This study aimed to evaluate the performance characteristics of a rapid antigen test developed to detect SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), influenza A virus (IAV), and influenza B virus (IBV) (flu) compared with those of the real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) method. One hundred SARS-CoV-2, one hundred IAV, and twenty-four IBV patients whose diagnoses were confirmed by clinical and laboratory methods were included in the patient group. Seventy-six patients, who were negative for all respiratory tract viruses, were included as the control group. The Panbio™ COVID-19/Flu A&B Rapid Panel test kit was used in the assays. The sensitivity values of the kit were 97.5%, 97.9%, and 33.33% for SARS-CoV-2, IAV, and IBV, respectively, in samples with a viral load below 20 Ct values. The sensitivity values of the kit were 16.7%, 36.5%, and 11.11% for SARS-CoV-2, IAV, and IBV, respectively, in samples with a viral load above 20 Ct. The kit’s specificity was 100%. In conclusion, this kit demonstrated high sensitivity to SARS-CoV-2 and IAV for viral loads below 20 Ct values, but the sensitivity values were not compatible with PCR positivity for lower viral loads over 20 Ct values. Rapid antigen tests may be preferred as a routine screening tool in communal environments, especially in symptomatic individuals, when diagnosing SARS-CoV-2, IAV, and IBV with high caution.

This study aimed to determine the anti-S (receptor binding protein) RBD IgG antibody titers formed against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) and the neutralizing antibody inhibition percentages (nAb IH%) in blood samples taken after two doses of inactive or mRNA-based vaccine and a booster dose. Volunteers with two doses of inactivated CoronaVac (heterologous group; n = 75) and BioNTech (BNT)162b2 mRNA vaccine (homologous group; n = 75) were included in this study. All participants preferred the BNT162b2 vaccine as a booster dose. First, peripheral blood samples were taken 3 months after the second vaccine dose. Second, peripheral blood samples were taken 1 month after the booster dose. Anti-S-RBD IgG titers were determined by CMIA (SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant). Neutralizing antibodies were detected by a surrogate neutralization assay (SARS-CoV-2 NeutraLISA, Euroimmun, Lübeck, Germany). The median age of the volunteers was 40 (IQR 29–47) years old. After the heterologous booster dose, anti-S-RBD IgG levels and neutralizing antibodies increased approximately 50-fold and 9-fold, respectively. Anti-S-RBD IgG titers increased by 9 and 57 times, respectively, while nAb IH% increased by 1.5 and 16 times, respectively, among those with heterologous reminder doses and those with and without a prior history of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This study showed that after the administration of a heterologous booster dose with BNT162b2 to those whose primary vaccination was with inactivated CoronaVac, the binding and neutralizing antibody levels were similar to those who received a homologous BNT162b2 booster dose. It was observed that the administration of heterologous and homologous booster doses resulted in the development of similar levels of neutralizing antibodies, independently from a prior history of COVID-19.

The gold standard in the definitive diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) due to their high sensitivity and specificity in de-tecting viral ribonucleic acid. However, while leaving two years behind in the pandemic, resources have come to the point of exhaustion in terms of both the economy and the manpower working in the field of health services. Therefore, the need for rapid, simple and accurate tests to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection continues. In this study, it was aimed to compare the performance characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests (RAgT) in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases with the real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) method. In Istanbul University-Cerrahpaa Fa-culty of Medicine COVID-19 Molecular Diagnosis Laboratory, SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive respiratory tract samples with viral loads of < 25 Ct (cycle of treshold), 25-29 Ct, 30-35 Ct and 35< Ct, a total of 205 patient samples were selected in four groups. SARS-CoV-2 positive samples were studied by lateral flow method (LFA) using twelve commercial RAgTs of different companies and their performances were evalu-ated. In addition, 90 samples were selected from various respiratory tract samples archived, which were sent to our laboratory for the identification of the non-COVID-19 pathogen(s) causing the respiratory tract infection between 2020-2022 and their specificities for RAgTs were evaluated to avoid cross reacti-vity. The sensitivities of the SARS-CoV-2 RAgTs included in the study, ranged from 40.4-97.5%, while the sensitivity of most of the kits (8/12), at 25 Ct values, was _ 90%, which is the minimum limit in the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)'s guideline for the use of SARS-CoV-2 RAgTs. The specificities of RAgTs were found to be between 90-100%. When the concordance of SARS-CoV-2 RAgTs with rRT-PCR positivity was evaluated with the kappa coefficient, the concordance of only one RAgT was found to be statistically significant (Kappa= 0.88). SARS-CoV-2 RAgTs have a potential use as a diagnostic tool in symptomatic people, as a routine screening tool in community living environments, and in situations such as ending the isolation of the patients. Each country should carry out validation studies before the use of these tests, taking into account of their socio-economic situation, healthcare infrastructure and current epidemiological data of COVID-19.

This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the conventional hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) assay and the next-generation HBsAg NEXT (HBsAgNx) assay in samples with low-level HBsAg positivity and in cases of occult hepatitis B infection (OBI). A total of 497 individuals were included in the study, comprising 300 individuals with low-level HBsAg positivity, 100 OBI cases (64 seropositive and 36 seronegative) and 97 healthy controls. Serum samples were analyzed using the Abbott ARCHITECT HBsAg Qualitative II assay (Abbott Diagnostics, Wiesbaden, Germany) and the Abbott Alinity i HBsAg NEXT assay (Abbott Diagnostics, Wiesbaden, Germany). The presence of HBV DNA was confirmed by real-time polymerase chain reaction (Rt-PCR) using the COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan HBV test v2.0 (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany). HBV DNA (Rt-PCR) was accepted as the gold standard reference for diagnostic performance evaluation. To minimize potential bias arising from sample selection, individuals with lowlevel HBsAg positivity and OBI cases were analyzed separately. In the low-level HBsAg-positive group, semi-quantitative S/CO values of the assays were compared, whereas in the OBI group, only the detection rates of HBV DNA-positive cases were evaluated. A total of 17 OBI cases (17%) were identified that were tested negative by the conventional assay but positive by the HBsAgNx assay. Differences between the assays were evaluated using the McNemar test and p< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Median values obtained with the HBsAgNx assay were significantly higher than those obtained with the conventional assay (p< 0.001). The HBsAgNx assay provides clinically significant contributions particularly in the OBI group, by detecting cases that cannot be identified by conventional assays. These findings indicate that the integration of high-sensitivity HBsAg assays into current HBV diagnostic algorithms would increase case detection and contribute to both transfusion safety and the clinical management of OBI.