Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection

A comparison of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing with realtime RT-PCR among symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals

BACKGROUND

Identification of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients with rapid and cost-effective test methods is the key for isolating infected individuals, interrupting the transmission chain, and thus, containment of the CoVID-19 disease. In this regard, Rapid Antigen Test (RAT) plays an important role at point of care testing but the low sensitivity attributing towards escape of positive cases is reported as a major disadvantage of RAT which led us to evaluate a RAT kit among symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals suspected of CoVID-19.

METHODS

We analyzed 329 parallel nasopharyngeal swabs for RAT (Zydus Cadila, India) at the point of collection in a hospital-based facility and RealTime RT-PCR in the laboratory. The performance parameters were analyzed by evaluating the specificity, sensitivity, Negative Predictive Value (NPV), Positive Predictive Value (PPV), and Kappa coefficient.

RESULTS

The sensitivity and specificity were found to be 75.17% and 98.89% respectively. Positive Predictive value was 98.25% and the negative predictive value was 82.79%. The accuracy between the two techniques was found to be 88.14% with a kappa coefficient of 0.756 (SE: 0.036 and CI at 95%: 0.686 to 0.826) with a good strength of agreement (0.61-0.80) between the two testing techniques. Among the false-negative cases, 22 (59.5%) were asymptomatic having the Cycle Threshold (Ct) range 27 to 32.9 including 12 cases with a history of close contact with the known positive cases (i.e. household contact). The remaining 15 cases (40.5%) were symptomatic having low to moderate Ct values.

CONCLUSION

It is observed from the results that the false negative result for symptomatic individuals is a matter of concern as it was noted in 4 cases of our study subjects who required hospitalisation later. Also the positives among asymptomatic contacts are important from epidemiological point of view for isolation and curtailing the infection from spreading in a community. These results support the fact that RAT showing sensitivity below 80% can be used for mass screening purposes with provision for additional testing in case of false negative with symptomatic individuals. Also false-negative results should be interpreted cautiously considering the epidemiological link as well as the clinical condition of the patients.

Innovative COVID-19 point-of-care diagnostics suitable for tuberculosis diagnosis: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

In 2014, the WHO published high-priority target product profiles (TPPs) for new tuberculosis (TB) diagnostics to align end-user needs with test targets and specifications; nevertheless, no TB test meets these targets to date. The COVID-19-driven momentum in the diagnostics world offers an opportunity to address the long-standing lack of innovation in the field of TB diagnostics. This scoping review aims to summarise point-of-care (POC) molecular and antigen tests for COVID-19 diagnosis that, when applied to TB, potentially meet WHO TPPs. This summary of currently available innovative diagnostic tools will guide the development of novel TB diagnostics toward the WHO-set targets.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension Scoping Reviews recommendations. MEDLINE (via PubMed), bioRxiv, MedRxiv and other publicly available in vitro diagnostic test databases were searched on 23 November 2022. POC antigen or molecular tests developed for SARS-CoV-2 detection that meet the eligibility criteria will be included in the review. Developer description, test description, operation characteristics, pricing information, performance and commercialisation status of diagnostic tests identified will be extracted using a predefined standardised data extraction form. Two reviewers will independently perform the screening and data extraction. A narrative synthesis of the final data will be provided.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethical approval is required because individual patient data will not be included. The findings will be published in open-access scientific journals.

Real-time, smartphone-based processing of lateral flow assays for early failure detection and rapid testing workflows

Despite their simplicity, lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) remain a crucial weapon in the diagnostic arsenal, particularly at the point-of-need. However, methods for analysing LFIAs still rely heavily on sub-optimal human readout and rudimentary end-point analysis. This negatively impacts both testing accuracy and testing times, ultimately lowering diagnostic throughput. Herein, we present an automated computational imaging method for processing and analysing multiple LFIAs in real-time and in parallel. This method relies on the automated detection of signal intensity at the test line, control line, and background, and employs statistical comparison of these values to predictively categorise tests as "positive", "negative", or "failed". We show that such a computational methodology can be transferred to a smartphone and detail how real-time analysis of LFIAs can be leveraged to decrease the time-to-result and increase testing throughput. We compare our method to naked-eye readout and demonstrate a shorter time-to-result across a range of target antigen concentrations and fewer false negatives compared to human subjects at low antigen concentrations.

Assessment of COVID-19 preparedness response plan on higher education students simulation of WHO intra-action review in Egypt

Because of the COVID-19 outbreak, Mass gathering restrictions were imposed. The lockdown of the Higher Education Institutions was obligatory to save lives. In February 2021 in Egypt, HEIs were allowed to ease the lockdown restrictions on a case-by-case basis gradually. In this paper, we propose a risk evaluation of planned regular mass gathering events during the pandemic, such as students gathering on-campus during indoor exams, by implementing WHO COVID-19 Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan through Intra-Action Review guidance. This one-group posttest-only design study was done on October 6 University campus during indoor students' exams in Giza, Egypt. We conducted IAR to implement the WHO's COVID- 19 SPRP; Country-level coordination; risk communication; surveillance, rapid response teams; points of entry; infection prevention control; laboratories; supply chain; case management; essential health services, and other possible topics. Between February-21, 2021; April-10, 2021, 25,927 students attended the on-campus living exams. Our result suggests that the high level of Readiness-Capacity during mass gatherings will reduce COVID-19 transmission. The most compelling evidence is the significance of synchronization between the ten pillars in preventing COVID-19 transmission. These findings may be used to influence decision-making for continual improvement of the operational planning guidelines during the outbreaks.

Rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2: The gradual boom of lateral flow immunoassay

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is still in an epidemic situation, which poses a serious threat to the safety of people and property. Rapid diagnosis and isolation of infected individuals are one of the important methods to control virus transmission. Existing lateral flow immunoassay techniques have the advantages of rapid, sensitive, and easy operation, and some new options have emerged with the continuous development of nanotechnology. Such as lateral flow immunoassay test strips based on colorimetric-fluorescent dual-mode and gold nanoparticles, Surface Enhanced Raman Scattering, etc., these technologies have played an important role in the rapid diagnosis of COVID-19. In this paper, we summarize the current research progress of lateral flow immunoassay in the field of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 infection diagnosis, analyze the performance of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 lateral flow immunoassay products, review the advantages and limitations of different detection methods and markers, and then explore the competitive CRISPR-based nucleic acid chromatography detection method. This method combines the advantages of gene editing and lateral flow immunoassay and can achieve rapid and highly sensitive lateral flow immunoassay detection of target nucleic acids, which is expected to be the most representative method for community and clinical point-of-care testing. We hope that researchers will be inspired by this review and strive to solve the problems in the design of highly sensitive targets, the selection of detection methods, and the enhancement of CRISPR technology, to truly achieve rapid, sensitive, convenient, and specific detection of novel coronaviruses, thus promoting the development of novel coronavirus diagnosis and contributing our modest contribution to the world's fight against epidemics.

Experiencing COVID-19, home isolation and primary health care: A mixed-methods study

Objectives

Although the vast majority of COVID-19 cases are treated in primary care, patients' experiences during home isolation have been little studied. This study aimed to explore the experiences of patients with acute COVID-19 and to identify challenges after the initial adaptation of the German health system to the pandemic (after first infection wave from February to June 2020).

Methods

A mixed-method convergent design was used to gain a holistic insight into patients experience. The study consisted of a cross-sectional survey, open survey answers and semi-structured telephone interviews. Descriptive analysis was performed on quantitative survey answers. Between group differences were calculated to explore changes after the first infection wave. Qualitative thematic analysis was conducted on open survey answers and interviews. The results were then compared within a triangulation protocol.

Results

A total of 1100 participants from all German states were recruited by 145 general practitioners from August 2020 to April 2021, 42 additionally took part in qualitative interviews. Disease onset varied from February 2020 to April 2021. After the first infection wave, more participants were tested positive during the acute disease (88.8%; 95.2%; P < 0.001). Waiting times for tests (mean 4.5 days, SD 4.1; 2.7days, SD 2.6, P < 0.001) and test results (mean 2.4 days, SD 1.9; 1.8 days, SD 1.3, P < 0.001) decreased. Qualitative results indicated that the availability of repeated testing and antigen tests reduced insecurities, transmission and related guilt. Although personal consultations at general practices increased (6.8%; 15.5%, P < 0.001), telephone consultation remained the main mode of consultation (78.5%) and video remained insignificant (1.9%). The course of disease, the living situation and social surroundings during isolation, access to health care, personal resilience, spirituality and feelings of guilt and worries emerged as themes influencing the illness experience. Challenges were contact management and adequate provision of care during home isolation. A constant contact person within the health system helped against feelings of care deprivation, uncertainty and fear.

Conclusions

Our study highlights that home isolation of individuals with COVID-19 requires a holistic approach that considers all aspects of patient care and effective coordination between different care providers.

A Metasynthesis and Meta-analysis of the Impact and Diagnostic Safety of COVID-19 Symptom Agnostic Rapid Testing in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Protocol for a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Amid all public health measures to contain COVID-19, the most challenging has been how to break the transmission chain. This has been even more challenging in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). A public health emergency warrants a public health perspective, which comes down to prevention. Rapid mass testing has been advocated throughout the pandemic as a way to promptly deal with asymptomatic infections, but its usefulness in LMICs is yet to be fully understood.

OBJECTIVE

The study objectives of this paper are to (1) investigate the impact of the different rapid mass testing options for SARS-CoV-2 that have been delivered at point of care in LMICs and (2) evaluate the diagnostic safety (accuracy) of rapid mass testing for SARS-CoV-2 in LMICs.

METHODS

This review will systematically search records in PubMed, EBSCOhost, Cochrane library, Global Index Medicus COVID-19 Register, and Scopus. Records will be managed using Mendeley reference manager and SWIFT-Review. Risk of bias for randomized controlled trials will be assessed using the RoB 2 assessment tool, while nonrandomized interventions will be assessed using the tool developed by the Evidence Project. A narrative approach will be used to synthesize data under the first objective, and either a meta-analysis or synthesis without meta-analysis for the second objective. Tables, figures, and textual descriptions will be used to present findings. The overall body of evidence for the first objective will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) approach, and for the second objective using GRADE.

RESULTS

The screening of records has been finalized. We hope to finalize the synthesis by the end of February 2023 and to prepare the manuscript for publication by April 2023. The study will be reported in accordance with standard guidelines for the reporting of systematic reviews. Review results will be disseminated through conferences and their peer-reviewed publication in a relevant journal.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the role of a preventive approach in infection control using rapid mass testing. It also flags the overriding need to involve users and providers in the evaluation of such tests in the settings for which they are intended. This will be the first review to the best of our knowledge to generate both qualitative and quantitative evidence regarding rapid mass testing specific to LMICs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022283776; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=283776.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/41132.

COVID-19 rapid molecular point-of-care testing is effective and cost-beneficial for the acute care of trauma patients

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy and cost benefit of a rapid molecular point-of-care testing (POCT) device detecting COVID-19 within a traumatological emergency department.

BACKGROUND

Despite continuous withdrawal of COVID-19 restrictions, hospitals will remain particularly vulnerable to local outbreaks which is reflected by a higher institution-specific basic reproduction rate. Patients admitted to the emergency department with unknown COVID-19 infection status due to a- or oligosymptomatic COVID-19 infection put other patients and health care workers at risk, while fast diagnosis and treatment is necessary. Delayed testing results in additional costs to the health care system.

METHODS

From the 8th of April 2021 until 31st of December 2021, all patients admitted to the emergency department were tested with routine RT-PCR and rapid molecular POCT device (Abbott ID NOW™ COVID-19). COVID-19-related additional costs for patients admitted via shock room or emergency department were calculated based on internal cost allocations.

RESULTS

1133 rapid molecular tests resulted in a sensitivity of 83.3% (95% CI 35.9-99.6%), specificity of 99.8% (95% CI 99.4-100%), a positive predictive value of 71.4% (95% CI 29-96.3%) and a negative predictive value of 99.9% (95% CI 99.5-100%) as compared to RT-PCR. Without rapid COVID-19 testing, each emergency department and shock room admission with subsequent surgery showed additional direct costs of 2631.25€, without surgery of 729.01€.

CONCLUSION

Although rapid molecular COVID-19 testing can initially be more expensive than RT-PCR, subsequent cost savings, improved workflows and workforce protection outweigh this effect by far. The data of this study support the use of a rapid molecular POCT device in a traumatological emergency department.

Detection of Antibody versus Antigen, Optimal Option of Different Serological Assays Based Tests for COVID-19 Diagnosis: A Meta-Analysis

Background

In this study, the diagnostic efficacy of antigen test and antibody test were assessed. Additionally, the difference of sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio were compared concerning efficacy of antibody test versus antigen test for Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis.

Methods

Online databases were searched for full-text publications and STATA software was used for data pooling and analysis before Sep 1st, 2022. Forrest plot was used to show the pooled sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio. Combined receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to show the area of under curve of complex data.

Results

Overall, 25 studies were included. The sensitivity (0.68, 95% CI: 0.53-0.80) and specificity (0.99, 95% CI: 0.98-0.99) in antibody or antigen was calculated. The time point of test lead to heterogeneity. The area under curve (AUC) was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96-0.99), and the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 299.54 (95% CI: 135.61-661.64). Subgroup analysis indicated antibody test with sensitivity (0.59, 95% CI: 0.44-0.73) and specificity (0.98, 95% CI: 0.95-0.99) and antigen test with sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.53-0.91) and specificity of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-1.00). Higher AUC and DOR were proved in antigen test.

Conclusion

The present study compared the efficacy of antibody test versus antigen test for COVID-19 diagnosis. Better diagnostic efficacy, lower heterogeneity, and less publication bias of rapid antigen testing was suggested in this study. This study would help us to make better strategy about choosing rapid and reliable testing method in diagnosis of the COVID-19 disease.

Negative predictive value of the FebriDx host response point-of-care test in patients presenting to a single Australian emergency department with suspected COVID-19: an observational diagnostic accuracy study

OBJECTIVES

To determine the negative predictive value (NPV) of the FebriDx point-of-care host response device in patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 infection in a mostly immunised Australian emergency department (ED) population during the late 2021 phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

Observational diagnostic accuracy study comparing FebriDx point-of-care test to SARS-CoV-2 PCR.

SETTING

An ED in Melbourne, Australia, with 63 000 annual presentations in 2021.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 16 and over who met the Victorian Department of Health case definition for suspected COVID-19 infection PCR testing. Patients meeting any of the following criteria were excluded: <16 years of age; acute respiratory symptom(s) with onset>14 days prior to testing; current immunosuppressive or interferon therapy; live immunisation within the last 30 days; fever lasting>7 days; antibiotic or antiviral use in the preceding 14 days; experience of major trauma, major surgical intervention or severe burns within the last 30 days.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

COVID-19 PCR results (detected, not detected) and FebriDx results (bacterial positive, viral negative, viral positive).

RESULTS

94 participants were enrolled (female: 46; male: 48), 34% of participants (tested positive for COVID-19 according to PCR results, with a background incidence among all adult ED attenders of 2.5%. The sensitivity of FebriDx for detection of COVID-19 was 56% (95% CI 40% to 100%) and specificity was 92% (95% CI 84% to 100%). For the population tested, this resulted in an NPV of 80% (95% CI 71% to 100%) and a positive predictive value of 78% (95% CI 60% to 100%).

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of a population with low COVID-19 infection rates, an evolved variant of COVID-19 and a very high community COVID-19 vaccination rate, FebriDx demonstrated reduced sensitivity and NPV relative to results from earlier international tests. These contextual factors should be considered during any attempt to generalise the current results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12620001029987 (Australian Clinical Trials).

Perspectives of physicians and medical assistants on the implementation of NAAT-based point-of-care testing for SARS-CoV-2 in primary care in Germany

INTRODUCTION

Given their high diagnostic accuracy and fast turnaround time, rapid SARS-CoV-2 tests based on nucleic acid amplification technologies (NAAT) have great potential to expand access to testing and decrease delays in diagnosis of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate feasibility, acceptance, organizational consequences and other implementation aspects of the use of a NAAT-based SARS-CoV-2 rapid test (ID NOW™ COVID-19, Abbott Diagnostics) for symptomatic primary care patients with a suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey among primary care physicians and medical assistants from Thuringia (Germany) during the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in March and April 2021. The health care providers surveyed had previously used the NAAT-based SARS-CoV-2 rapid test as part of a pilot study.

RESULTS

Eleven physicians (ten general practitioners and one paediatrician) and 22 medical assistants from Thuringia (Germany) participated in the written survey. Four physicians were additionally interviewed. The majority of the surveyed health care providers rated user-friendliness, integration into practice routine, impact on communication with patients and technical reliability of the NAAT-based SARS-CoV-2 rapid test as (very) positive. Greater workload and the costs for measuring devices were identified as disadvantages compared to PCR laboratory tests. Four out of ten physicians rated the lower sample turnover as unfavourable.

CONCLUSION

Our survey shows that NAAT-based point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 testing gained widespread acceptance among physicians and medical assistants, positively influences workflows, can improve patient communication and could therefore be successfully implemented into routine primary care.

Diagnostic accuracy of a SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test among military and civilian personnel of an Air Force airport in central Italy

BACKGROUND

Most SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) validation studies have been performed on specimens from COVID-19 patients and negative controls or from mostly symptomatic individuals. Herein we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of AFIAS COVID-19 Ag, hereinafter denominated as AFIAS, during a COVID-19 screening program surveillance testing conducted among personnel of an Italian military airport.

METHODS

Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPSs) were collected from study participants and were analysed by both AFIAS and RT-PCR assay. A questionnaire collecting demographic and exposure data were administered to all participants. AFIAS accuracy parameters including Cohen's kappa (K) were determined.

RESULTS

Overall, from November 2020 to April 2021, 1294 (NPSs) were collected from 1183 participants (88.6% males, 11.4% females; mean age were 41.3, median age 42). Forty-nine NPSs (3.78%) were positive by RT-PCR, while 54 NPSs were positive by AFIAS. Overall baseline sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were 0.633, 0.981, 0.574, 0.985, respectively and K was 0.585 (moderate). AFIAS sensitivity tended to be higher for NPSs with higher viral load. A higher sensitivity (0.944) compared to the overall baseline sensitivity (0.633) was also found for NPSs from participants with COVID-19 compatible symptoms, for which K was 0.891 (almost perfect). Instead, AFIAS sensitivity was quite poor for NPSs from asymptomatic participants. Most false negative NPSs in this group had moderate viral load.

CONCLUSION

Overall, AFIAS showed high specificity but only moderate sensitivity, mainly because of the high proportion of asymptomatic participants. However, AFIAS showed good sensitivity for NPSs with high viral load and nearly optimal accuracy parameters for NPSs from participants with COVID-19 compatible symptoms. Thus, taking into consideration its performance features, this test can be useful for COVID-19 case identification and management as well as for infection control.

Nanomaterials to combat SARS-CoV-2: Strategies to prevent, diagnose and treat COVID-19

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the associated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which severely affect the respiratory system and several organs and tissues, and may lead to death, have shown how science can respond when challenged by a global emergency, offering as a response a myriad of rapid technological developments. Development of vaccines at lightning speed is one of them. SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks have stressed healthcare systems, questioning patients care by using standard non-adapted therapies and diagnostic tools. In this scenario, nanotechnology has offered new tools, techniques and opportunities for prevention, for rapid, accurate and sensitive diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19. In this review, we focus on the nanotechnological applications and nano-based materials (i.e., personal protective equipment) to combat SARS-CoV-2 transmission, infection, organ damage and for the development of new tools for virosurveillance, diagnose and immune protection by mRNA and other nano-based vaccines. All the nano-based developed tools have allowed a historical, unprecedented, real time epidemiological surveillance and diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, at community and international levels. The nano-based technology has help to predict and detect how this Sarbecovirus is mutating and the severity of the associated COVID-19 disease, thereby assisting the administration and public health services to make decisions and measures for preparedness against the emerging variants of SARS-CoV-2 and severe or lethal COVID-19.

Evaluation of Various Alternative Economical and High Throughput SARS-CoV-2 Testing Methods within Resource-Limited Settings

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak posed a challenge for diagnostic laboratories worldwide, with low-middle income countries (LMICs) being the most affected. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is the gold standard method for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, the challenge with this method is that it is expensive, which has resulted in under-testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection in many LMICs. Hence, this study aimed to compare and evaluate alternative methods for the mass testing of SARS-CoV-2 infection in laboratories with limited resources to identify cost-effective, faster, and accurate alternatives to the internationally approved kits. A total of 50 residual nasopharyngeal swab samples were used for evaluation and comparison between internationally approved kits (Thermo Fisher PureLink™ RNA Isolation Kit and Thermo Fisher TaqPath™ COVID-19 Assay Kit) and alternative methods (three RNA extraction and four commercial SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay kits) in terms of the cost analysis, diagnostic accuracy, and turnaround time. In terms of performance, all of the alternative RNA extraction methods evaluated were comparable to the internationally approved kits but were more cost-effective (Lucigen QuickExtract™ RNA Extraction Kit, Bosphore EX-Tract Dry Swab RNA Solution and Sonicator method) and four commercial SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay kits (Nucleic Acid COVID-19 Test Kit (SARS-CoV-2), abTESTM COVID-19 qPCR I Kit, PCL COVID19 Speedy RT-PCR Kit, and PCLMD nCoV One-Step RT-PCR Kit) with a sensitivity range of 76-100% and specificity of 96-100%. The cost per sample was reduced by more than 50% when compared to internationally approved kits. When compared to the Thermo Fisher PureLink™ Kit and Thermo Fisher TaqPath™ COVID-19 Assay Kit, the alternative methods had a faster turnaround time, indicating that laboratories with limited resources may be able to process more samples in a day. The above-mentioned cost-effective, fast, and accurate evaluated alternative methods can be used in routine diagnostic laboratories with limited resources for mass testing for SARS-CoV-2 because these were comparable to the internationally approved kits, Thermo Fisher PureLink™ Kit and Thermo Fisher TaqPath™ COVID-19 Assay Kit. The implementation of alternative methods will be the most cost-effective option for testing SARS-CoV-2 infection in LMICs.

Performance evaluation of a new on-demand molecular test for the rapid identification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in pediatric and adult patients

The rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has increased the need to identify additional rapid diagnostic tests for an accurate and early diagnosis of infection. Here, we evaluated the diagnostic performance of the cartridge-based reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test STANDARD M10 SARS-CoV-2 (SD Biosensor Inc., Suwon, South Korea), targeting the ORF1ab and E gene of SARS-CoV-2, and which can process up to eight samples in parallel in 60 min. From January 2022 to March 2022, STANDARD™ M10 assay performance was compared with Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Cepheid, Sunnyvale CA) on 616 nasopharyngeal swabs from consecutive pediatric (N = 533) and adult (N = 83) patients presenting at the "Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico" (IRCCS) Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesù, Roma. The overall performance of STANDARD M10 SARS-CoV-2 was remarkably and consistently comparable to the Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 with an overall agreement of 98% (604/616 concordant results), and negligible differences in time-to-result (60 min vs. 50 min, respectively). When the Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 results were considered as the reference, STANDARD™ M10 SARS-CoV-2 had 96.5% sensitivity and 98.4% specificity. STANDARD M10 SARS-CoV-2 can thus be safely included in diagnostic pathways because it rapidly and accurately identifies SARS-CoV-2 present in nasopharyngeal swabs.

Evaluating the role of a fully automated SARS-CoV-2 antigen ECLIA immunoassay in the management of the SARS COV 2 pandemic on general population

OBJECTIVES

Chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) automated assays (fourth-generation antigen test) for SARS-CoV-2 detection are promising because of their analytical productivity, but have lower sensitivity and specificity than rt-PCR assays. The authors of this paper evaluated a recent immunoassay implemented on Siemens Atellica IM, investigating how much this could affect the actual feasibility of this diagnostic during the pandemic.

METHODS

From the three-day routine 134 positive and 241 negative swab samples by rt-PCR test were evaluated, selected as 1/3 positive - 2/3 negative.

RESULTS

Using rt-PCR as gold standard, the specificity of immunoassay was 96.7%, while sensitivity was 68.0%. Sensitivity is inversely proportional to the viral load: 100% for cycles threshold (CT) values from 14 to 29, 95% until 30 CT, then 85, 74, 72, 68%, for 31-35 CT respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms the reliability of the fourth-generation antigen assay in recognizing negative samples. Conversely, sensitivity appears to be less reliable (68.0%) than reported in the literature. This could be due to a non-randomized study group: many swab samples were taken from patients with expected low viral load (hospitalized for COVID for more than 10-12 days or asymptomatic patients for epidemiological surveillance). The strong correlation of sensitivity and viral load could prove significant to track the infectiousness of infected people, as previous studies reported that a viral load of at least 10E6 copies of RNA/mL, corresponding to 25 CT, is the threshold of transmission of the disease.

COVID-19 Detection from Chest X-rays Using Trained Output Based Transfer Learning Approach

The recent Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), which started in 2019, has spread across the globe and become a global pandemic. The efficient and effective COVID-19 detection using chest X-rays helps in early detection and curtailing the spread of the disease. In this paper, we propose a novel Trained Output-based Transfer Learning (TOTL) approach for COVID-19 detection from chest X-rays. We start by preprocessing the Chest X-rays of the patients with techniques like denoising, contrasting, segmentation. These processed images are then fed to several pre-trained transfer learning models like InceptionV3, InceptionResNetV2, Xception, MobileNet, ResNet50, ResNet50V2, VGG16, and VGG19. We fine-tune these models on the processed chest X-rays. Then we further train the outputs of these models using a deep neural network architecture to achieve enhanced performance and aggregate the capabilities of each of them. The proposed model has been tested on four recent COVID-19 chest X-rays datasets by computing several popular evaluation metrics. The performance of our model has also been compared with various deep transfer learning models and several contemporary COVID-19 detection methods. The obtained results demonstrate the efficiency and efficacy of our proposed model.

Association of Results of Four Lateral Flow Antibody Tests with Subsequent SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine coverage remains incomplete, being only 15% in low-income countries. Rapid point-of-care tests predicting SARS-CoV-2 infection susceptibility in the unvaccinated may assist in risk management and vaccine prioritization. We conducted a prospective cohort study in 2,826 participants working in hospitals and Fire and Police services in England, UK, during the pandemic (ISRCTN5660922). Plasma taken at recruitment in June 2020 was tested using four lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) devices and two laboratory immunoassays detecting antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 (UK Rapid Test Consortium's AbC-19 rapid test, OrientGene COVID IgG/IgM rapid test cassette, SureScreen COVID-19 rapid test cassette, and Biomerica COVID-19 IgG/IgM rapid test; Roche N and Euroimmun S laboratory assays). We monitored participants for microbiologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection for 200 days. We estimated associations between test results at baseline and subsequent infection, using Poisson regression models adjusted for baseline demographic risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Positive IgG results on each of the four LFIAs were associated with lower rates of subsequent infection with adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs) of 0.00 (95% confidence interval, 0.00 to 0.01), 0.03 (0.02 to 0.05), 0.07 (0.05 to 0.10), and 0.09 (0.07 to 0.12), respectively. The protective association was strongest for AbC-19 and SureScreen. The aIRR for the laboratory Roche N antibody assay at the manufacturer-recommended threshold was similar to those of the two best performing LFIAs at 0.03 (0.01 to 0.10). Lateral flow devices measuring SARS-CoV-2 IgG predicted disease risk in unvaccinated individuals over a 200-day follow-up. The association of some LFIAs with subsequent infection was similar to laboratory immunoassays. IMPORTANCE Previous research has demonstrated an association between the detection of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection and protection from subsequent symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG are a cheap, readily deployed technology that has been used on a large scale in population screening programs, yet no studies have investigated whether LFIA results are associated with subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a prospective cohort study of 2,826 United Kingdom key workers, we found positivity in lateral flow test results had a strong negative association with subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection within 200 days in an unvaccinated population. Positivity on more-specific but less-sensitive tests was associated with a markedly decreased rate of disease; protection associated with testing positive using more sensitive devices detecting lower levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG was more modest. Lateral flow tests with high specificity may have a role in estimation of SARS-CoV-2 disease risk in unvaccinated populations.

Improving the Detection Sensitivity of a New Rapid Diagnostic Technology for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Using a Trace Amount of Saliva

The early diagnosis and isolation of infected individuals with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain important. Although quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) testing is considered the most accurate test available for COVID-19 diagnosis, it has some limitations, such as the need for specialized laboratory technicians and a long turnaround time. Therefore, we have established and reported a rapid diagnostic method using a small amount of saliva as a sample using a lightweight mobile qPCR device. This study aimed to improve the existing method and increase the detection sensitivity and specificity. The detection specificity of CDC N1 and N2 was examined by improving qPCR reagents and polymerase chain reaction conditions for the previously reported method. Furthermore, the feasibility of detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral RNA was examined using both the previous method and the improved method in patients with COVID-19. The results showed that the improved method increased the specificity and sensitivity. This improved method is useful for the rapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2.

Daily, self-test rapid antigen test to assess SARS-CoV-2 viability in de-isolation of patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Isolation of COVID-19 patients is a crucial infection control measure to prevent further SARS-CoV-2 transmission, but determining an appropriate timing to end the COVID-19 isolation is a challenging. We evaluated the performance of the self-test rapid antigen test (RAT) as a potential proxy to terminate the isolation of COVID-19 patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Symptomatic COVID-19 patients were enrolled who were admitted to a regional community treatment center (CTC) in Seoul (South Korea). Self-test RAT and the collection of saliva samples were performed by the patients, on a daily basis, until patient discharge. Cell culture and subgenomic RNA detection were performed on saliva samples.

RESULTS

A total of 138 pairs of saliva samples and corresponding RAT results were collected from 34 COVID-19 patients. Positivity of RAT and cell culture was 27% (37/138) and 12% (16/138), respectively. Of the 16 culture-positive saliva samples, seven (43.8%) corresponding RAT results were positive. Using cell culture as the reference standard, the overall percent agreement, percent positive agreement, and percent negative agreement of RAT were 71% (95% CI, 63-78), 26% (95% CI, 12-42), and 82% (95% CI, 76-87), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the RAT for predicting culture results were 44% (95% CI, 20-70), 75% (95% CI, 66-82), 18% (95% CI, 8-34), and 91% (95% CI, 84-96), respectively.

CONCLUSION

About half of the patients who were SARS-CoV-2 positive based upon cell culture results gave negative RAT results. However, the remaining positive culture cases were detected by RAT, and RAT showed relatively high negative predictive value for viable viral shedding.

Point-of-care detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen among symptomatic vs. asymptomatic persons: Testing for COVID-19 vs. infectivity

Background

Management of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) requires rapid and simple methods to detect COVID-19 patients and identify potential infectors. This study aimed to evaluate the utility of a point-of-care (PoC) rapid antigen diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) in these settings.

Patients and methods

Individuals who consecutively presented for SARS-CoV-2 testing at a tertiary care center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, underwent PoC Ag-RDT testing and real-time RT-PCR (qRT-PCR) on the same day during June 2021.

Results

Of 584 included subjects, 108 (18.5%) were symptomatic for COVID-19 while the remaining presented for miscellaneous reasons unrelated to possible or confirmed contact with a SARS-CoV-2-infected individual. A positive Ag-RDT result was obtained in 26 (24.1%) symptomatic and 7 (1.5%) asymptomatic persons (p < 0.001), which was concordant with qRT-PCR in 105/108 [97.2%, Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ) = 0.927] symptomatic and 467/476 (98.1% κ = 0.563) asymptomatic participants, with a positive percentage agreement (PPA; 95% confidence interval) of 89.7% (71.5-97.3%) and 42.9% (18.8-70.4%), respectively. None of the 11 false-negative diagnoses showed a C_t-value ≤20. Considering only failures with a C_t-value below 31 as hypothetical infectivity threshold of 10⁵ SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/mL, concordance was observed in 98.1% (κ = 0.746) in the asymptomatic population, accounting for a PPA of 66.7% (30.9-91%).

Conclusions

PoC Ag-RDT accurately detected active SARS-CoV-2 infection and showed acceptable diagnostic performance in asymptomatic persons potentially spreading infectious virus. Ag-RDT may therefore be useful to slow down or stop transmission by enabling adequate decisions on isolation at a public health level.

Association between viral load and positivization time of a SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test in routine nasopharyngeal specimens

BACKGROUND

Rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests are potentially useful tools for screening carriers with high viral load. This study was aimed to assess the potential association between viral load and positivization time of a manual SARS-CoV-2 commercial antigen test in routine nasopharyngeal specimens.

METHODS

In a sample of subjects undergoing routine diagnostic testing, SARS-CoV-2 positivity of nasopharyngeal samples was assayed with both molecular (Altona Diagnostics RealStar SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Kit) and antigenic (Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test) tests. Positivization time of rapid antigen test was correlated and compared with viral load expressed as mean of SARS-CoV2 E/S genes cycle threshold (Ct) values.

RESULTS

The study sample consisted of 106 patients (median age 48 years, 55 women) with positive results of rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing. A highly significant Spearman's correlation was found between mean SARSCoV-2 E/S genes Ct values and positivization time of manual antigen test (r= 0.70; p<0.001). The positivization time of rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen test displayed an area under the curve of 0.82 (95%CI, 0.74-0.89) for predicting nasopharyngeal samples with high viral load (i.e., mean Ct <20). A positivization time cut-off of 32 SEC had 94.9% sensitivity and 58.2% specificity for detecting specimens with high viral load. The overall agreement between mean Ct value <20 and positivization time <32 SEC was 70.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Positivization time of rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests may provide easy and rapid information on viral load, thus making this type of manual assay potentially suitable for quick and reliable detection and isolation of supercarriers.

SARS-CoV-2 Transmission Prevention Model Application in a Large Retail Company Before the Vaccine Introduction

On 11 March 2020, following the spread of SARS-CoV-2, WHO declared a pandemic status. The impact on national health and economic systems has been huge. Therefore, many countries took measures to restrict the spread of the virus. Many work activities have been subjected to lockdown measures. However, some production activities, continued to remain open, i.e., large-scale food distribution, food industry, pharmacies, hospitals, etc. In order to contain the spread of the pandemic, public health measures have been implemented by the States to reduce the contagion of the virus in the workplace. Therefore, it was important to implement measures to contrast and contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 in workplaces. The aim of this study was to adopt and implement a safety protocol useful to restrict the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in a large-scale retail trade company located in the south of Italy, before vaccination, during the first and second pandemic phases also exploiting telemedicine services. Antibody serological test cards were also used during the first pandemic wave and rapid antigenic swabs during the second to detect workers positive for SARS-CoV-2. A population of subjects who worked for another company similar for production activity and distribution on the territory was selected as the control group. During work activities, this group followed the minimum activity protocol provided by the Italian legislation (24 April 2020, Ministry Protocol), which provided the daily monitoring of the body temperature and in the case of SARS- CoV-2 positive subjects the extraordinary sanitation of the workplace. The measures implemented identified the positive subject for SARS-CoV-2 at an early stage. The protocol made it possible to significantly reduce the spread of the virus within large-scale retail distribution, and therefore, to avoid the temporary closure of the stores with a consequent reduction of economic losses compared with the control group.

Sensitivity and Diagnostic Yield of the First SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Amplification Test Performed for Patients Presenting to the Hospital

IMPORTANCE

Early and accurate diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 is essential to initiate appropriate treatment and infection control and prevention measures among patients presenting to the hospital.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) performed within 24 hours of arrival to the emergency department among a nationally representative sample of patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This diagnostic study was conducted at 47 hospitals across 7 provinces in Canada participating in the Canadian COVID-19 Rapid Response Emergency Department Network among consecutive eligible patients presenting to a participating emergency department who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021. Patients not tested within 24 hours of arrival and those presenting with a positive result from a test performed in the community were excluded.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was a positive result from the SARS-CoV-2 NAAT. Outcome measures were the diagnostic sensitivity and yield of the SARS-CoV-2 NAAT.

RESULTS

Of 132 760 eligible patients (66 433 women [50.0%]; median age, 57 years [IQR, 37-74 years]), 17 174 (12.9%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 14 days of their first NAAT. The diagnostic sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 NAAT was 96.2% (17 070 of 17 740 [95% CI, 95.9%-96.4%]) among all of the tests performed. Estimates ranged from a high of 97.7% (1710 of 1751 [95% CI, 96.8%-98.3%]) on day 2 of symptoms to a low of 90.4% (170 of 188 [95% CI, 85.3%-94.2%]) on day 11 of symptoms among patients presenting with COVID-19 symptoms. Among patients reporting COVID-19 symptoms, the sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 NAAT was 97.1% (11 870 of 12 225 [95% CI, 96.7%-97.3%]) compared with 87.6% (812 of 927 [95% CI, 85.2%-89.6%]) among patients without COVID-19 symptoms. The diagnostic yield of the SARS-CoV-2 NAAT was 12.0% (18 985 of 158 004 [95% CI, 11.8%-12.2%]) and varied from a high of 20.0% (445 of 2229 [95% CI, 18.3%-21.6%]) among patients tested on day 10 after symptom onset to a low of 8.1% (1686 of 20 719 [95% CI, 7.7%-8.5%]) among patients presenting within the first 24 hours of symptom onset.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study suggests that the diagnostic sensitivity was high for the first SARS-CoV-2 NAAT performed in the hospital and did not vary significantly by symptom duration. Repeated testing of patients with negative test results should be avoided unless their pretest probability of disease is high.

Using EHR data to identify coronavirus infections in hospitalized patients: Impact of case definitions on disease surveillance

PURPOSE

To evaluate the number, characteristics, and outcomes of patients identified hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using two different case definitions.

PROCEDURES

Electronic Health Record data were evaluated from patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through May 2020 at 52 health systems across the United States. Characteristics of inpatients with positive laboratory tests for SARS-CoV-2 were compared with those with clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 but without a confirmatory lab result.

FINDINGS

Of 14,371 inpatients with COVID-19, 6623 (46.1 %) had a positive laboratory result, and n = 7748 (52.9 %) had only a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19. Compared with clinically diagnosed cases, those with laboratory-confirmed COVID were similar in age and sex, but differed by race, ethnicity, and insurance status. Laboratory-confirmed cases were more likely to receive certain COVID-19 therapies including hydroxychloroquine, anti-IL6 agents and antivirals (p < 0.001). Those with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 had lower rates of most complications such as myocardial infarction, but higher overall mortality (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

We observed a two-fold difference in the number of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 depending on whether the case definition required laboratory confirmation. Variations in case definitions also led to differences in cohort characteristics, treatments, and outcomes.

Diagnostic accuracy of rapid point-of-care tests for diagnosis of current SARS-CoV-2 infections in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically assess the diagnostic accuracy of rapid point-of-care tests for diagnosis of current SARS-CoV-2 infections in children under real-life conditions.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, INAHTA HTA database, preprint servers (via Europe PMC), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP from 1 January 2020 to 7 May 2021; NICE Evidence Search, NICE Guidance, FIND Website from 1 January 2020 to 24 May 2021.

REVIEW METHODS

Diagnostic cross-sectional or cohort studies were eligible for inclusion if they had paediatric study participants and compared rapid point-of care tests for diagnosing current SARS-CoV-2 infections with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as the reference standard. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess the risk of bias and the applicability of the included studies. Bivariate meta-analyses with random effects were performed. Variability was assessed by subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

17 studies with a total of 6355 paediatric study participants were included. All studies compared antigen tests against RT-PCR. Overall, studies evaluated eight antigen tests from six different brands. Only one study was at low risk of bias. The pooled overall diagnostic sensitivity and specificity in paediatric populations was 64.2% (95% CI 57.4% to 70.5%) and 99.1% (95% CI 98.2% to 99.5%), respectively. In symptomatic children, the pooled diagnostic sensitivity was 71.8% (95% CI 63.6% to 78.8%) and the pooled diagnostic specificity was 98.7% (95% CI 96.6% to 99.5%). The pooled diagnostic sensitivity in asymptomatic children was 56.2% (95% CI 47.6% to 64.4%) and the pooled diagnostic specificity was 98.6% (95% CI 97.3% to 99.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

The performance of current antigen tests in paediatric populations under real-life conditions varies broadly. Relevant data were only identified for very few antigen tests on the market, and the risk of bias was mostly unclear due to poor reporting. Additionally, the most common uses of these tests in children (eg, self-testing in schools or parents testing their toddlers before kindergarten) have not been addressed in clinical performance studies yet. The observed low diagnostic sensitivity may impact the planned purpose of the broad implementation of testing programmes.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021236313.

When to test for COVID-19 using real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the time in days between symptom onset and first positive real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) result for COVID-19.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted in the MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and Scopus databases using the following descriptors: "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2", "coronavirus", "RT-PCR", "real time PCR", and "diagnosis".

RESULTS

The included studies were conducted in 31 different countries and reported on a total of 6831 patients. The median age of the participants was 49.95 years. The three most common symptoms were fever, cough, and dyspnea, which affected 4012 (58.68%), 3192 (46.69%), and 2009 patients (29.38%), respectively. Among the 90 included studies, 13 were prospective cohorts, 15 were retrospective cohorts, 36 were case reports, 20 were case series, and six were cross-sectional studies. The overall mean time between symptom onset and positive test result was 6.72 days. Fourteen articles were analyzed separately for the temporal profile of RT-PCR test results; the best performance was on days 22-24, when 98% of test results were positive.

CONCLUSION

These findings corroborate the RT-PCR COVID-19 testing practices of some health units. In addition, the most frequently described symptoms of these patients can be considered the initial symptoms of infection and used in decision-making about RT-PCR testing.

Ratiometric fluorescent Si-FITC nanoprobe for immunoassay of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) highlights the importance of rapid and reliable diagnostic assays for the management of virus transmission. Here, we developed a one-pot hydrothermal method to prepare Si-FITC nanoparticles (NPs) for the fluorescent immunoassay of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleocapsid protein (N protein). The synthesis of Si-FITC NPs did not need post-modification, which addressed the issue of quantum yield reduction during the coupling reaction. Si-FITC NPs showed two distinct peaks, Si fluorescence at λ em = 385 nm and FITC fluorescence at λ em = 490 nm. In the presence of KMnO4, Si fluorescence was decreased and FITC fluorescence was enhanced. Briefly, in the presence of N protein, catalase (CAT)-linked secondary antibody/reporter antibody/N protein/capture antibody immunocomplexes were formed on microplates. Subsequently, hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and Si-FITC NPs/KMnO4 were injected into the microplate together. The decomposition of H2O2 by CAT resulted in remaining of KMnO4, which changed the fluorescence intensity ratio of Si-FITC NPs. The fluorescence intensity ratio correlated significantly with the N protein concentration ranging from 0.02 to 50.00 ng/mL, and the detection limit was 0.003 ng/mL, which was more sensitive than the commercial ELISA kit with a detection limit of 0.057 ng/mL. The N protein concentration can be accurately determined in human serum. Furthermore, the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients were distinguishable by this method. Therefore, the ratiometric fluorescent immunoassay can be used for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis with a high sensitivity and selectivity.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Supplementary material (characterization of Si-FITC NPs (FTIR, HRXPS); stability investigation of Si-FITC NPs (photostability, pH stability, anti-interference ability); stability investigation of free FITC (pH value, KMnO4); quenching mechanism of KMnO4 (UV-vis absorption spectra, fluorescence lifetime decay curves); reaction condition optimization of biotin-CAT with H2O2 (pH value, temperature, time); detection of N protein using commercial ELISA Kit; selectivity investigation of assays for SARS-CoV-2 N protein detection; determination results of SARS-CoV-2 N protein in human serum) is available in the online version of this article at 10.1007/s12274-022-5005-z.

COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Tests: Bibliometric Analysis of the Scientific Literature

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to disrupt health systems worldwide, conducting Rapid Antigen Testing (RAT) at specified intervals has become an essential part of many people's lives around the world. We identified and analyzed the academic literature on COVID-19 RAT. The Web of Science electronic database was queried on 6 July 2022 to find relevant publications. Publication and citation data were retrieved directly from the database. VOSviewer, a bibliometric software, was then used to relate these data to the semantic content from the titles, abstracts, and keywords. The analysis was based on data from 1000 publications. The most productive authors were from Japan and the United States, led by Dr. Koji Nakamura from Japan (n = 10, 1.0%). The most academically productive countries were in the North America, Europe and Asia, led by the United States of America (n = 266, 26.6%). Sensitivity (n = 32, 3.2%) and specificity (n = 23, 2.3%) were among the most frequently recurring author keywords. Regarding sampling methods, "saliva" (n = 54, 5.4%) was mentioned more frequently than "nasal swab" (n = 32, 3.2%) and "nasopharyngeal swab" (n = 22, 2.2%). Recurring scenarios that required RAT were identified: emergency department, healthcare worker, mass screening, airport, traveler, and workplace. Our bibliometric analysis revealed that COVID-19 RAT has been utilized in a range of studies. RAT results were cross-checked with RT-PCR tests for sensitivity and specificity. These results are consistent with comparable exchanges of methods, results or discussions among laboratorians, authors, institutions and publishers in the involved countries of the world.

Performance of Two Rapid Antigen Detection Tests for Detecting COVID-19 Compared to RT-PCR in Indonesia

Antigen tests to screen coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is effective in symptomatic patients, leading to its wide usage in informing whether the person is COVID-19 positive or negative. Our current work had an objective to investigate the diagnostic performance of two antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) which are commonly used in Indonesia. A cross-sectional study was carried out to compare specificity, sensitivity, as well as expected predictive values of Anhui Ag-RDT and Lungene Ag-RDT by comparing the results with that obtained from real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay. A total of 98samples were tested for both Ag-RDTs and RT-PCR. The median value of the patients age obtained to be 41.78 years old (interquartile range: 1 to 91 years old). The proportion between female and males was: 52.53% vs 47.47%. The sensitivities of Anhui Ag-RDT and Lungene Ag-RDT were 55.56% and 51.58%, where both Ag-RDTs had specificity of 100%. In conclusion, sensitivity values of Lungene Ag-RDT and Anhui Ag-RDT are similar, where both possess 100% specificity with zero false-positive results. Both of the investigated Ag-RDTs are useful since positive results are likely to be COVID-19 positive.

Nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir for preventing and treating COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. Due to its novelty, there are currently few published study results. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) plus standard of care compared to standard of care with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 and for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses. To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in-between publication of review updates.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Scopus, and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 11 July 2022.  This is a LSR. We conduct monthly update searches that are being made publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care with standard of care with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We screened all studies for research integrity. Studies were ineligible if they had been retracted, or if they were not prospectively registered including appropriate ethics approval.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology and used the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: 1. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19; 2. to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, quality of life, (serious) adverse events, and viral clearance; 3. to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP); and 4. pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) scenarios: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, and (serious) adverse events. We explored inequity by subgroup analysis for elderly people, socially-disadvantaged people with comorbidities, populations from LICs and LMICs, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds.

MAIN RESULTS

As of 11 July 2022, we included one RCT with 2246 participants in outpatient settings with mild symptomatic COVID-19 comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care with standard of care plus placebo. Trial participants were unvaccinated, without previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, had a symptom onset of no more than five days before randomization, and were at high risk for progression to severe disease. Prohibited prior or concomitant therapies included medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 for clearance and CYP3A4 inducers.  We identified eight ongoing studies. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease For the specific population of unvaccinated, high-risk patients nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.68; 1 study, 2224 participants; estimated absolute effect: 11 deaths per 1000 people receiving placebo compared to 0 deaths per 1000 people receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; low-certainty evidence, and admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27; 1 study, 2224 participants; estimated absolute effect: 61 admissions or deaths per 1000 people receiving placebo compared to eight admissions or deaths per 1000 people receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care probably has little or no effect on treatment-emergent adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably increases treatment-related adverse events such as dysgeusia and diarrhoea during the study period compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No study results were identified for improvement of clinical status, quality of life, and viral clearance.  Subgroup analyses for equity Most study participants were younger than 65 years (87.1% of the : modified intention to treat (mITT1) population with 2085 participants), of white ethnicity (71.5%), and were from UMICs or HICs (92.1% of study centres). Data on comorbidities were insufficient.  The outcome 'admission to hospital or death' was investigated for equity: age (< 65 years versus ≥ 65 years) and ethnicity (Asian versus Black versus White versus others). There was no difference between subgroups of age. The effects favoured treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for the White ethnic group. Estimated effects in the other ethnic groups included the line of no effect (RR = 1). No subgroups were reported for comorbidity status and World Bank country classification by income level. No subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate to severe disease No studies available. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-certainty evidence that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and hospital admission or death based on one trial investigating unvaccinated COVID-19 participants without previous infection that were at high risk and with symptom onset of no more than five days. There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is safe in people without prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4. Regarding equity aspects, except for ethnicity, no differences in effect size and direction were identified. No evidence is available on nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to treat hospitalized people with COVID-19 and to prevent a SARS-CoV-2 infection. We will continually update our search and make search results available on OSF.

The Agreement Between Reverse Transcriptase-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) and Rapid Antigen Test (RAT) in Diagnosing COVID-19

Background

False-negative results derived from RT-PCR tests for diagnosing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have raised questions about whether to consider them the gold standard for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Using an imperfect gold standard to assess other diagnostic tests would never let the other tests show better diagnostic performance. The best strategy in such cases is to do an agreement analysis, and this study aims to estimate the agreement between real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and rapid antigen test (RAT) for COVID-19 detection.

Methods

A retrospective study was done using paired data of individuals tested for COVID-19, both by RT-PCR and RAT, obtained from the virology laboratory of Government Bundelkhand Medical College, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, India. A sample size of 93 was calculated, and the data were abstracted in a data abstraction sheet. Variables included were results of RT-PCR and RAT, age, gender, presence of symptoms, test kit used, and the time duration between sampling for RT-PCR and RAT. Apart from descriptive statistics, keeping in mind the binary outcome of RT-PCR and RAT, Cohen’s kappa was calculated for agreement analysis. A p-value of <0.05 was considered significant.

Results

The data on 100 participants suspected to be infected with COVID-19 (58 male and 42 female) with a mean age of 39.8 (±19.0) years were analysed. The number of discordant pairs was eight. Cohen’s kappa showed substantial agreement between RT-PCR and RAT, κ=0.646, (95% CI 0.420 to 0.871), p<0.001.

Conclusion

Considering the ease of conducting RAT with quick results and substantial agreement with RT-PCR, RAT could be a better choice in detecting SARS-CoV-2 and, hence, COVID-19 disease on a large scale.

Development of gold nanoparticle-based biosensors for COVID-19 diagnosis

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative organism of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) which poses a significant threat to public health worldwide. Though there are certain recommended drugs that can cure COVID-19, their therapeutic efficacy is limited. Therefore, the early and rapid detection without compromising the test accuracy is necessary in order to provide an appropriate treatment for the disease suppression.

Main body

Nanoparticles (NPs) can closely mimic the virus and interact strongly with its proteins due to their morphological similarities. NPs have been widely applied in a variety of medical applications, including biosensing, drug delivery, antimicrobial treatment, and imaging. Recently, NPs-based biosensors have attracted great interest for their biological activities and specific sensing properties, which allows the detection of analytes such as nucleic acids (DNA or RNA), aptamers, and proteins in clinical samples. Further, the advances of nanotechnologies have enabled the development of miniaturized detection systems for point-of-care biosensors, a new strategy for detecting human viral diseases. Among the various NPs, the specific physicochemical properties of gold NPs (AuNPs) are being widely used in the field of clinical diagnostics. As a result, several AuNP-based colorimetric detection methods have been developed.

Short conclusion

The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the development of AuNPs-based biosensors by virtue of its powerful characteristics as a signal amplifier or enhancer that target pathogenic RNA viruses that provide a reliable and effective strategy for detecting of the existing or newly emerging SARS-CoV-2.

Comparing Rapid Ag Test and PCR in SARS-CoV-2 Management in Rural Egypt

Like elsewhere around the globe, SARS-CoV-2 infection is spreading in rural Egypt. Due to high sensitivity and specificity, the gold standard of diagnostics is reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction PCR (RT-PCR). Rural areas without access to certified laboratories cannot take advantage of RT-PCR testing, and thus are dependent upon rapid antigen testing, a point-of-care test that requires less training and can produce results within 15 minutes. Rapid antigen testing can give an advantage to medical teams in rural settings by affording effective and early control of SARS-CoV-2 infection spread. We sought to assess the contribution of different COVID-19 testing procedures in rural Egypt. We conducted a prospective cohort study in a rural lab in Giza, Egypt. Approximately 223 individuals with potential SARS-CoV-2 infection were involved in the study during the pandemic peak in Giza, Egypt, from March 4 – May 30, 2021. Subjects were subjected to RT-PCR and rapid antigen testing, and the performance of each testing procedure was compared. Between March 4 – May 30, 2021, approximately 223 symptomatic individuals were included in this study. 190 patients (85.2%) were indicated as PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2, while 33 (14.8%) were PCR negative. In comparison, a rapid antigen test showed 178 out of 223 patients (79.8%) were indicated as positive, or 94% of the PCR-positive individuals. In Giza, a rural area of Egypt, RT-PCR had an optimal balance of sensitivity and specificity, however, the turnaround time was a limiting factor. Antigen testing, performed as a rapid point-of-care test, can play an effective role in rural outbreak control due to its ease of use and rapid results.

Performance evaluation of antigen detection rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) for COVID-19 diagnosis in a primary healthcare center during the Shanghai COVID-19 quarantine period

BACKGROUND

Rapid and accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection is the cornerstone of prompt patient care. However, the reliability of the antigen rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection remains inconclusive.

METHODS

We conducted a field evaluation of Ag-RDT performance during the Shanghai Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) quarantine and screened 7225 individuals visiting our Emergency Department. 83 asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 (+) individuals were enrolled in the current study. Simultaneously, Ag-RDT was performed to evaluate its testing performance.

RESULTS

For the Ag-RDT(-) cases, the average cycle threshold (Ct) values of the N gene were 27.26 ± 4.59, which were significantly higher than the Ct value (21.9 ± 4.73) of the Ag-RDT(+) individuals (p < 0.0001). The overall sensitivity of Ag-RDT versus that of RT-PCR was 43.37%. The Ag-RDT(+) individuals regarding the N gene's Ct value were 16 cases in the < 20 range, 12 in 20-25, 5 in 25-30, and 3 in 30-35. The corresponding sensitivity was 84.21%, 52.17%, 21.74% and 16.67%, respectively. Meanwhile, sampling had a straight specificity of 100% regardless of the Ct value.

CONCLUSIONS

The Ag-RDT were extremely sensitive in asymptomatic COVID-19 individuals with a Ct value < 20.

SLIDE: Saliva-Based SARS-CoV-2 Self-Testing with RT-LAMP in a Mobile Device

Regular, accurate, rapid, and inexpensive self-testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is urgently needed to quell pandemic propagation. The existing at-home nucleic acid testing (NAT) test has high sensitivity and specificity, but it requires users to mail the sample to the central lab, which often takes 3-5 days to obtain the results. On the other hand, rapid antigen tests for the SARS-CoV-2 antigen provide a fast sample to answer the test (15 min). However, the sensitivity of antigen tests is 30 to 40% lower than nucleic acid testing, which could miss a significant portion of infected patients. Here, we developed a fully integrated SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) device using a self-collected saliva sample. This platform can automatically handle the complexity and can perform the functions, including (1) virus particles' thermal lysis preparation, (2) sample dispensing, (3) target sequence RT-LAMP amplification, (4) real-time detection, and (5) result report and communication. With a turnaround time of less than 45 min, our device achieved the limit of detection (LoD) of 5 copies/μL of the saliva sample, which is comparable with the LoD (6 copies/μL) using FDA-approved quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) assays with the same heat-lysis saliva sample preparation method. With clinical samples, our platform showed a good agreement with the results from the gold-standard RT-PCR method. These results show that our platform can perform self-administrated SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing by laypersons with noninvasive saliva samples. We believe that our self-testing platform will have an ongoing benefit for COVID-19 control and fighting future pandemics.

Exhaled Aldehydes as Biomarkers for Lung Diseases: A Narrative Review

Breath analysis provides great potential as a fast and non-invasive diagnostic tool for several diseases. Straight-chain aliphatic aldehydes were repeatedly detected in the breath of patients suffering from lung diseases using a variety of methods, such as mass spectrometry, ion mobility spectrometry, or electro-chemical sensors. Several studies found increased concentrations of exhaled aldehydes in patients suffering from lung cancer, inflammatory and infectious lung diseases, and mechanical lung injury. This article reviews the origin of exhaled straight-chain aliphatic aldehydes, available detection methods, and studies that found increased aldehyde exhalation in lung diseases.

Fast and noninvasive electronic nose for sniffing out COVID-19 based on exhaled breath-print recognition

The reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) approach has been widely used to detect the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, instead of using it alone, clinicians often prefer to diagnose the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by utilizing a combination of clinical signs and symptoms, laboratory test, imaging measurement (e.g., chest computed tomography scan), and multivariable clinical prediction models, including the electronic nose. Here, we report on the development and use of a low cost, noninvasive method to rapidly sniff out COVID-19 based on a portable electronic nose (GeNose C19) integrating an array of metal oxide semiconductor gas sensors, optimized feature extraction, and machine learning models. This approach was evaluated in profiling tests involving a total of 615 breath samples composed of 333 positive and 282 negative samples. The samples were obtained from 43 positive and 40 negative COVID-19 patients, respectively, and confirmed with RT-qPCR at two hospitals located in the Special Region of Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Four different machine learning algorithms (i.e., linear discriminant analysis, support vector machine, stacked multilayer perceptron, and deep neural network) were utilized to identify the top-performing pattern recognition methods and to obtain a high system detection accuracy (88–95%), sensitivity (86–94%), and specificity (88–95%) levels from the testing datasets. Our results suggest that GeNose C19 can be considered a highly potential breathalyzer for fast COVID-19 screening.

Determining SARS-CoV-2 non-infectivity state-A brief overview

From the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has claimed over 6 million lives, and globally the pandemic rages with detrimental consequences, with the emergence of new more infectious and possibly virulent variants. A clinical obstacle in this battle has been to determine when an infected individual has reached a non-infectious state. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can be transmitted under diverse circumstances, and various rules and regulations, along with different testing methods, have been applied in an attempt to confine the transmission. However, that has proven to be a difficult task. In this review, we take together recently published data on infectivity and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and have combined it with the clinical experience that physicians in Iceland have accumulated from the pandemic. In addition, we suggest guidelines for determining when patients with COVID-19 reach a non-infectious state based on a combination of clinical experience, scientific data, and proficient use of available tests. This review has addressed some of the questions regarding contagiousness and immunity against SARS-CoV-2.

Policy choices for Shanghai responding to challenges of Omicron

Background

A new wave of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection driven by Omicron BA.2 subvariant hit Shanghai end of February 2020. With higher transmissibility and milder symptoms, the daily new confirmed cases have soared to more than 20 K within one and a half months. The greatest challenge of Omicron spreading is that the rapidly surging number of infected populations overwhelming the healthcare system. What policy is effective for huge cities to fight against fast-spreading COVID-19 new variant remains a question.

Methods

A system dynamics model of the Shanghai Omicron epidemic was developed as an extension of the traditional susceptible-exposed-infected-susceptible recovered (SEIR) model to incorporate the policies, such as contact tracing and quarantine, COVID-19 testing, isolation of areas concerned, and vaccination. Epidemic data from Shanghai Municipal Health Commission were collected for model validation.

Results

Three policies were tested with the model: COVID-19 testing, isolation of areas concerned, and vaccination. Maintaining a high level of COVID-19 testing and transfer rate of the infected population can prevent the number of daily new confirmed cases from recurring growth. In the scenario that 50% of the infected population could be transferred for quarantine on daily bases, the daily confirmed asymptomatic cases and symptomatic cases remained at a low level under 100. For isolation of areas concerned, in the scenario with most isolation scope, the peak of daily confirmed asymptomatic and symptomatic cases dropped 18 and 16%, respectively, compared with that in the scenario with least isolation. Regarding vaccination, increasing the vaccination rate from 75 to 95% only slightly reduced the peak of the confirmed cases, but it can reduce the severe cases and death by 170%.

Conclusions

The effective policies for Omicron include high level of testing capacity with a combination of RAT and PCR testing to identify and quarantine the infected cases, especially the asymptomatic cases. Immediate home-isolation and fast transfer to centralized quarantine location could help control the spread of the virus. Moreover, to promote the vaccination in vulnerable population could significantly reduce the severe cases and death. These policies could be applicable to all metropolises with huge population facing high transmissible low severity epidemic.

Diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Panbio™ rapid antigen diagnostic tests in a 4,440-case clinical follow-up

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) Rapid Antigen Detection Testing (RADT) has been subjected to several evaluations in reference to diagnostic accuracy, ranging from small scale up to large population studies including nation-wide community-based studies. All confirmed the diagnostic accuracy of the tests which were strongly dependent upon the infection's population prevalence. In our retrospective study, parallel SARS-CoV-2 Panbio™ RADT assay, including real-time reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) tests, were aimed to evaluate diagnostic performance regarding the rapid antigen diagnostic testing. Out of 4,440 paired tests, 609 samples tested positive using RT-qPCR, resulting in a prevalence of 13.7%. Panbio detected 251 (5.7%) positive tested samples. Overall sensitivity was 41.2% (95% CI 37.4-45.2%) and overall specificity was 99.7% (95% CI 99.4-99.8%). Positive predictive value (PPV) was 95.1% (95% CI 91.8-97.1%) and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 91.4% (95% CI 90.5-92.2%). RADT sensitivity increased with stratification in reference to the results according to PCR Cycle threshold (Ct) and presence of the symptoms considerably influenced PPV and NPV. Sensitivity in the group of Ct values ≤ 20 was 91.2%, 68.6% within the Ct range of 20-25, 47.9% in the group of Ct values between 25 and 30, and 12.6% in the group of Ct values between 30 and 35. A follow-up of the positive cases aligned with RT-qPCR testing and comparison of the general population enrolled in the testing in which the fatal cases occurred enabled us to estimate real clinical diagnostic performance regarding the SARS-CoV-2 Panbio RADT. Based upon our results, we recommend the SARS-CoV-2 Panbio RADT tests be carried out as the primary test, without parallel PCR testing, only among high population prevalence rates of the infection and to be used for symptomatic individuals with average or low severe disease developmental risk. In the case of high risk regarding the development of severe infection complications, a parallel SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR is needed to be carried out to attain proper diagnostic accuracy and avoid delaying appropriate medical care.

False-positive Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay in an emergency room and trauma center: A retrospective chart review study

OBJECTIVES

To review reports false-positive Xpert results in an emergency room and trauma center.

METHODS

Patients' data with false-positive Xpert results from November 2020 to February 2022 at Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Republic of Korea, were extracted from the electronic medical records.

RESULTS

The positive predictive value of Xpert was 40%. Of the 12 patients with false-positive results, 5 (41.7%) were re-positives (such as, patients recovered from coronavirus disease-19 [COVID-19]), and 4 (33.3%) had head or facial trauma. Two out of 4 head or facial trauma cases had documented sample contamination with blood.

CONCLUSION

We found a high incidence of false-positive Xpert results among patients who recovered from COVID-19 and those with head or facial injury. Careful history taking for COVID-19 and physical examination of the sample collection site is essential before Xpert analysis.

Utility of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing for patient triage in the emergency department: A clinical implementation study in Melbourne, Australia

Background

Early, rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 is essential in healthcare settings in order to implement appropriate infection control precautions and rapidly assign patients to care pathways. Rapid testing methods, such as SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing (RAT) may improve patient care, despite a lower sensitivity than real-time PCR (RT-PCR) testing.

Methods

Patients presenting to an Emergency Department (ED) in Melbourne, Australia, were risk-stratified for their likelihood of active COVID-19 infection, and a non-randomised cohort of patients were tested by both Abbott Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag test (RAT) and SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. Patients with a positive RAT in the ‘At or High Risk’ COVID-19 group were moved immediately to a COVID-19 ward rather than waiting for a RT-PCR result. Clinical and laboratory data were assessed to determine test performance characteristics; and length of stay in the ED was compared for the different patient cohorts.

Findings

Analysis of 1762 paired RAT/RT-PCR samples demonstrated an overall sensitivity of 75.5% (206/273; 95% CI: 69·9-80·4) for the Abbott Panbio™ COVID-12 Ag test, with specificity of 100% (1489/1489; 95% CI: 99·8-100). Sensitivity improved with increasing risk for COVID-19 infection, from 72·4% (95% CI: 52·8-87·3) in the ‘No Risk’ cohort to 100% (95% CI: 29·2-100) in the ‘High Risk’ group. Time in the ED for the ‘At/High Risk’ group decreased from 421 minutes (IQR: 281, 525) for those with a positive RAT result to 274 minutes (IQR:140, 425) for those with a negative RAT result, p = 0.02.

Interpretation

The positive predictive value of a positive RAT in this setting was high, allowing more rapid instigation of COVID-19 care pathways and an improvement in patient flow within the ED.

Funding

Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.

Clinical evaluation of Sofia Rapid Antigen Assay for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among emergency department to hospital admissions

OBJECTIVE

To determine the utility of the Sofia SARS rapid antigen fluorescent immunoassay (FIA) to guide hospital-bed placement of patients being admitted through the emergency department (ED).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of a clinical quality improvement study.

SETTING

This study was conducted in 2 community hospitals in Maryland from September 21, 2020, to December 3, 2020. In total, 2,887 patients simultaneously received the Sofia SARS rapid antigen FIA and SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays on admission through the ED.

METHODS

Rapid antigen results and symptom assessment guided initial patient placement while confirmatory RT-PCR was pending. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values of the rapid antigen assay were calculated relative to RT-PCR, overall and separately for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Assay sensitivity was compared to RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values. Assay turnaround times were compared. Clinical characteristics of RT-PCR-positive patients and potential exposures from false-negative antigen assays were evaluated.

RESULTS

For all patients, overall agreement was 97.9%; sensitivity was 76.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 71%-82%), and specificity was 99.7% (95% CI, 99%-100%). We detected no differences in performance between asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals. As RT-PCR Ct increased, the sensitivity of the antigen assay decreased. The mean turnaround time for the antigen assay was 1.2 hours (95% CI, 1.0-1.3) and for RT-PCR it was 20.1 hours (95% CI, 18.9-40.3) (P < .001). No transmission from antigen-negative/RT-PCR-positive patients was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Although not a replacement for RT-PCR for detection of all SARS-CoV-2 infections, the Sofia SARS antigen FIA has clinical utility for potential initial timely patient placement.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection

BACKGROUND

Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection would be a useful tool to help manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Testing strategies that use rapid antigen tests to detect current infection have the potential to increase access to testing, speed detection of infection, and inform clinical and public health management decisions to reduce transmission. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included setting and indication for testing, assay format, sample site, viral load, age, timing of test, and study design.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) on 08 March 2021. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies of people with either suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, known SARS-CoV-2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen tests. We included evaluations of single applications of a test (one test result reported per person) and evaluations of serial testing (repeated antigen testing over time). Reference standards for presence or absence of infection were any laboratory-based molecular test (primarily reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)) or pre-pandemic respiratory sample.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard screening procedures with three people. Two people independently carried out quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and extracted study results. Other study characteristics were extracted by one review author and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test, and pooled data using the bivariate model. We investigated heterogeneity by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 155 study cohorts (described in 166 study reports, with 24 as preprints). The main results relate to 152 evaluations of single test applications including 100,462 unique samples (16,822 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly conducted in Europe (101/152, 66%), and evaluated 49 different commercial antigen assays. Only 23 studies compared two or more brands of test. Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (40, 26%); interpretation of the index test (6, 4%); weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection (119, 78%); and participant flow and timing 41 (27%). Characteristics of participants (45, 30%) and index test delivery (47, 31%) differed from the way in which and in whom the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (91%) used a single RT-PCR result to define presence or absence of infection. The 152 studies of single test applications reported 228 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies, with consistently high specificities. Average sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (73.0%, 95% CI 69.3% to 76.4%; 109 evaluations; 50,574 samples, 11,662 cases) compared to asymptomatic participants (54.7%, 95% CI 47.7% to 61.6%; 50 evaluations; 40,956 samples, 2641 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (80.9%, 95% CI 76.9% to 84.4%; 30 evaluations, 2408 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (53.8%, 95% CI 48.0% to 59.6%; 40 evaluations, 1119 cases). For those who were asymptomatic at the time of testing, sensitivity was higher when an epidemiological exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was suspected (64.3%, 95% CI 54.6% to 73.0%; 16 evaluations; 7677 samples, 703 cases) compared to where COVID-19 testing was reported to be widely available to anyone on presentation for testing (49.6%, 95% CI 42.1% to 57.1%; 26 evaluations; 31,904 samples, 1758 cases). Average specificity was similarly high for symptomatic (99.1%) or asymptomatic (99.7%) participants. We observed a steady decline in summary sensitivities as measures of sample viral load decreased. Sensitivity varied between brands. When tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, average sensitivities by brand ranged from 34.3% to 91.3% in symptomatic participants (20 assays with eligible data) and from 28.6% to 77.8% for asymptomatic participants (12 assays). For symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities for seven assays were 80% or more (meeting acceptable criteria set by the World Health Organization (WHO)). The WHO acceptable performance criterion of 97% specificity was met by 17 of 20 assays when tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, 12 of which demonstrated specificities above 99%. For asymptomatic participants the sensitivities of only two assays approached but did not meet WHO acceptable performance standards in one study each; specificities for asymptomatic participants were in a similar range to those observed for symptomatic people. At 5% prevalence using summary data in symptomatic people during the first week after symptom onset, the positive predictive value (PPV) of 89% means that 1 in 10 positive results will be a false positive, and around 1 in 5 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence using summary data for asymptomatic people, where testing was widely available and where epidemiological exposure to COVID-19 was suspected, resulting PPVs would be 38% to 52%, meaning that between 2 in 5 and 1 in 2 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. Assays that meet appropriate performance standards, such as those set by WHO, could replace laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. However, they are more suitable for use as triage to RT-PCR testing. The variable sensitivity of antigen tests means that people who test negative may still be infected. Many commercially available rapid antigen tests have not been evaluated in independent validation studies. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts has increased, however sensitivity is lower and there is a paucity of evidence for testing in different settings. Questions remain about the use of antigen test-based repeat testing strategies. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of screening programmes at reducing transmission of infection, whether mass screening or targeted approaches including schools, healthcare setting and traveller screening.

Lessons for improved COVID-19 surveillance from the scale-up of malaria testing strategies

Effective control of infectious diseases is facilitated by informed decisions that require accurate and timely diagnosis of disease. For malaria, improved access to malaria diagnostics has revolutionized malaria control and elimination programmes. However, for COVID-19, diagnosis currently remains largely centralized and puts many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) at a disadvantage. Malaria and COVID-19 are infectious diseases that share overlapping symptoms. While the strategic responses to disease control for malaria and COVID-19 are dependent on the disease ecologies of each disease, the fundamental need for accurate and timely testing remains paramount to inform accurate responses. This review highlights how the roll-out of rapid diagnostic tests has been fundamental in the fight against malaria, primarily within the Asia Pacific and along the Greater Mekong Subregion. By learning from the successful elements of malaria control programmes, it is clear that improving access to point-of-care testing strategies for COVID-19 will provide a suitable framework for COVID-19 diagnosis in not only the Asia Pacific, but all malarious countries. In malaria-endemic countries, an integrated approach to point-of-care testing for COVID-19 and malaria would provide bi-directional benefits for COVID-19 and malaria control, particularly due to their paralleled likeness of symptoms, infection control strategies and at-risk individuals. This is especially important, as previous disease pandemics have disrupted malaria control infrastructure, resulting in malaria re-emergence and halting elimination progress. Understanding and combining strategies may help to both limit disruptions to malaria control and support COVID-19 control.

Clinical Performance of Rapid and Point-of-Care Antigen Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern: A Living Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Rapid antigen tests (RATs) for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are widely used in the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by diverse variants. Information on the real-world performance of RATs for variants is urgently needed for decision makers. Systematic searches of the available literature and updates were conducted in PubMed, Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-EMBASE, CENTRAL, and KMBASE for articles evaluating the accuracy of instrument-free RATs for variants up until 14 March 2022. A bivariate random effects model was utilized to calculate pooled diagnostic values in comparison with real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction as the reference test. A total of 7562 samples from six studies were available for the meta-analysis. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of RATs for variants were 69.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 62.5% to 76.1%) and 100.0% (95% CI = 98.8% to 100.0%), respectively. When an additional 2179 samples from seven studies reporting sensitivities only were assessed, the pooled sensitivity dropped to 50.0% (95% CI = 44.0% to 55.0%). These findings suggest reassessment and monitoring of the diagnostic utility of RATs for variants, especially for the sensitivity aspect, to facilitate appropriate diagnosis and management of COVID-19 patients.