The Xpert^® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 and Xpert^® Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV tests were rapidly developed and widely used during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. In response to emerging genetic variability, a new SARS-CoV-2 target (RNA-dependent RNA-polymerase) has been added to both tests: Xpert^® Xpress CoV-2 plus and Xpert^® Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus test. A rapid evaluation of both tests was performed in South Africa, using residual respiratory specimens. Residual respiratory specimens (n = 125) were used to evaluate the Xpert^® Xpress CoV-2 plus test and included 50 genotyped specimens. The Xpert^® Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus test was assessed using 45 genotyped SARS-CoV-2 specimens, 10 influenza A, 10 influenza B and 20 respiratory syncytial virus specimens. Results were compared to in-country standard-of-care tests. Genotyped specimens tested the performance of the test under pressure from circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. Reference material was included to assess the test limits and linearity. The Xpert^® Xpress CoV-2 plus test performance compared to reference results across residual respiratory specimens was good (positive percentage agreement (PPA) = 95.2%, negative percentage agreement (NPA) = 95.0%) The Xpert^® Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus test showed good performance across all residual respiratory specimens (PPA = 100%, NPA = 98.3%). All genotyped variants of concern were detected by both tests. The Xpert^® Xpress CoV-2 plus and Xpert^® Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus tests can be used to diagnose SARS-CoV-2, and to diagnose and differentiate SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B and respiratory syncytial virus, respectively. The NPA was lower than the recommended 99%, but was influenced by the low number of negative specimens tested. The variants of concern assessed did not affect test performance. It is recommended that sites perform their own assessments compared to in-country standard-of-care tests.

Laboratory diagnosis plays an important role in curbing the transmission of infection and reducing harmful delays in clinical and public health responses. Alternatives to the current standard of care assays for SARS-CoV-2 are important in order to overcome the challenges that are associated with global demands and supply shortages.

Background: The International Normalized Ratio (INR) monitors anticoagulant treatment but relies on laboratory-based services. This could limit access to rapid monitoring and increase the diagnostic delay, both of which may be addressed by point-of-care testing (POCT). This study investigated the LumiraDx POC platform for INR monitoring. Methods: INR was measured on recalcified residual venous (n = 94) specimens from Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital and capillary blood specimens (n = 254) from consenting enrolled participants at Charlotte Maxeke Johannesburg Academic Hospital Anticoagulation clinic, Johannesburg, South Africa. Standard-of-care (SOC) INR was measured on sodium-citrated venous blood using the Sysmex-CS2500 platform (Siemens Healthcare) and Neoplastin-R (Roche Diagnostics and Diagnostica Stago, Paris, France) within 2 h post-venipuncture. Within run, precision was measured using 2 LumiraDx control levels. The statistical agreement of paired INR measurements was also stratified by dosing decision. Results: The precision was within the manufacturer’s claim for controls (level 1%CV: 3.63, level 2%CV: 2.24). Accuracy analysis showed a moderate overall agreement compared to the SOC INR results with a correlation coefficient of 0.94 (95% Cl, (0.9267 to 0.9497)). The overall precision (ρ > 0.9) and accuracy (C_b = 0.9842) were good with an absolute bias of 0.07. The 95% confidence intervals for the slope and intercept did not include 1.00 and 0.00, respectively; however, the total calculated error was within the minimal acceptable limits. Conclusion: The LumiraDx INR Test showed a good performance compared to laboratory-based testing and provided opportunity for rapid and patient-centric care. Owing to an increasing positive bias for INR > 3.5, confirmation with laboratory INR measurements may be required.

The Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 and Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV tests were rapidly developed and widely used during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. In response to emerging genetic variability, a new SARS-CoV-2 target (RNA-dependent RNA-polymerase) has been added to both tests: Xpert® Xpress CoV-2 plus and Xpert® Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus test. A rapid evaluation of both tests was performed in South Africa, using residual respiratory specimens. Residual respiratory specimens (n=125) were used to evaluate the Xpert® Xpress CoV-2 plus test and included 50 genotyped specimens. The Xpert® Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus test was assessed using 45 genotyped SARS-CoV-2 specimens, ten influenza A, ten Influenza B and twenty respiratory syncytial virus specimens. Results were com-pared to in-country standard of care tests. Genotyped specimens tested the performance of the test under pressure from circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. Reference material was included to assess the test limits and linearity. The Xpert® Xpress CoV-2 plus test performance compared to reference results across residual respiratory specimens was good (positive per-centage agreement (PPA)=95.2%, negative percentage agreement (NPA)=95.0%) The Xpert® Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus test showed good performance across all residual respiratory specimens (PPA=100%, NPA=98.3%). All genotyped variants of concern were detected by both tests. The Xpert® Xpress CoV-2 plus and Xpert® Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus tests can be used to diagnose SARS-CoV-2, and to diagnose and differentiate SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B and respiratory syncytial virus respectively. The NPA was lower than the recommended 99%, but was influenced by the low number of negative specimens tested. The variants of concern assessed did not affect test performance. It is recommended that sites perform their own assessments compared to in-country standard of care tests.

Developing novel fat and oil ingredients through fermentation is an emerging field with great potential to address sustainability, health, and functionality challenges in the food industry. This review highlights new strategies such as precision fermentation for specialty fats, waste-to-oil bioconversion, hybrid blends with plant-based fats, and scalable bioreactor designs. Despite promising applications in food sectors, there are still challenges like high production costs, and scalability barriers. Advances in feedstock diversification, co-product valorization, and innovative fermentation systems are key to overcoming these hurdles. A few companies demonstrate progress, while economic and technological innovations are expected to enable mainstream adoption in the coming decade.