Rapid diagnosis of parasitic diseases: current scenario and future needs

Background

Parasitic diseases are one of the world's most devastating and prevalent infections, causing millions of morbidities and mortalities annually. In the past, many of these infections have been linked predominantly to tropical or subtropical areas. Nowadays, however, climatic and vector ecology changes, a significant increase in international travel, armed conflicts, and migration of humans and animals have influenced the transmission of some parasitic diseases from ‘book pages’ to reality in developed countries. It has also been noted that many patients who have never travelled to endemic areas suffer from blood-borne infections caused by protozoa. In the light of existing knowledge, this new trend can be explained by the fact that in the process of migration a large number of asymptomatic carriers become a part of the blood bank donor and transplant donor populations. Accurate and rapid diagnosis represents the crucial weapon in the fight against parasitic infections.

Zika virus diagnosis: challenges and solutions

Background

Since its sudden appearance and link to microcephaly in 2015, the number of PubMed references for Zika virus (ZIKV) has risen from 181 to 5163, at time of writing, with a vast proportion focused on the consequences of ZIKV infection during pregnancy. This level of attention underlies increased demand for sensitive and specific diagnostic tools able to assess risk to an unborn child, as well as to understand the dynamics and consequences of viral persistence.

Saliva as a diagnostic specimen for testing respiratory virus by a point-of-care molecular assay: a diagnostic validity study

Objectives

Automated point-of-care molecular assays have greatly shortened the turnaround time of respiratory virus testing. One of the major bottlenecks now lies at the specimen collection step, especially in a busy clinical setting. Saliva is a convenient specimen type that can be provided easily by adult patients. This study assessed the diagnostic validity, specimen collection time and cost associated with the use of saliva.

Performance of point-of care molecular and antigen-based tests for SARS-CoV-2: a living systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundMolecular and antigen point-of-care tests (POCTs) have augmented our ability to rapidly identify and manage SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, their clinical performance varies among individual studies.ObjectivesThe evaluation of the performance of molecular and antigen-based POCTs in confirmed, suspected, or probable COVID-19 cases compared with that of laboratory-based RT-PCR in real-life settings.Data sourcesMEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Cochrane COVID-19 study register, and COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern.Study eligibility criteriaPeer-reviewed or preprint observational studies or randomized controlled trials that evaluated any type of commercially available antigen and/or molecular POCTs for SARS-CoV-2, including multiplex PCR panels, approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration, with Emergency Use Authorization, and/or marked with Conformitè Europëenne from European Commission/European Union.ParticipantsClose contacts and/or patients with symptomatic and/or asymptomatic confirmed, suspected, or probable COVID-19 infection of any age.Test/sMolecular and/or antigen-based SARS-CoV-2 POCTs.Reference standardLaboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR.Assessment of risk of biasEligible studies were subjected to quality-control and risk-of-bias assessment using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool.Methods of data synthesisSummary sensitivities and specificities with their 95% CIs were estimated using a bivariate model. Subgroup analysis was performed when at least three studies informed the outcome.ResultsA total of 123 eligible publications (97 and 26 studies assessing antigen-based and molecular POCTs, respectively) were retrieved from 4674 initial records. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for 13 molecular-based POCTs were 92.8% (95% CI, 88.9–95.4%) and 97.6% (95% CI, 96.6–98.3%), respectively. The sensitivity of antigen-based POCTs pooled from 138 individual evaluations was considerably lower than that of molecular POCTs; the pooled sensitivity and specificity rates were 70.6% (95% CI, 67.2–73.8%) and 98.9% (95% CI, 98.5–99.2%), respectively.DiscussionFurther studies are needed to evaluate the performance of molecular and antigen-based POCTs in underrepresented patient subgroups and different respiratory samples.     

Novel point-of-care biomarker combination tests to differentiate acute bacterial from viral respiratory tract infections to guide antibiotic prescribing: a systematic review

BackgroundAcute respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are the most common reason to seek medical care, with many patients receiving inappropriate antibiotics. Novel testing approaches to identify aetiology at the point-of-care are required to accurately guide antibiotic treatment.ObjectiveTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of biomarker combinations to rapidly differentiate between acute bacterial or viral RTI aetiology.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science databases were searched to February 2021.Study eligibility criteriaDiagnostic accuracy studies comparing accuracy of point-of-care and rapid diagnostic tests in primary or secondary care, consisting of biomarker combinations, to identify bacterial or viral aetiology of RTI.MethodsRisk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Sensitivity and specificity of tests reported by more than one study were meta-analysed using a random effects model.ResultsTwenty observational studies (3514 patients) were identified. Eighteen were judged at high risk of bias. For bacterial aetiologies, sensitivity ranged from 61% to 100% and specificity from 18% to 96%. For viral aetiologies, sensitivity ranged from 59% to 97% and specificity from 74% to 100%. Studies evaluating two commercial tests were meta-analysed. For ImmunoXpert, the summary sensitivity and specificity were 85% (95% CI 75%–91%, k = 4) and 86% (95% CI 73%–93%, k = 4) for bacterial infections, and 90% (95% CI 79%–96%, k = 3) and 92% (95% CI 83%–96%, k = 3) for viral infections, respectively. FebriDx had pooled sensitivity and specificity of 84% (95% CI 75%–90%, k = 4) and 93% (95% CI 90%–95%, k = 4) for bacterial infections, and 87% (95% CI 72%–95%; k = 4) and 82% (95% CI 66%–86%, k = 4) for viral infections, respectively.ConclusionCombinations of biomarkers show potential clinical utility in discriminating the aetiology of RTIs. However, the limitations in the evidence base, due to a high proportion of studies with high risk of bias, preclude firm conclusions. Future research should be in primary care and evaluate patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness with experimental study designs.Clinical trialPROSPERO registration number: CRD42020178973.     

Impact of COVID-19 on prevalence of community pharmacies as CLIA-Waived facilities

BackgroundThe Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) enabled greater access to low-risk tests by allowing their use in facilities with a Certificate of Waiver in the U.S. Recently, the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has shined a spotlight on CLIA-waived diagnostic testing. To meet this increased patient demand for diagnostic testing, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) authorized licensed pharmacists to order and administer FDA authorized COVID-19 tests.ObjectiveThis study aims to update the previous national benching report and examine both the number of pharmacies in the United States with CLIA Certificates of Waiver before and after the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the state-by-state differences in the percentage of pharmacies with CLIA Certificates of Waiver.MethodsData were collected from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CLIA Laboratory Search website May 3rd, 2015, August 4th, 2019 and November 26th, 2020. The website allows for exportation of demographic data on all CLIA-waived facilities by state.ResultsPharmacies exhibited the largest growth both in number (4865 new locations) and by percent (45%) of CLIA-waived facilities between 2015 and 2020. The total number of pharmacies with a CLIA-waiver grew from 10,626 (17.94%) locations in 2015 to 12,157 (21.43%) locations in 2019, to 15,671 (27.63%) locations in 2020. States demonstrated considerable variability in the percentage of pharmacies with a CLIA-waiver, with a range of 2.92%–56.52%.ConclusionsPharmacies have become an increasingly important location for patients to access CLIA-waived tests in the United States, now serving as the second largest provider of CLIA-waived tests by the total number of locations. Most of this growth occurred between 2019 and 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and concentrated efforts will be necessary to sustain this momentum.