To meet the unprecedented requirement of diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2, a large number of diagnostic kits were authorized by concerned authorities for diagnostic use within a short period of time during the initial phases of the ongoing pandemic. We undertook this study to evaluate the inter-test agreement and other key operational features of 5 such commercial kits that have been extensively used in India for routine diagnostic testing for COVID-19. The five commercial kits were evaluated, using a panel of positive and negative respiratory samples, considering the kit provided by National Institute of Virology, Indian Council of Medical Research (2019-nCoV Kit) as the reference. The positive panel comprised of individuals who fulfilled the 3 criteria of being clinically symptomatic, having history of contact with diagnosed cases and testing positive in the reference kit. The negative panel included both healthy and disease controls, the latter being drawn from individuals diagnosed with other respiratory viral infections. The same protocol of sample collection, same RNA extraction kit and same RT-PCR instrument were used for all the kits. Clinical samples were collected from a panel of 92 cases and 60 control patients, who fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The control group included equal number of healthy individuals and patients infected with other respiratory viruses (n = 30, in each group). We observed varying sensitivity and specificity among the evaluated kits, with LabGun COVID-19 RT-PCR kit showing the highest sensitivity and specificity (94% and 100% respectively), followed by TaqPath COVID-19 Combo and Allplex 2019-nCoV assays. The extent of inter-test agreement was not associated with viral loads of the samples. Poor correlation was observed between Ct values of the same genes amplified using different kits. Our findings reveal the presence of wide heterogeneity and sub-optimal inter-test agreement in the diagnostic performance of the evaluated kits and hint at the need of adopting stringent standards for fulfilling the quality assurance requirements of the COVID-19 diagnostic process.

Introduction: Tuberculous meningitis (TBM) is a manifestation of extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB). The central nervous system is involved in about 1%-2% of all current tuberculosis (TB) cases and about 7%-8% of all EPTB. if not treated early, TBM leads to a high rate of neurological sequelae and mortality. Objective: This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of the GeneXpert MTB/rifampicin (RIF) assay in patients with TBM. Methods: A total of 100 suspected TBM cases were enrolled from various departments at tertiary care hospital, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India, and classified as definite, possible, or probable TBM. The clinical samples were tested for microbiological and other cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) testing. Results: Out of 100 cases, 14 (14%) were classified as definite TBM, 15 (15%) were having probable TBM, and 71 (71%) were having possible TBM. Out of a total of 100 participants, all were negative for acid-fast bacilli (AFB) staining. Of the 100 cases, 11 (11%) were positive by mycobacterium growth indicator tube (MGIT) culture, of which only four (36.36%) were positive by GeneXpert MTB/RIF. GeneXpert MTB/RIF detected three (3%) cases that were negative by MGIT culture. Ten (90.9%) of the 11 MGIT-positive culture isolates were found to be RIF sensitive while one (9.1%) was found to be RIF resistant. Three cases tested positive/sensitive by the GeneXpert MTB/RIF but negative by MGIT culture. Six (85%) of the seven GeneXpert MTB/RIF positive cases were RIF sensitive while one (15%) was RIF resistant. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy were 36.36% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) (10.93% to 69.21%)), 96.63% (95% CI (90.46% to 99.30%)), 57.14% (95% CI (25.50% to 83.85%)), 92.47% (95% CI (88.70% to 95.06%)) and 90% (95% CI (82.38% to 95.10%)) for GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay, compared with MGIT culture as the reference standard. Conclusion: Our study found that the sensitivity is lower when compared to culture, so using GeneXpert MTB/RIF alone is not recommended. Overall performance of GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay is noteworthy. The GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay is a potentially accepted test for obtaining an earlier diagnosis, and if it tested positive, the treatment should begin immediately. However, culture must be performed in GeneXpert MTB/RIF negative cases.

The Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), also referred to as Novel Coronavirus Disease, is a contagious viral disease with a high rate of confirmed cases. Therefore, treatment options are urgently needed to fight the deadly virus. Since there is no standard treatment available, it results in increased morbidity and mortality. The development process of a new drug takes years, so it is crucial to focus on repurposed drugs to reduce the severity of this disease. This review aims to describe the regulatory and molecular aspects of repurposed and adjuvant drugs for COVID-19 based on registered clinical trials and online literature. The use of repurposed drugs brings its own ethical issues and challenges. The challenges of the correct interpretation of existing pre-clinical/clinical evidence and the generation of new evidence concerning drug repurposing in COVID-19 and the issues faced by the repurposing community will also be discussed in the review. When drug repurposing is employed in emergency situations, regional limitations of clinical research ethics, involuntary risk burden, regulatory aspects and ethical issues, fairness in resource distribution for repurposed drugs become an issue that requires careful ethical consideration.

No abstract