BACKGROUND: Improving the means to detect SARS-COV-2 infection is important in the ongoing battle against the COVID-19 pandemic. STANDARDTM Q COVID-19 Ag Test offers an easy to use, cheap and rapid way of testing that must be evaluated first to optimize its utility.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of this test kit compared with Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) for SARS-COV-2 diagnosis.

METHODS: Using retrospective cross-sectional study, seventy seven (77) nasopharyngeal swabs in viral transport media were used to determine the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of STANDARDTM Q COVID-19 Ag Test compared with the reference method, RT-PCR.

RESULTS: Among all participants, the rapid antigen test has a sensitivity of 9.86%, specificity of 100%, positive predictive value of 100%, and negative predictive value of 8.57%. The sensitivity increases among symptomatic participants and when Ct value is less than 20 to 25.00% and 31.58%, respectively.

CONCLUSION: Despite the low sensitivity, STANDARDTM Q COVID-19 Ag Test has a high specificity and positive predictive value and could be a cheap and efficient test in the proper clinical context. Its use in conjunction with RT-PCR for those who tested negative initially should be emphasized in the implementation of the existing policies.

RUNX1::RUNX1T1 is a core-binding factor driving fusion gene which arises from t(8;21)(q22;q22). It is one of the most common chromosomal rearrangements in both pediatric and adult Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) with a reported incidence o 15% in children and young adults. There are few case reports documenting RUNX1::RUNX1T1 translocation in pediatric AML. Although this is generally associated with a favorable prognosis, we report two (2) cases of de novo pediatric AML in the Philippines harboring a RUNX1::RUNX1T1 translocation, one eventually relapsed while the other attained remission but succumbed to sepsis.
Next Generation Sequencing ; RUNX1::RUNX1T1 fusion

Background: Nasopharyngeal swab/oropharyngeal swab (NPS/OPS) qRT-PCR is the gold standard for detecting SARS-CoV-2. However, it has its own limitations including cost and invasiveness. As an alternative, individual qRT-PCR testing of saliva samples was validated and shown to be comparable in sensitivity and specificity with NP-OP qRT-PCR. To further maximize its utility, the researchers wish to explore antigen and pooled testing methods. Objective: The study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection using saliva-based pooled qRT-PCR and rapid antigen test compared with individual saliva qRT-PCR. Methodology: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, saliva specimen from individuals aged 18 years old and above from the outpatient specimen collection station at the Philippine Children’s Medical Center were tested individually using qRT-PCR (Mag-bind RNA Extraction Kit/MACURA, Allsheng Extraction Machine, Sansure PCR kit, and MA-600 Sansure Biotech). Non-probability convenience sampling was utilized. Based on the individual results, pools of five (5) individual specimens, which includes one (1) positive sample were tested with qRT-PCR for sensitivity. DNK-2150-1S Dynamiker SARS-CoV-2 Ag Rapid Test (Dynamiker Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Tianjin, China) was also used to test individual saliva specimens. . Out of 196 individual saliva specimens, 73 were detected to have SARS-COV-2 by qRT-PCR, while the remaining 123 were negative. Compared with the individual saliva qRT-PCR, rapid antigen tests done showed sensitivity of 46.58% (95% CI 35.13%, 58.02%), specificity of 86.18% (95% CI 80.08%, 92.28%), positive and negative predictive value of 66.67% (95% CI 53.71%, 79.60%) and 73.10% (95% CI 65.89%, 80.32%) respectively. Based on the results of individual saliva-based qRT-PCR, 62 pools were tested and showed sensitivity of 98.39% (95% CI 91.34%, 99.96%). Conclusion and Recommendation Pooled saliva-based testing for SARS-CoV-2 is comparable with individual saliva-based rapid antigen testing. The use of rapid antigen testing is less sensitive and less specific compared with qRT-PCR consistent with prior reports. Additional studies are recommended to determine optimal conditions for testing.
SARS-CoV-2 ; COVID-19