BACKGROUND: Pneumococcal bacteraemia is a major contributor to global morbidity and mortality. Traditional culture-based methods lack sensitivity and are time-consuming. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of two culture-independent assays, the MALDI-TOF-MS Sepsityper® module and the lateral flow inmunochromatography test (LFICT) with the Standard F® Streptococcus pneumoniae, directly from positive blood culture (BC) bottles.
METHODS: A prospective study was conducted from December 2021 to July 2022. For all BC positives for S. pneumoniae a double centrifugation protocol was implemented. The resulting pellet was subsequently processed using both techniques.
RESULTS: The LFICT showed exceptional performance with 100% sensitivity and specificity, outperforming the MALDI-TOF-MS Sepsityper® module, which achieved 85.2% sensitivity and 100% specificity. Nevertheless, the combination of these assays offers a robust and comprehensive approach to diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS: The simultaneous use of both techniques offers a promising alternative that can be integrated into routine practices directly from BC samples.

We compared the performance of the STANDARD F and SD BIOLINE stool antigen tests in 335 patients. The performance of STANDARD F (sensitivity: 95.6%; specificity: 94%) was highly comparable to that of SD BIOLINE (sensitivity: 92.6%; specificity: 93.5%), suggesting that STANDARD F is useful for the detection of Helicobacter pylori infection.

We compared the performance of STANDARD F S. pneumoniae Ag FIA with that of BinaxNOW S. pneumoniae Antigen Card using 206 urine samples. The performance of STANDARD F was highly comparable to that of BinaxNOW. STANDARD F assay could be a valuable tool for diagnosis of invasive pneumococcal disease.

Streptococcus pneumoniae urinary antigen tests (UATs) may be interpreted using automatic readers to potentially automate sample incubation and provide standardized results reading. Here, we evaluated four UATs the BinaxNOW S. pneumoniae Antigen Card (Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA), ImmuView S. pneumoniae and Legionella (SSI Diagnostica, Hillerød, Denmark), STANDARD F S. pneumoniae Ag FIA (SD Biosensor, Gyeonggi, South Korea), and Sofia S. pneumoniae FIA (Quidel Corporation, San Diego, CA, USA) with their respective benchtop readers for their ability to detect S. pneumoniae urinary antigen. We found that these assays had a sensitivity of 76.9-86.5%, and specificity of 84.2-89.7%, with no significant difference found among the four UATs. The assays had a high level of agreement with each other, with 84.5% of samples testing consistently across all four assays. The automatically and visually read test results from the two immunochromatographic assays, BinaxNOW and ImmuView, were compared and showed excellent agreement between the two types of reading. Immunofluorescent-based assays, Sofia and STANDARD F, had significantly less time to detect compared to the two immunochromatographic assays due to having less assay setup procedures and shorter sample incubation times. In conclusion, the four UATs performed similarly in the detection of S. pneumoniae urinary antigen, and readers can bring increased flexibility to running UATs in the clinical routine.

Urinary antigen tests (UATs) are often used to diagnose Legionnaires\' disease as they are rapid and easy to perform on readily obtainable urine samples without the need for specialized skills compared to conventional methods. Recently developed automated readers for UATs may provide objective results interpretation, especially in cases of weak result bands. Using 53 defined patient urine samples, we evaluated the performance of the BinaxNOW Legionella Antigen Card (Abbott), ImmuView S. pneumoniae and Legionella (SSI Diagnostica), STANDARD F Legionella Ag FIA (SD Biosensor), and Sofia Legionella FIA (Quidel) simultaneously with their respective automated readers. Automatic and visual interpretation of result bands were also compared for the immunochromatography-based BinaxNOW and ImmuView UATs. Overall sensitivity and specificity of Legionella UATs were 53.9-61.5% and 90.0-94.9%, respectively. All four UATs successfully detected all samples from L. pneumophila serogroup 1-positive patients, but most failed to detect samples for Legionella spp., or other serogroups. Automatic results interpretation of results was found to be mostly concordant with visual results reading. In conclusion, the performance of the four UATs were similar to each other in the detection of Legionella urinary antigen with no major difference between automated or visual results reading.