How are rapid diagnostic tests for infectious diseases used in clinical practice: a global survey by the International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (ISAC)

Point-of-care testing, near-patient testing and patient self-testing: warning points

Point-of-care testing (POCT), near-patient testing (NPT) and patient self-tests (PST) are diagnostic examinations performed at the time and place of patient care. While POCT and NPT are performed and analyzed by medical professionals, PST are based on samples and parameters directly collected and analyzed by lay users. These tests are spreading both in high income countries and in low to middle income countries as they are expected to improve healthcare efficiency and equity, by saving resources, releasing pressure from hospitals and reducing logistical barriers. However, accurate multidisciplinary assessment is mandatory to ensure that what they promise is real. We reviewed some important ethical aspects, international standards and regulations. The current risks associated with alternative ways of testing are explained by the principles of respect for patient autonomy and non-maleficence. Further evidence from multidisciplinary assessment is needed to evaluate pros and cons in light of the principles of beneficence and justice. Although POCT or NPT need common regulation and accurate provider training to ensure safe and appropriate interpretation of results, PST needs even more attention as they are subject to direct patient use. Randomized controlled trails including patient education should be conducted in order to provide reliable evidence on clinical outcomes, patient acceptance and cost-effectiveness. Mandatory regulation is needed to avoid harm and EU regulation should help different countries maintain a safe use of devices in a global population of producers and users.

Evaluation of non-invasive diagnostic tools for diarrhea: a systematic review of point-of-care tests and biomarkers

Background

Diarrhea is a prevalent condition affecting millions worldwide. However, current standard diagnostic methods have many drawbacks. This review examines various non-invasive point-of-care (POC) tests and biomarkers aiding rapid diagnosis of diarrhea from different causes.

Methods

PubMed, PubMed Central, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched from 2013 to present for relevant literature. Two reviewers independently assessed included studies' quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist.

Results

The search yielded 1453 studies, of which 39 were included after screening and applying eligibility criteria. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was the POC test in 25 studies, providing consistent sensitivity and specificity. For biomarkers, C-reactive protein (CRP), fecal calprotectin, and procalcitonin offered high sensitivity and specificity for conditions like acute pediatric diarrhea, microscopic colitis, and inflammatory diarrhea, respectively.

Conclusion

PCR proved the ideal POC test for rapid diarrhea diagnosis, while the procalcitonin biomarker helps differentiate inflammatory from non-inflammatory diarrhea. Other reviewed tools also demonstrated promising diagnostic performance, though improvements in sensitivity, specificity, and usability are still needed.

A Scoping Review of Supply Chain Management Systems for Point of Care Diagnostic Services: Optimising COVID-19 Testing Capacity in Resource-Limited Settings

Background: Point of care (POC) testing has enabled rapid coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis in resource-limited settings with limited laboratory infrastructure and high disease burden. However, the accessibility of the tests is not optimal in these settings. This scoping review mapped evidence on supply chain management (SCM) systems for POC diagnostic services to reveal evidence that can help guide future research and inform the improved implementation of SARS-CoV-2 POC diagnostics in resource-limited settings. Methodology: This scoping review was guided by an adapted version of the Arksey and O’Malley methodological framework. We searched the following electronic databases: Medline Ovid, Medline EBSCO, Scopus, PubMed, PsychInfo, Web of Science and EBSCOHost. We also searched grey literature in the form of dissertations/theses, conference proceedings, websites of international organisations such as the World Health Organisation and government reports. A search summary table was used to test the efficacy of the search strategy. The quality of the included studies was appraised using the mixed method appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018. Results: We retrieved 1206 articles (databases n = 1192, grey literature n = 14). Of these, 31 articles were included following abstract and full-text screening. Fifteen were primary studies conducted in LMICs, and 16 were reviews. The following themes emerged from the included articles: availability and accessibility of POC diagnostic services; reasons for stockouts of POC diagnostic tests (procurement, storage, distribution, inventory management and quality assurance) and human resources capacity in POC diagnostic services. Of the 31 eligible articles, 15 underwent methodological quality appraisal with scores between 90% and 100%. Conclusions: Our findings revealed limited published research on SCM systems for POC diagnostic services globally. We recommend primary studies aimed at investigating the barriers and enablers of SCM systems for POC diagnostic services for highly infectious pathogens such SARS-CoV-2 in high disease-burdened settings with limited laboratory infrastructures.

Diagnostic Approaches for COVID-19 and Its Associated Complications

With almost 4 million deaths worldwide from the COVID-19 pandemic, the efficient and accurate diagnosis and identification of COVID-19-related complications are more important than ever. Scales such as the pneumonia severity index, or CURB-65, help doctors determine who should be admitted to the hospital or the intensive care unit. To properly treat and manage admitted patients, standardized sampling protocols and methods are required for COVID-19 patients. Using PubMed, relevant articles since March 2020 on COVID-19 diagnosis and its complications were analyzed. Patients with COVID-19 had elevated D-dimer, thrombomodulin, and initial factor V elevation followed by decreased factor V and factor VII and elevated IL-6, lactate dehydrogenase, and c-reactive protein, which indicated coagulopathy and possible cytokine storm. Patients with hypertension, newly diagnosed diabetes, obesity, or advanced age were at increased risk for mortality. Elevated BUN, AST, and ALT in severe COVID-19 patients was associated with acute kidney injury or other organ damage. The gold standard for screening COVID-19 is reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) using sputum, oropharyngeal, or nasopharyngeal routes. However, due to the low turnover rate and limited testing capacity of RT-PCR, alternative diagnostic tools such as CT-scan and serological testing (IgM and IgG) can be considered in conjunction with symptom monitoring. Advancements in CRISPR technology have also allowed the use of alternative COVID-19 testing, but unfortunately, these technologies are still under FDA review and cannot be used in patients. Nonetheless, increased turnover rates and testing capacity allow for a bright future in COVID-19 diagnosis.

The Case against Antibiotics and for Anti-Virulence Therapeutics

Although antibiotics have been indispensable in the advancement of modern medicine, there are downsides to their use. Growing resistance to broad-spectrum antibiotics is leading to an epidemic of infections untreatable by first-line therapies. Resistance is exacerbated by antibiotics used as growth factors in livestock, over-prescribing by doctors, and poor treatment adherence by patients. This generates populations of resistant bacteria that can then spread resistance genes horizontally to other bacterial species, including commensals. Furthermore, even when antibiotics are used appropriately, they harm commensal bacteria leading to increased secondary infection risk. Effective antibiotic treatment can induce bacterial survival tactics, such as toxin release and increasing resistance gene transfer. These problems highlight the need for new approaches to treating bacterial infection. Current solutions include combination therapies, narrow-spectrum therapeutics, and antibiotic stewardship programs. These mediate the issues but do not address their root cause. One emerging solution to these problems is anti-virulence treatment: preventing bacterial pathogenesis instead of using bactericidal agents. In this review, we discuss select examples of potential anti-virulence targets and strategies that could be developed into bacterial infection treatments: the bacterial type III secretion system, quorum sensing, and liposomes.

Monocyte distribution width (MDW) parameter as a sepsis indicator in intensive care units

OBJECTIVES

Patients in Intensive Care Units (ICU) are a high-risk population for sepsis, recognized as a major cause of admission and death. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and prognostication of monocyte distribution width (MDW) in sepsis for patients admitted to ICU.

METHODS

Between January and June 2020, we conducted a prospective observational study during the hospitalization of 506 adult patients admitted to the ICU. MDW was evaluated in 2,367 consecutive samples received for routine complete blood counts (CBC) performed once a day and every day during the study. Sepsis was diagnosed according to Sepsis-3 criteria and patients enrolled were classified in the following groups: no sepsis, sepsis and septic shock.

RESULTS

MDW values were significantly higher in patients with sepsis or septic shock in comparison to those within the no sepsis group [median 26.23 (IQR: 23.48-29.83); 28.97 (IQR: 21.27-37.21); 21.99 (IQR: 19.86-24.36) respectively]. ROC analysis demonstrated that AUC is 0.785 with a sensitivity of 66.88% and specificity of 77.79% at a cut-off point of 24.63. In patients that developed an ICU-acquired sepsis MDW showed an increase from 21.33 [median (IQR: 19.47-21.72)] to 29.19 [median (IQR: 27.46-31.47)]. MDW increase is not affected by the aetiology of sepsis, even in patients with COVID-19. In sepsis survivors a decrease of MDW values were found from the first time to the end of their stay [median from 29.14 (IQR: 26.22-32.52) to 25.67 (IQR: 22.93-30.28)].

CONCLUSIONS

In ICU, MDW enhances the sepsis detection and is related to disease severity.

Analytical sensitivity and clinical sensitivity of the three rapid antigen detection kits for detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus

•

We compared the three commercially available rapid antigen detection (RAD) kits for detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus.

•

The three RAD kits varied from 10²–10⁵ fold less sensitive than RT-PCR.

•

Clinical sensitivity of RAD kits ranged from 22.9 %–71.4 % for detecting respiratory specimens from COVID-19 patients.

•

Understanding the clinical characteristics of different RAD kits can increase the likelihood of positive results.

Background

Numerous rapid antigen detection (RAD) kits for diagnosing COVID-19 patients are available in the market recently.

Objective

To compare analytical sensitivity and clinical sensitivity for the three commercially available RAD kits.

Study Design

Analytical sensitivity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus was determined by limit of detection (LOD) using RT-PCR as a reference method. Clinical sensitivity was evaluated by using respiratory specimens collected from confirmed COVID-19 patients.

Results

The LOD results showed that the three RAD kits varied from 10²–10⁵ fold less sensitive than RT-PCR. Clinical sensitivity of RAD kits ranged from 22.9 %–71.4 % for detecting specimens from COVID-19 patients.

Conclusions

Although RAD kits were less sensitive than RT-PCR, understanding the clinical characteristics of different RAD kits can guide us to obtain suitable specimens for testing. The likelihood of positive results for RAD kits will be higher.