BACKGROUND:Respiratory viruses are responsible for millions of healthcare visits annually. The unpredictable periodicity of Coronavirus disease 2019 and seasonal patterns of influenza and respiratory syncytial virus result in concurrent circulation of these viruses with non-specific and overlapping clinical symptoms. STUDY DESIGN:This study evaluated the Cepheid Xpert Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus test using 3011 nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and 2943 anterior nasal (NS) specimens. The assay was evaluated in CLIA-accredited (CA) laboratories with laboratory trained operators and CLIA-waived (CW) settings with non-laboratory personnel. Results were compared to the BioFire Respiratory Panel 2.1 for SARS-CoV-2 and Hologic Panther Fusion Flu A/B/RSV for influenza A, influenza B, and RSV. Cepheid Xpert Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus testing of NPS and NS specimens had high positive and negative agreement with reference testing. RESULTS:Overall agreement for NPS was 98.8 %, 99.1 %, 99.9 %, and 100 % for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B, and RSV, respectively. For NS, overall agreement was 98.7 %, 99.3 %, 99.9 %, and 99.9 % for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B, and RSV, respectively. Specimen testing performed at CA and CW locations also had high positive and negative agreement with reference testing. Overall agreement for CA testing was 97.7 %, 99.6 %, 100 %, and 100 % for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B, and RSV, respectively. For CW testing, overall agreement was 98.8 %, 99.0 %, 99.9 %, and 99.9 % for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B, and RSV, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrates that Xpert Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus provides rapid and accurate results from NPS and NS specimens in CA and CW testing facilities regardless of staff experience with molecular testing.

The test-negative design (TND) has been widely used to assess postmarketing COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness but requires further evaluation for this application. To determine whether the TND reliably evaluates vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 using placebo-controlled vaccine efficacy randomized clinical trials (RCTs). This secondary cross-protocol analysis constructed TND study datasets from study sites in 16 countries across 5 continents using the blinded phase cohorts of 5 harmonized phase 3 COVID-19 Prevention Network RCTs: COVE (Coronavirus Vaccine Efficacy and Safety), AZD1222, ENSEMBLE, PREVENT-19 (Prefusion Protein Subunit Vaccine Efficacy Novavax Trial COVID-19), and VAT00008. Participants included adults who received the intended number of doses, experienced COVID-19–like symptoms, and obtained SARS-CoV-2 testing. Start dates ranged from July 27, 2020, to October 19, 2021; data cutoff dates ranged from March 26, 2021, to March 15, 2022. Statistical analysis was performed from May 11, 2023, to February 25, 2025. Participants received vaccines consisting of messenger RNA-1273 (COVE; 2 doses 28 days apart), ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222; 2 doses 28 days apart), Ad26.COV2.S (ENSEMBLE; 1 dose), NVX-CoV2373 (PREVENT-19; 2 doses 21 days apart), CoV2 preS dTM-AS03 (VAT00008; D614) (2 doses 21 days apart), or CoV2 preS dTM-AS03 (D614 plus B.1.351) (VAT00008; 2 doses 21 days apart) or placebo. Main outcomes were symptomatic COVID-19 according to each trial’s primary efficacy definition and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated using targeted maximum likelihood estimation under a semiparametric logistic regression model and ordinary logistic regression. Noncase exchangeability, a core TND assumption for unbiased estimation, was also assessed by estimating vaccine efficacy against non–COVID-19 illness. Among the 12 157 participants included in the analysis, mean (SD) age was 45 (15) years, 6414 were female (53%), 5858 were vaccinated (48%), 2835 experienced primary COVID-19 (23%), and 2992 experienced Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–defined COVID-19 (25%). TND vaccine effectiveness estimates were concordant with RCT vaccine efficacy estimates (concordance correlation coefficient, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.58-0.96] for both outcomes). The semiparametric method had 48% smaller variance estimates than ordinary logistic regression. Noncase exchangeability was generally supported with a median vaccine efficacy against non–COVID-19 illness of 7.7% (IQR, 2.7%-16.8%) across trial cohorts and most 95% CIs including 0. In this cross-protocol analysis, the TND provided reliable inferences on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness in health care–seeking populations for multiple vaccines and symptom definitions when confounding and selection bias were absent. A machine-learning approach for robust confounding control in postmarketing TND studies was also introduced.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues its largely aseasonal spread with millions of cases per year. Highly sensitive, point-of-care testing is critical for rapid detection of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases and initiation of antiviral therapy to avert adverse health outcomes and reduce onward transmission of the virus. While hundreds of COVID-19 diagnostics received emergency use authorization from the FDA during the pandemic, significantly fewer have navigated the course to FDA clearance or approval. Here, we determined the clinical performance of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress CoV-2 plus for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in 3,750 anterior nasal swab (NS) specimens and nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) from 32 sites in comparison to the FDA-authorized BioFire Respiratory Panel 2.1. Three-quarters of specimens collected were tested on the Xpert Xpress CoV-2 plus in the point-of-care setting. Overall positive percent agreement (PPA) was 98.1% (95% CI: 96.7%-98.9%) and negative percent agreement (NPA) was 98.3% (97.7%-98.7%). Performance of the Xpert Xpress CoV-2 plus was slightly improved in NS compared to NPS specimens, with PPA of 99.3% versus 97.0% (Fisher's exact test, P = 0.06) and NPA of 98.3% versus 98.2% (P = 0.89), respectively. Assay PPA was similar between untrained and trained users (98.7% vs 97.3%, P = 0.75), while NPA was slightly improved for untrained users (99.0% vs 97.6%, P = 0.0003). This study showed that Cepheid Xpert Xpress COV-2 plus is highly sensitive and specific/has high PPA and NPA for detection of SARS-CoV-2 from both NS and NPS specimens. IMPORTANCE:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to cause millions of infections and tens of thousands of deaths per year in the United States. While the FDA authorized hundreds of SARS-CoV-2 tests during the public health emergency, significantly fewer have made the transition to being cleared or approved. There continues to be a need for FDA-authorized point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 testing that can be performed by untrained users. We conducted a large prospective study of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress CoV-2 plus test for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in both nasal and nasopharyngeal swabs by trained and untrained users. The assay demonstrated excellent clinical performance characteristics and, as a result of this study, was cleared by the FDA.

In this prospective, observational, method comparison clinical study, the Xpert Xpress MVP test (MVP) was evaluated using both clinician-collected (CVS) and self-collected vaginal swabs (SVS) collected in a clinical setting. The study was conducted at 12 sites, including point-of-care (POC) settings, from geographically diverse locations in the United States. ABSTRACT In this prospective, observational, method comparison clinical study, the Xpert Xpress MVP test (MVP) was evaluated using both clinician-collected (CVS) and self-collected vaginal swabs (SVS) collected in a clinical setting. The study was conducted at 12 sites, including point-of-care (POC) settings, from geographically diverse locations in the United States. Participants were biologically female patients ≥ 14 years old with signs and/or symptoms of vaginitis/vaginosis. MVP test results for BV were compared to the BD MAX Vaginal Panel (BDVP). Results for Candida group and Candida glabrata and Candida krusei targets (species not differentiated) were assessed relative to yeast culture followed by mass spectrometry for species identification. Trichomonas vaginalis (TV) results were compared relative to a composite method that included results from the BDVP and InPouch TV culture. The investigational test demonstrated high positive percent agreement ranging from 93.6 to 99.0%, and negative percent agreement ranging from 92.1% to 99.8% for both CVS and SVS specimens, indicating it may be a valuable tool for the diagnosis of vaginitis/vaginosis in laboratory and POC settings.

ImportanceCurrent data identifying COVID-19 risk factors lack standardized outcomes and insufficiently control for confounders.ObjectiveTo identify risk factors associated with COVID-19, severe COVID-19, and SARS-CoV-2 infection.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis secondary cross-protocol analysis included 4 multicenter, international, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled, COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials with harmonized protocols established by the COVID-19 Prevention Network. Individual-level data from participants randomized to receive placebo within each trial were combined and analyzed. Enrollment began July 2020 and the last data cutoff was in July 2021. Participants included adults in stable health, at risk for SARS-CoV-2, and assigned to the placebo group within each vaccine trial. Data were analyzed from April 2022 to February 2023.ExposuresComorbid conditions, demographic factors, and SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk at the time of enrollment.Main Outcomes and MeasuresCoprimary outcomes were COVID-19 and severe COVID-19. Multivariate Cox proportional regression models estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% CIs for baseline covariates, accounting for trial, region, and calendar time. Secondary outcomes included severe COVID-19 among people with COVID-19, subclinical SARS-CoV-2 infection, and SARS-CoV-2 infection.ResultsA total of 57 692 participants (median [range] age, 51 [18-95] years; 11 720 participants [20.3%] aged ≥65 years; 31 058 participants [53.8%] assigned male at birth) were included. The analysis population included 3270 American Indian or Alaska Native participants (5.7%), 7849 Black or African American participants (13.6%), 17 678 Hispanic or Latino participants (30.6%), and 40 745 White participants (70.6%). Annualized incidence was 13.9% (95% CI, 13.3%-14.4%) for COVID-19 and 2.0% (95% CI, 1.8%-2.2%) for severe COVID-19. Factors associated with increased rates of COVID-19 included workplace exposure (high vs low: aHR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.16-1.58]; medium vs low: aHR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.21-1.65]; P < .001) and living condition risk (very high vs low risk: aHR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.21-1.66]; medium vs low risk: aHR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.32]; P < .001). Factors associated with decreased rates of COVID-19 included previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.09-0.19]; P < .001), age 65 years or older (aHR vs age <65 years, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.50-0.64]; P < .001) and Black or African American race (aHR vs White race, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.67-0.91]; P = .002). Factors associated with increased rates of severe COVID-19 included race (American Indian or Alaska Native vs White: aHR, 2.61 [95% CI, 1.85-3.69]; multiracial vs White: aHR, 2.19 [95% CI, 1.50-3.20]; P < .001), diabetes (aHR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.14-2.08]; P = .005) and at least 2 comorbidities (aHR vs none, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.09-1.76]; P = .008). In analyses restricted to participants who contracted COVID-19, increased severe COVID-19 rates were associated with age 65 years or older (aHR vs <65 years, 1.75 [95% CI, 1.32-2.31]; P < .001), race (American Indian or Alaska Native vs White: aHR, 1.98 [95% CI, 1.38-2.83]; Black or African American vs White: aHR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.03-2.14]; multiracial: aHR, 1.81 [95% CI, 1.21-2.69]; overall P = .001), body mass index (aHR per 1-unit increase, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.01-1.04]; P = .001), and diabetes (aHR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.37-2.49]; P < .001). Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with decreased severe COVID-19 rates (aHR, 0.04 [95% CI, 0.01-0.14]; P < .001).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this secondary cross-protocol analysis of 4 randomized clinical trials, exposure and demographic factors had the strongest associations with outcomes; results could inform mitigation strategies for SARS-CoV-2 and viruses with comparable epidemiological characteristics.

Background: Whereas existing Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) vaccines are highly effective against severe disease and death, their ability to reduce infection is unclear.Methods: Adolescents (ages 12 through 17 years) in the United States participating in a phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded trial of the Novavax NVX-CoV2373 protein subunit vaccine were invited to participate in an ancillary study to collect nasal swabs at home twice weekly for SARS-CoV-2 testing. The primary endpoint was vaccine efficacy (VE) against SARS-CoV-2 infection (regardless of symptomatology) among participants who had not been previously infected, with onset within 4 weeks after dose 2 of the initial vaccination series until dose 2 of the blinded crossover series.Results: From June through December 2021, during the Delta wave, 1196 (53%) of the 2247 phase 3 trial participants enrolled in the ancillary study. The 471 vaccine and 220 placebo recipients in the primary endpoint analysis submitted 28,489 (63% of expected) swabs and experienced 14.9 infections per 100 person-years [95% CI 7.9 to 25.5] and 54.2 [95% CI 33.6-82.9], respectively; the VE against any infection was 73.5% [95% CI 47.1-86.7, p<0.01]. Sixty-eight percent of infections were asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic, not meeting the Covid-19 trial definition, with a VE (secondary end point) of 72.8% [95% CI 37.1-88.2, p<0.01].Conclusions: Among adolescents participating in a randomized, observer-blind, placebo-controlled trial during the Delta wave, NVX-CoV2373 was highly efficacious against SARS-CoV-2 infection regardless of symptomatology, indicating the potential to reduce the reservoir of infections that contribute to community transmission.Trial Registration: (ClinTrials.gov number, NCT04611802)Funding: This project has been supported in whole or in part with federal funds from the Department of Health and Human Services; Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response; Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), under contract number 75A50120D00017. Additional funding was provided to University of Maryland, Baltimore Implementing Vaccine Treatment and Evaluation Unit Cooperative Agreement UM1 AI 14Declaration of Interest: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.Ethical Approval: The SNIFF study protocol was approved by an independent central Institutional Review Board (IRB), Western IRB-Copernicus Group (WCG) (IRB00000533) with written consent (parents) and assent (adolescent participants) obtained prior to any study procedures

Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) for SARS-CoV-2 is the standard approach for confirming COVID-19 cases. This study compared results between two emergency use authorization (EUA) NAATs, with two additional EUA NAATs utilized for discrepant testing.

ABSTRACTBackgroundThe RT-qPCR assay for detecting SARS-CoV-2 virus is the favorable approach to test suspected COVID-19 cases. However, discordant results can occur when two or more assays are compared. Variability in analytical sensitivities between assays, among other factors, may account for these differences in reporting.MethodsThe limits of detection (LOD) for the BD SARS-CoV-2 Reagents for BD MAX™ System (“MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay”), the Biomerieux BioFire® Respiratory Panel 2.1 (“BioFire SARS-CoV-2 assay”), the Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay (“cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay”), and the Hologic Aptima® SARS-CoV-2 assay Panther® (“Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay”) RT-qPCR systems were determined using a total of 84 contrived nasopharyngeal specimens with seven target levels for each comparator. The positive and negative percent agreement (PPA and NPA, respectively) for the MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay were compared to the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay in a post-market clinical study utilizing 708 paired nasopharyngeal specimens collected from suspected COVID-19 cases. Discordant results were further tested by the cobas and BioFire SARS-CoV-2 assays.ResultsThe measured LOD for the MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay (251 copies/mL) was comparable to the cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay (298 copies/mL) and the BioFire SARS-CoV-2 assay (302 copies/mL); the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay had a LOD of 612 copies/mL. The MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay had a PPA of 100% (95%CI: [97.3%-100.0%]) and a NPA of 96.7% (95%CI: [94.9%-97.9%]) when compared to the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay.ConclusionsThe MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay exhibited a high analytical sensitivity and specificity for SARS-CoV-2 detection. The clinical performance of the MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay agreed with another sensitive EUA cleared assay.

Infectious vaginitis due to bacterial vaginosis (BV), vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC), and Trichomonas vaginalis accounts for a significant proportion of all gynecologic visits in the United States. A prospective multicenter clinical study was conducted to validate the performance of two new in vitro diagnostic transcription-mediated amplification nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for diagnosis of BV, VVC, and trichomoniasis.

ABSTRACTObjectivesThe clinical performance of the BD Veritor™ System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Veritor), a chromatographic immunoassay that detects the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen as a point-of-care test, was evaluated on nasal specimens from individuals with COVID-19 symptoms.Methods and MaterialsTwo studies were completed to determine clinical performance. In the first study, nasal specimens and either nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal specimens from 251 participants with COVID-19 symptoms (≤7 days from symptom onset [DSO]), ≥18 years of age, were utilized to compare Veritor with the Lyra®SARS-CoV-2 PCR Assay (Lyra). In the second study, nasal specimens from 361 participants with COVID-19 symptoms (≤5 DSO), ≥18 years of age, were utilized to compare performance of Veritor to that of the Sofia®2 SARS Antigen FIA test (Sofia 2). Positive, negative, and overall percent agreement (PPA, NPA, and OPA, respectively) were the primary outcomes.ResultsIn study 1, PPA for Veritor, compared to Lyra, ranged from 81.8%-87.5% for 0-1 through 0-6 DSO ranges. In study 2, Veritor had a PPA, NPA, and OPA of 97.4%, 98.1%, and 98.1%, respectively, with Sofia 2. Discordant analysis showed one Lyra positive missed by Veritor and five Lyra positives missed by Sofia 2; one Veritor positive result was negative by Lyra.ConclusionsVeritor met FDA-EUA acceptance criteria for SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing (≥80% PPA point estimate) for the 0-5 and 0-6 DSO ranges. Veritor and Sofia 2 showed a high degree of agreement for SARS-CoV-2 detection. The Veritor test should facilitate rapid and reliable results for COVID-19 diagnosis utilizing easy-to-collect nasal swabs.SummaryThe BD Veritor SARS-CoV-2 antigen test met FDA-EUA acceptance criteria for SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing for subjects with COVID-19 symptoms (0-5 days post-onset). BD Veritor and Quidel Sofia 2 antigen tests had good agreement for SARS-CoV-2 detection; discordant analysis favored Veritor.

INTRODUCTION:Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD) is characterized by low sexual desire that causes marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.AIM:The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of the 5-HT1A agonist/5-HT2A antagonist flibanserin in premenopausal women with HSDD.METHODS:This was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in which premenopausal women with HSDD (mean age: 36.6 years) were treated with flibanserin 100 mg once daily at bedtime (qhs) (n = 542) or placebo (n = 545) for 24 weeks.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Coprimary end points were the change from baseline to study end in Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) desire domain score and in number of satisfying sexual events (SSE) over 28 days. Secondary end points included the change from baseline in FSFI total score, Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised (FSDS-R) total score, and FSDS-R Item 13 score.RESULTS:Compared with placebo, flibanserin led to increases in mean (standard deviation) SSE of 2.5 (4.6) vs. 1.5 (4.5), mean (standard error [SE]) FSFI desire domain score of 1.0 (0.1) vs. 0.7 (0.1), and mean (SE) FSFI total score of 5.3 (0.3) vs. 3.5 (0.3); and decreases in mean (SE) FSDS-R Item 13 score of -1.0 (0.1) vs. -0.7 (0.1) and mean (SE) FSDS-R total score of -9.4 (0.6) vs. -6.1 (0.6); all P ≤ 0.0001. The most frequently reported adverse events in the flibanserin group were somnolence, dizziness, and nausea, with adverse events leading to discontinuation in 9.6% of women receiving flibanserin vs. 3.7% on placebo.CONCLUSION:In premenopausal women with HSDD, flibanserin 100 mg qhs resulted in significant improvements in the number of SSE and sexual desire (FSFI desire domain score) vs. placebo. Flibanserin was associated with significant reductions in distress associated with sexual dysfunction (FSDS-R total score) and distress associated with low sexual desire (FSDS-R Item 13) vs. placebo. There were no significant safety concerns associated with the use of flibanserin for 24 weeks.