Background: RT-qPCR is the reference test for identification of active SARS-CoV-2 infection, but is associated with diagnostic delay. Antigen detection assays can generate results within 20 minutes and outside of laboratory settings. Yet, their diagnostic test performance in real life settings has not been determined. Methods: The diagnostic value of the Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (Abbott), was determined in comparison to RT-qPCR (Seegene Allplex) in community-dwelling mildly symptomatic subjects in a medium (Utrecht, the Netherlands) and high endemic area (Aruba), using two concurrently obtained nasopharyngeal swabs. Findings: 1367 and 208 subjects were enrolled in Utrecht and Aruba, respectively. SARS-CoV-2 prevalence, based on RT-qPCR, was 10.2% (n=139) and 30.3% (n=63) in Utrecht and Aruba respectively. Specificity of the Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test was 100% (95%CI: 99.7-100%) in both settings. Test sensitivity was 72.6% (95%CI: 64.5-79.9%) in the Netherlands and 81.0% (95% CI: 69.0-89.8%) in Aruba. Probability of false negative results was associated with RT-qPCR Ct-values, but not with duration of symptoms. Restricting RT-qPCR test positivity to Ct-values <32 yielded test sensitivities of 95.2% (95%CI: 89.3-98.5%) in the Netherlands and 98.0% (95%CI: 89.2-99.95%) in Aruba. Interpretation: In community-dwelling subjects with mild respiratory symptoms the Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test had 100% specificity, and a sensitivity above 95% for nasopharyngeal samples when using Ct values <32 cycles as cut-off for RT-qPCR test positivity. Considering short turnaround times, user friendliness, low costs and opportunities for decentralized testing, this test can improve our efforts to control transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Funding: UMCU and LABHOH, Aruba

Background: RT-qPCR is the reference test for identification of active SARS-CoV-2 infection, but is associated with diagnostic delay. Antigen detection assays can generate results within 20 min and outside of laboratory settings. Yet, their diagnostic test performance in real life settings has not been determined. Methods: The diagnostic value of the Panbio TM COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (Abbott), was determined in comparison to RT-qPCR (Seegene Allplex) in community-dwelling mildly symptomatic subjects in a medium (Utrecht, the Netherlands) and high endemic area (Aruba), using two concurrently obtained nasopharyngeal swabs. Findings: 1367 and 208 subjects were enrolled in Utrecht and Aruba, respectively. SARS-CoV-2 prevalence, based on RT-qPCR, was 10.2% (n = 139) and 30.3% (n = 63) in Utrecht and Aruba respectively. Specificity of the Panbio TM COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test was 100% (95%CI: 99.7À100%) in both settings. Test sensitivity was 72.6% (95%CI: 64.5À79.9%) in the Netherlands and 81.0% (95% CI: 69.0À89.8%) in Aruba. Probability of false negative results was associated with RT-qPCR Ct-values, but not with duration of symptoms. Restricting RT-qPCR test positivity to Ct-values <32 yielded test sensitivities of 95.2% (95%CI: 89.3À98.5%) in Utrecht and 98.0% (95%CI: 89.2À99.95%) in Aruba. Interpretation: In community-dwelling subjects with mild respiratory symptoms the Panbio TM COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test had 100% specificity, and a sensitivity above 95% for nasopharyngeal samples when using Ct-values <32 cycles as cut-off for RT-qPCR test positivity. Considering short turnaround times, user friendliness, low costs and opportunities for decentralized testing, this test can improve our efforts to control transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

BackgroundA low cost and accurate method for detecting high-risk (HR) human papillomavirus (HPV) is important to permit HPV testing for cervical cancer prevention. We used a commercially available HPV method (H13, Hybribio) which was documented to function accurately in a reduced volume of cervical specimen to determine the most prevalent HPV types and the distribution of HPV infections in over 1795 cancer-free women in Guatemala undergoing primary screening for cervical cancer by cytology.MethodsHR-HPV detection was attempted in cervical samples from 1795 cancer-free women receiving Pap smears using the Hybribio™ real-time PCR assay of 13 HR types. The test includes a globin gene internal control. HPV positive samples were sequenced to determine viral type. Age-specific prevalence of HPV was also assessed in the study population.ResultsA total of 13% (226/1717) of women tested HPV+, with 78 samples (4.3%) failing to amplify the internal control. The highest prevalence was found in younger women (< 30 years, 22%) and older ones (≥60 years, 15%). The six most common HR-HPV types among the 148 HPV+ typed were HPV16 (22%), HPV18 (11%), HPV39 (11%), HPV58 (10%), HPV52 (8%), and HPV45 (8%).ConclusionsIn this sample of cancer free women in Guatemala, HPV16 was the most prevalent HR type in Guatemala and the age-specific prevalence curve peaked in younger ages. Women in the 30-59-year age groups had a prevalence of HR-HPV of 8%, however, larger studies to better describe the epidemiology of HPV in Guatemala are needed.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4438-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Background: A low cost and accurate method for detecting high-risk (HR) human papilloma

ABSTRACT. Point-of-care ultrasound is an accurate diagnostic and monitoring tool. Its increasing affordability, portability, and versatility make it an excellent component of standard clinical evaluation alongside the stethoscope. However, like the stethoscope, ultrasound carries risks of surface contamination and potential cross-infection. In this international observational study, we compared the surface contamination of ultrasound equipment to stethoscopes in two medical centers: a tropical low-resource hospital and academic high-resource hospital. Ultrasound equipment and coupling gel had similar prevalence of microbial surface contamination compared with observed stethoscopes. Most microbes were commensal Gram-positive, but some were opportunistic and pathogenic microbes (such as Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus). In conclusion, it is crucial to appreciate and reduce the risk of ultrasound device contaminations. When ultrasound is used bedside, similar to stethoscopes, conscientious hygiene measures are equally fundamental.

No abstract

Following publication of the original article [1], an error was reported in the tagging of Joël Fokom Domgue in the author group. The tagging in this correction article has been fixed.