated positive and negative percent agreement between the sampling methods as well as sensitivity and specificity for both sampling techniques compared to the reference standard reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). A SARS-CoV-2 infection could be diagnosed by RT-PCR in 45 of 290 participants (15.5%). Comparing the NMT and NP sampling the positive percent agreement of the Ag-RDT was 88.1% (37/42 PCR positives detected; CI 75.0-94.8%). The negative percent agreement was 98.8% (245/248; CI 96.5-99.6%). The overall sensitivity of Panbio with NMT sampling was 84.4% (38/45; CI 71.2-92.3%) and 88.9% (40/45; CI 76.5-95.5%) with NP sampling. Specificity was 99.2% (243/245; CI 97.1-99.8%) for both, NP and NMT sampling. The sensitivity of the Panbio test in participants with high viral load (&amp;gt; 7 lo