Neuroimaging is increasingly used to supplement the clinical diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) by showing reduced occipital metabolism and perfusion and reduced striatal dopaminergic innervation. We aimed to optimize the interpretation of 18 F-FDG PET images for differentiating DLB from Alzheimer disease (AD) and to compare the results with dopamine transporter imaging using 123 I-b-carbomethoxy-3ß-(4-iodophenyl)-tropane ( 123 I-b-CIT) SPECT. Methods: Fourteen subjects with a clinical diagnosis of DLB and 10 with AD underwent both 18 F-FDG PET and 123 I-b-CIT SPECT. Four DLB and 1 AD diagnoses were subsequently confirmed at autopsy. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated for visual interpretation by 3 readers of standard 3-plane and stereotactic surface projection 18 F-FDG PET images, receiver-operating-characteristic analysis of regional 18 F-FDG uptake, and a cutoff value for the striatal-to-occipital binding ratio of b-CIT defined by receiver-operating-characteristic analysis. Results: Visual interpretation of 3-plane 18 F-FDG PET images had a sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 93% for DLB, slightly higher than the results with the stereotactic surface projection images. Regionally, hypometabolism in the lateral occipital cortex had the highest sensitivity (88%), but relative preservation of the mid or posterior cingulate gyrus (cingulate island sign) had the highest specificity (100%). Region-of-interest analysis revealed that occipital hypometabolism and relative preservation of the posterior cingulate both had a sensitivity of 77% and specificity of 80%. b-CIT achieved 100% accuracy and greater effect size than did 18 F-FDG PET (Cohen d 5 4.1 vs. 1.9). Conclusion: Both 18 F-FDG PET and 123 I-b-CIT SPECT appear useful for the diagnosis of DLB, although the latter provides more robust results. The cingulate island sign may enhance the specificity of 18 F-FDG PET.

Background Robust serological assays are essential for long-term control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many recently released point-of-care (PoCT) serological assays have been distributed with little premarket validation. Methods Performance characteristics for 5 PoCT lateral flow devices approved for use in Australia were compared to a commercial enzyme immunoassay (ELISA) and a recently described novel surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT). Results Sensitivities for PoCT ranged from 51.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43.1%–60.4%) to 67.9% (95% CI, 59.4%–75.6%), and specificities from 95.6% (95% CI, 89.2%–98.8%) to 100.0% (95% CI, 96.1%–100.0%). ELISA sensitivity for IgA or IgG detection was 67.9% (95% CI, 59.4%–75.6%), increasing to 93.8% (95% CI, 85.0%–98.3%) for samples >14 days post symptom onset. sVNT sensitivity was 60.9% (95% CI, 53.2%–68.4%), rising to 91.2% (95% CI, 81.8%–96.7%) for samples >14 days post symptom onset, with specificity 94.4% (95% CI, 89.2%–97.5%). Conclusions Performance characteristics for COVID-19 serological assays were generally lower than those reported by manufacturers. Timing of specimen collection relative to onset of illness or infection is crucial in reporting of performance characteristics for COVID-19 serological assays. The optimal algorithm for implementing serological testing for COVID-19 remains to be determined, particularly in low-prevalence settings.

Background: Robust serological assays are essential for long-term control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many recently released point-of-care (PoCT) serological assays have been distributed with little pre-market validation. Methods: Performance characteristics for five PoCT lateral flow devices approved for use in Australia were compared to a commercial enzyme immunoassay (ELISA) and a recently described novel surrogate virus neutralisation test (sVNT). Results: Sensitivities for PoCT ranged from 51.8% (95% CI 43.1 to 60.4%) to 67.9% (95% CI 59.4-75.6%), and specificities from 95.6% (95% CI 89.2-98.8%) to 100.0% (95% CI 96.1-100.0%). Overall ELISA sensitivity for either IgA or IgG detection was 67.9% (95% CI 59.4-75.6), increasing to 93.8% (95% CI 85.0-98.3%) for samples >14 days post symptom onset. Overall, sVNT sensitivity was 60.9% (95% CI 53.2-68.4%), rising to 91.2%% (95% CI 81.8-96.7%) for samples collected >14 days post-symptom onset, with a specificity 94.4% (95% CI 89.2-97.5%), Conclusion: Performance characteristics for COVID-19 serological assays were generally lower than those reported by manufacturers. Timing of specimen collection relative to onset of illness or infection is crucial in the reporting of performance characteristics for COVID-19 serological assays. The optimal algorithm for implementing serological testing for COVID-19 remains to be determined, particularly in low-prevalence settings.

Objectives To design and evaluate 3D‐printed nasal swabs for collection of samples for SARS‐CoV‐2 testing. Design An iterative design process was employed. Laboratory evaluation included in vitro assessment of mock nasopharyngeal samples spiked with two different concentrations of gamma‐irradiated SARS‐CoV‐2. A prospective clinical study compared SARS‐CoV‐2 and human cellular material recovery by 3D‐printed swabs and standard nasopharyngeal swabs. Setting, participants Royal Melbourne Hospital, May 2020. Participants in the clinical evaluation were 50 hospital staff members attending a COVID‐19 screening clinic and two inpatients with laboratory‐confirmed COVID‐19. Intervention In the clinical evaluation, a flocked nasopharyngeal swab sample was collected with the Copan ESwab and a mid‐nasal sample from the other nostril was collected with the 3D‐printed swab. Results In the laboratory evaluation, qualitative agreement with regard to SARS‐CoV‐2 detection in mock samples collected with 3D‐printed swabs and two standard swabs was complete. In the clinical evaluation, qualitative agreement with regard to RNase P detection (a surrogate measure of adequate collection of human cellular material) in samples collected from 50 hospital staff members with standard and 3D‐printed swabs was complete. Qualitative agreement with regard to SARS‐CoV‐2 detection in three pairs of 3D‐printed mid‐nasal and standard swab samples from two inpatients with laboratory‐confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 was also complete. Conclusions Using 3D‐printed swabs to collect nasal samples for SARS‐CoV‐2 testing is feasible, acceptable to patients and health carers, and convenient.

Circulating CD147 is an independent marker of survival in advanced HCC. CD147 requires further evaluation as a potential new prognostic measure in HCC to identify patients with advanced disease who have a poor prognosis.