Evaluation of two rapid antigen tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 in a hospital setting

Clinical accuracy of instrument-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen diagnostic tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, antigen diagnostic tests were frequently used for screening, triage, and diagnosis. Novel instrument-based antigen tests (iAg tests) hold the promise of outperforming their instrument-free, visually-read counterparts. Here, we provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 iAg tests' clinical accuracy.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, medRxiv, and bioRxiv for articles published before November 7th, 2022, evaluating the accuracy of iAg tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection. We performed a random effects meta-analysis to estimate sensitivity and specificity and used the QUADAS-2 tool to assess study quality and risk of bias. Sub-group analysis was conducted based on Ct value range, IFU-conformity, age, symptom presence and duration, and the variant of concern.

RESULTS

We screened the titles and abstracts of 20,431 articles and included 114 publications that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Additionally, we incorporated three articles sourced from the FIND website, totaling 117 studies encompassing 95,181 individuals, which evaluated the clinical accuracy of 24 commercial COVID-19 iAg tests. The studies varied in risk of bias but showed high applicability. Of 24 iAg tests from 99 studies assessed in the meta-analysis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity compared to molecular testing of a paired NP swab sample were 76.7% (95% CI 73.5 to 79.7) and 98.4% (95% CI 98.0 to 98.7), respectively. Higher sensitivity was noted in individuals with high viral load (99.6% [95% CI 96.8 to 100] at Ct-level ≤ 20) and within the first week of symptom onset (84.6% [95% CI 78.2 to 89.3]), but did not differ between tests conducted as per manufacturer's instructions and those conducted differently, or between point-of-care and lab-based testing.

CONCLUSION

Overall, iAg tests have a high pooled specificity but a moderate pooled sensitivity, according to our analysis. The pooled sensitivity increases with lower Ct-values (a proxy for viral load), or within the first week of symptom onset, enabling reliable identification of most COVID-19 cases and highlighting the importance of context in test selection. The study underscores the need for careful evaluation considering performance variations and operational features of iAg tests.

Net-Shaped DNA Nanostructure-Based Lateral Flow Assays for Rapid and Sensitive SARS-CoV-2 Detection

Lateral flow assay (LFA)-based rapid antigen tests are experiencing extensive global uptake as an expeditious and highly effective modality for the screening of viral infections during the COVID-19 pandemic. While these devices have played a significant role in alleviating the burden on the public healthcare system, their specificity and sensitivity fall short compared with molecular tests. In this study, we endeavor to address both limitations through the utilization of DNA nanotechnology in LFA format, wherein we substitute the target-specific antibody with designer DNA nanostructure-based molecular probes for recognizing the SARS-CoV-2 virus via multivalent, pattern-matching interactions. We meticulously designed a Net-shaped DNA nanostructure and strategically arranged trimeric clusters of aptamers that specifically recognize the spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. This approach has proven instrumental in bolstering virus-binding affinity on the LFAs. Our findings indicate high LFA sensitivity, enabling the detection of viral loads ranging from 103 to 108 viral copies/mL. This notable sensitivity is maintained across various SARS-CoV-2 viral strains, obviating the need for intricate sample preparation protocols. The significance of this heightened sensitivity lies in the crucial role played by the designer DNA nanostructure, which facilitates the detection of extremely low levels of viral loads. This not only enhances the overall reliability of self-testing but also reduces the likelihood of false-negative results, especially in cases of low viral load within patient samples.

Saliva sampling and its direct lysis is an excellent option for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis in paediatric patients: comparison with the PanBio COVID-19 antigen rapid test in symptomatic and asymptomatic children

Introduction. Lateral flow test (LFTs) have been used as an alternative to reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) in point-of-care testing. Despite their benefits, the sensitivity of LFTs may be low and is affected by several factors. We have previously reported the feasibility of using direct lysis of individual or pools of saliva samples from symptomatic and asymptomatic patients as a source of viral genomes for detection by RT-qPCR.Hypothesis. Direct lysed saliva is more sensitive than antigen tests to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in samples from children.Aim. Our goals here were to valuate the specificity and sensitivity of the PanBio COVID-19 antigen rapid test device (Ag-RTD) compared with RT-qPCR of direct lysed saliva.Methodology. We evaluated the performance of the PanBio COVID-19 Ag-RTD in comparison to RT-qPCR direct lysed saliva from paired samples of 256 symptomatic and 242 asymptomatic paediatric patients.Results. Overall, although there were no differences in the specificity (96.6%), we found a lower sensitivity (64.3%) of the PanBio Ag-test RTD compared to saliva in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. In addition, the sensitivity of PanBio was not correlated with the viral load present in the samples.Conclusion. Our data highlight the benefits of using RT-qPCR and saliva samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection, particularly in paediatric patients.

Automated antigen assays display a high heterogeneity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including several Omicron sublineages

Diagnostic tests for direct pathogen detection have been instrumental to contain the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Automated, quantitative, laboratory-based nucleocapsid antigen (Ag) tests for SARS-CoV-2 have been launched alongside nucleic acid-based test systems and point-of-care (POC) lateral-flow Ag tests. Here, we evaluated four commercial Ag tests on automated platforms for the detection of different sublineages of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant of concern (VoC) (B.1.1.529) in comparison with "non-Omicron" VoCs. A total of 203 Omicron PCR-positive respiratory swabs (53 BA.1, 48 BA.2, 23 BQ.1, 39 XBB.1.5 and 40 other subvariants) from the period February to March 2022 and from March 2023 were examined. In addition, tissue culture-expanded clinical isolates of Delta (B.1.617.2), Omicron-BA.1, -BF.7, -BN.1 and -BQ.1 were studied. These results were compared to previously reported data from 107 clinical "non-Omicron" samples from the end of the second pandemic wave (February to March 2021) as well as cell culture-derived samples of wildtype (wt) EU-1 (B.1.177), Alpha VoC (B.1.1.7) and Beta VoC (B.1.351)). All four commercial Ag tests were able to detect at least 90.9% of Omicron-containing samples with high viral loads (Ct < 25). The rates of true-positive test results for BA.1/BA.2-positive samples with intermediate viral loads (Ct 25-30) ranged between 6.7% and 100.0%, while they dropped to 0 to 15.4% for samples with low Ct values (> 30). This heterogeneity was reflected also by the tests' 50%-limit of detection (LoD50) values ranging from 44,444 to 1,866,900 Geq/ml. Respiratory samples containing Omicron-BQ.1/XBB.1.5 or other Omicron subvariants that emerged in 2023 were detected with enormous heterogeneity (0 to 100%) for the intermediate and low viral load ranges with LoD50 values between 23,019 and 1,152,048 Geq/ml. In contrast, detection of "non-Omicron" samples was more sensitive, scoring positive in 35 to 100% for the intermediate and 1.3 to 32.9% of cases for the low viral loads, respectively, corresponding to LoD50 values ranging from 6181 to 749,792 Geq/ml. All four assays detected cell culture-expanded VoCs Alpha, Beta, Delta and Omicron subvariants carrying up to six amino acid mutations in the nucleocapsid protein with sensitivities comparable to the non-VoC EU-1. Overall, automated quantitative SARS-CoV-2 Ag assays are not more sensitive than standard rapid antigen tests used in POC settings and show a high heterogeneity in performance for VoC recognition. The best of these automated Ag tests may have the potential to complement nucleic acid-based assays for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics in settings not primarily focused on the protection of vulnerable groups. In light of the constant emergence of new Omicron subvariants and recombinants, most recently the XBB lineage, these tests' performance must be regularly re-evaluated, especially when new VoCs carry mutations in the nucleocapsid protein or immunological and clinical parameters change.

Ten rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 widely differ in their ability to detect Omicron-BA.4 and -BA.5

Since late 2021, the variant landscape of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been dominated by the variant of concern (VoC) Omicron and its sublineages. We and others have shown that the detection of Omicron-BA.1 and -BA.2-positive respiratory specimens by rapid antigen tests (RATs) is impaired compared to Delta VoC-containing samples. Here, in a single-center retrospective laboratory study, we evaluated the performance of ten most commonly used RATs for the detection of Omicron-BA.4 and -BA.5 infections. We used 171 respiratory swab specimens from SARS-CoV-2 RNA-positive patients, of which 71 were classified as BA.4 and 100 as BA.5. All swabs were collected between July and September 2022. 50 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative samples from healthy individuals, collected in October 2022, showed high specificity in 9 out of 10 RATs. When assessing analytical sensitivity using clinical specimens, the 50% limit of detection (LoD50) ranged from 7.6 × 104 to 3.3 × 106 RNA copies subjected to the RATs for BA.4 compared to 6.8 × 104 to 3.0 × 106 for BA.5. Overall, intra-assay differences for the detection of these two Omicron subvariants were not significant for both respiratory swabs and tissue culture-expanded virus isolates. In contrast, marked heterogeneity was observed among the ten RATs: to be positive in these point-of-care tests, up to 443-fold (BA.4) and up to 56-fold (BA.5) higher viral loads were required for the worst performing RAT compared to the best performing RAT. True-positive rates for Omicron-BA.4- or -BA.5-containing specimens in the highest viral load category (Ct values < 25) ranged from 94.3 to 34.3%, dropping to 25.6 to 0% for samples with intermediate Ct values (25-30). We conclude that the high heterogeneity in the performance of commonly used RATs remains a challenge for the general public to obtain reliable results in the evolving Omicron subvariant-driven pandemic.

Rapid point-of-care detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection in exhaled breath using ion mobility spectrometry: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

An effective testing strategy is essential for pandemic control of the novel Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Breath gas analysis can expand the available toolbox for diagnostic tests by using a rapid, cost-beneficial, high-throughput point-of-care test. We conducted a bi-center clinical pilot study in Germany to evaluate breath gas analysis using multi-capillary column ion mobility spectrometry (MCC-IMS) to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

Between September 23, 2020, and June 11, 2021, breath gas measurements were performed on 380 patients (SARS-CoV-2 real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive: 186; PCR negative: 194) presenting to the emergency department (ED) with respiratory symptoms.

RESULTS

Breath gas analysis using MCC-IMS identified 110 peaks; 54 showed statistically significant differences in peak intensity between the SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative and PCR-positive groups. A decision tree analysis classification resulted in a sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 86%, but limited robustness to dataset changes. Modest values for the sensitivity (74%) and specificity (52%) were obtained using linear discriminant analysis. A systematic search for peaks led to a sensitivity of 77% and specificity of 67%; however, validation by transferability to other data is questionable.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite identifying several peaks by MCC-IMS with significant differences in peak intensity between PCR-negative and PCR-positive samples, finding a classification system that allows reliable differentiation between the two groups proved to be difficult. However, with some modifications to the setup, breath gas analysis using MCC-IMS may be a useful diagnostic toolbox for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on September 21, 2020 (NCT04556318; Study-ID: HC-N-H-2004).

Clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic test using SERS-based lateral flow immunoassay

Background

'ACROSIS COVID-19 Ag (NPS)' kit (SG Medical, Seoul, Korea) is a newly developed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen-detection rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) using surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS)-based lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA). We evaluated its clinical performance compared with STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag (SD Biosensor, Suwon, Korea), a previously approved Ag-RDT.

Methods

A total of 286 nasopharyngeal swab specimens were collected: 104 positive and 182 negative specimens in SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse-transcription polymerase-chain-reaction (rRT-PCR). SARS-CoV-2-positive specimens were divided according to the cycle threshold (Ct) value in rRT-PCR. The clinical performance of ACROSIS was compared with that of STANDARD Q.

Results

ACROSIS showed significantly higher sensitivity than STANDARD Q (92.3% vs. 85.6%, P = 0.02), especially in specimens with 25 ≤ Ct < 30 (78.6% vs. 42.9%). The Ct values of RdRp/S genes for 95% detection rates by ACROSIS and STANDARD Q were 25.8 and 23.0, respectively.

Conclusions

This is the first study that evaluated the performance of ACROSIS compared with STANDARD Q. The overall clinical performance of ACROSIS was superior to that of STANDARD Q, especially in specimens with 25 ≤ Ct < 30. ACROSIS could be useful for SARS-CoV-2 Ag detection even in relatively low viral load specimens.

Update of ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines: diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2

SCOPE

Since the onset of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), several assays have been deployed for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) published the first set of guidelines on SARS-CoV-2 in-vitro diagnosis in February 2022. Since the COVID-19 landscape is rapidly evolving, the relevant ESCMID guidelines panel releases an update of the previously published recommendations on diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. This update aims to delineate the best diagnostic approach for SARS-CoV-2 in different populations based on current evidence.

METHODS

An ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines task force was established by the ESCMID Executive Committee. A small group was established, half appointed by the chair, and the remaining selected with an open call. The panel met virtually once a week. For all decisions, a simple majority vote was used. A list of clinical questions using the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, and outcome) format was developed at the beginning of the process. For each PICO, two panel members performed a literature search focusing on systematic reviews with a third panellist involved in case of inconsistent results. The panel reassessed the PICOs previously defined as priority in the first set of guidelines and decided to address 49 PICO questions, as 6 of them were discarded as outdated/non-clinically relevant. The "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation(GRADE)-adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of recommendations (ADOLOPMENT)" evidence-to-decision framework was utilized to produce the guidelines.

QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY THE GUIDELINE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

After literature search, we updated 16 PICO questions; these PICOs address the use of antigen-based assays among symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with different ages, COVID-19 severity status or risk for severe COVID-19, time since onset of symptoms/contact with an infectious case, and finally, types of biomaterials used.

VLP-ELISA for the Detection of IgG Antibodies against Spike, Envelope, and Membrane Antigens of SARS-CoV-2 in Indian Population

Background: Serological methods to conduct epidemiological survey are often directed only against the spike protein. To overcome this limitation, we have designed PRAK-03202, a virus-like particle (VLP), by inserting three antigens (Spike, envelope and membrane) of SARS-CoV-2 into a highly characterized S. cerevisiae-based D-Crypt™ platform. Methods: Dot blot analysis was performed to confirm the presence of S, E, and M proteins in PRAK-03202. The number of particles in PRAK-03202 was measured using nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA). The sensitivity of VLP-ELISA was evaluated in 100 COVID positive. PRAK-03202 was produced at a 5 L scale using fed-batch fermentation. Results: Dot blot confirmed the presence of S, E, and M proteins in PRAK-03202. The number of particles in PRAK-03202 was 1.21 × 109 mL−1. In samples collected >14 days after symptom onset, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of VLP-ELISA were 96%. We did not observe any significant differences in sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy when post-COVID-19 samples were used as negative controls compared to pre-COVID-samples. At a scale of 5 L, the total yield of PRAK-03202 was 100–120 mg/L. Conclusion: In conclusion, we have successfully developed an in-house VLP-ELISA to detect IgG antibodies against three antigens of SARS-CoV-2 as a simple and affordable alternative test.

Conventional and Novel Diagnostic Tools for the Diagnosis of Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants

Accurate identification at an early stage of infection is critical for effective care of any infectious disease. The "coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)" outbreak, caused by the virus "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)", corresponds to the current and global pandemic, characterized by several developing variants, many of which are classified as variants of concern (VOCs) by the "World Health Organization (WHO, Geneva, Switzerland)". The primary diagnosis of infection is made using either the molecular technique of RT-PCR, which detects parts of the viral genome's RNA, or immunodiagnostic procedures, which identify viral proteins or antibodies generated by the host. As the demand for the RT-PCR test grew fast, several inexperienced producers joined the market with innovative kits, and an increasing number of laboratories joined the diagnostic field, rendering the test results increasingly prone to mistakes. It is difficult to determine how the outcomes of one unnoticed result could influence decisions about patient quarantine and social isolation, particularly when the patients themselves are health care providers. The development of point-of-care testing helps in the rapid in-field diagnosis of the disease, and such testing can also be used as a bedside monitor for mapping the progression of the disease in critical patients. In this review, we have provided the readers with available molecular diagnostic techniques and their pitfalls in detecting emerging VOCs of SARS-CoV-2, and lastly, we have discussed AI-ML- and nanotechnology-based smart diagnostic techniques for SARS-CoV-2 detection.

Variable detection of Omicron-BA.1 and -BA.2 by SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests

During 2022, the COVID-19 pandemic has been dominated by the variant of concern (VoC) Omicron (B.1.1.529) and its rapidly emerging subvariants, including Omicron-BA.1 and -BA.2. Rapid antigen tests (RATs) are part of national testing strategies to identify SARS-CoV-2 infections on site in a community setting or to support layman's diagnostics at home. We and others have recently demonstrated an impaired RAT detection of infections caused by Omicron-BA.1 compared to Delta. Here, we evaluated the performance of five SARS-CoV-2 RATs in a single-centre laboratory study examining a total of 140 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive respiratory swab samples, 70 Omicron-BA.1 and 70 Omicron-BA.2, as well as 52 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative swabs collected from March 8th until April 10th, 2022. One test did not meet minimal criteria for specificity. In an assessment of the analytical sensitivity in clinical specimen, the 50% limit of detection (LoD50) ranged from 4.2 × 104 to 9.2 × 105 RNA copies subjected to the RAT for Omicron-BA.1 compared to 1.3 × 105 to 1.5 × 106 for Omicron-BA.2. Overall, intra-assay differences for the detection of Omicron-BA.1-containing and Omicron-BA.2-containing samples were non-significant, while a marked overall heterogeneity among the five RATs was observed. To score positive in these point-of-care tests, up to 22-fold (LoD50) or 68-fold (LoD95) higher viral loads were required for the worst performing compared to the best performing RAT. The rates of true-positive test results for these Omicron subvariant-containing samples in the highest viral load category (Ct values < 25) ranged between 44.7 and 91.1%, while they dropped to 8.7 to 22.7% for samples with intermediate Ct values (25-30). In light of recent reports on the emergence of two novel Omicron-BA.2 subvariants, Omicron-BA.2.75 and BJ.1, awareness must be increased for the overall reduced detection rate and marked differences in RAT performance for these Omicron subvariants.

An overview of the most important preanalytical factors influencing the clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs)

Due to the many technical limitations of molecular biology, the possibility to sustain enormous volumes of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) diagnostic testing relies strongly on the use of antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs). Besides a limited analytical sensitivity, the manually intensive test procedures needed for performing these tests, very often performed by unskilled personnel or by the patients themselves, may contribute to considerably impair their diagnostic accuracy. We provide here an updated overview on the leading preanalytical drawbacks that may impair SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT accuracy, and which encompass lower diagnostic sensitivity in certain age groups, in asymptomatic subjects and those with a longer time from symptoms onset, in vaccine recipients, in individuals not appropriately trained to their usage, in those recently using oral or nasal virucidal agents, in oropharyngeal swabs and saliva, as well as in circumstances when instructions provided by the manufacturers are unclear, incomplete or scarcely readable and intelligible. Acknowledging these important preanalytical limitations will lead the way to a better, more clinically efficient and even safer use of this important technology, which represents an extremely valuable resource for management of the ongoing pandemic.

Vaccine-hesitant individuals accumulate additional COVID-19 risk due to divergent perception and behaviors related to SARS-CoV-2 testing: a population-based, cross-sectional study

Purpose

To investigate the perception of SARS-CoV-2 detection methods, information sources, and opinions on appropriate behavior after receiving negative or positive test results.

Methods

In a questionnaire-based, cross-sectional study conducted between September 1 and November 17, 2021, epidemiological, behavioral, and COVID-19-related data were acquired from the public in Munich, Germany.

Results

Most of the 1388 participants obtained information from online media (82.8%) as well as state and federal authorities (80.3%). 93.4% believed in the accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing and 41.2% in the accuracy of rapid antigen tests (RATs). However, RATs were preferred for testing (59.1%) over PCR (51.1%). 24.0% of all individuals were willing to ignore hygiene measures and 76.9% were less afraid of SARS-CoV-2 transmission after receiving a negative PCR test (5.9% and 48.8% in case of a negative RAT). 28.8% reported not to self-isolate after receiving a positive RAT. Multivariate analyses revealed that non-vaccinated individuals relied less on information from governmental authorities (p = 0.0004) and more on social media (p = 0.0216), disbelieved in the accuracy of the PCR test (p ≤ 0.0001) while displaying strong preference towards using RATs (p ≤ 0.0001), were more willing to abandon pandemic-related hygiene measures (p ≤ 0.0001), less afraid of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 after a negative RAT (p ≤ 0.0001), and less likely to isolate after a positive RAT (p ≤ 0.0001).

Conclusion

Insights into preferred information sources as well as perception, preferences, and behavior related to SARS-CoV-2 testing and hygiene measures are key to refining public health information and surveillance campaigns. Non-vaccinated individuals’ divergent believes and behaviors possibly increase their COVID-19 risk.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s15010-022-01947-z .

Development of a Fully Automated Desktop Analyzer and Ultrahigh Sensitivity Digital Immunoassay for SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Antigen Detection

Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak has had a significant impact on public health and the global economy. Several diagnostic tools are available for the detection of infectious diseases, with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing specifically recommended for viral RNA detection. However, this diagnostic method is costly, complex, and time-consuming. Although it does not have sufficient sensitivity, antigen detection by an immunoassay is an inexpensive and simpler alternative to RT-PCR. Here, we developed an ultrahigh sensitivity digital immunoassay (d-IA) for detecting SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) protein as antigens using a fully automated desktop analyzer based on a digital enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Methods: We developed a fully automated d-IA desktop analyzer and measured the viral N protein as an antigen in nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs from patients with coronavirus disease. We studied nasopharyngeal swabs of 159 and 88 patients who were RT-PCR-negative and RT-PCR-positive, respectively. Results: The limit of detection of SARS-CoV-2 d-IA was 0.0043 pg/mL of N protein. The cutoff value was 0.029 pg/mL, with a negative RT-PCR distribution. The sensitivity of RT-PCR-positive specimens was estimated to be 94.3% (83/88). The assay time was 28 min. Conclusions: Our d-IA system, which includes a novel fully automated desktop analyzer, enabled detection of the SARS-CoV-2 N-protein with a comparable sensitivity to RT-PCR within 30 min. Thus, d-IA shows potential for SARS-CoV-2 detection across multiple diagnostic centers including small clinics, hospitals, airport quarantines, and clinical laboratories.

Developing a Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Assay for the Rapid Detection of Seven Respiratory Viruses including SARS-CoV-2

Background and Objectives: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), continues to be a pandemic even in 2022. As the initial symptoms of COVID-19 overlap with those of infections from other respiratory viruses, an accurate and rapid diagnosis of COVID-19 is essential for administering appropriate treatment to patients. Currently, the most widely used method for detecting respiratory viruses is based on real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and includes reverse-transcription real-time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR). However, RT-qPCR assays require sophisticated facilities and are time-consuming. This study aimed to develop a real-time quantitative loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-qLAMP) assay and compare its analytical performance with RT-qPCR. Materials and Methods: A total of 315 nasopharyngeal swabs from patients with symptoms of respiratory infections were included in this study. A primary screening of the specimens was performed using RT-qPCR. RNA/DNA from standard strains for respiratory viruses and heat-inactivated preparations of standard strains for SARS-CoV-2 were used to evaluate the accuracy and target specificity of the RT-qLAMP assay. Results: We successfully developed an RT-qLAMP assay for seven respiratory viruses: respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) A, RSV B, adenovirus, influenza (Flu) A (H1N1 and H3N2), Flu B, and SARS-CoV-2. RT-qLAMP was performed in a final reaction volume of 9.6 µL. No cross-reactivity was observed. Compared with the RT-PCR results, the sensitivity and specificity of the RT-qLAMP assay were 95.1% and 100%, respectively. The agreement between the two methods was 97.1%. The median amplification time to RT-qLAMP positivity was 22:34 min (range: 6:80–47:98 min). Conclusions: The RT-qLAMP assay requires a small number of reagents and samples and is performed with an isothermal reaction. This study established a fast, simple, and sensitive test that can be applied to point-of-care testing devices to facilitate the detection of respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2.

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.

Diagnostic utility and performance of rapid antigen test in SARS CoV- 2 in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients during the second pandemic wave in Kashmir, North India

Purpose

Real time reverse transcriptase PCR (rRT PCR) although gold standard test for the diagnosis of SARS CoV-2, carries disadvantages of a sophisticated set up, long time to results and centralized services. The rapid antigen tests (RAT) can be used as a primary screening tool with the advantages of rapid turnaround time and ease of use. The study was conducted to determine the performance of rapid antigen test (standard Q COVID 19 Ag) in comparison to rRT PCR in symptomatic patients and asymptomatic contacts and asymptomatic patients with no apparent contact history.

Methods

Nasopharyngeal swabs taken in duplicate from 1034 patients were collected over a 5 months period. These included 248 (23.98%) symptomatic, 386 (37.34%) asymptomatic contacts and 400 (38.68%) asymptomatic subjects who were routinely screened in pre-operative period, as a prerequisite for travel, or pregnant females. Both rRT PCR and RAT were performed as per manufacturers’ instructions. Performance of test in different subgroups of patients was evaluated. Performance of RAT test on basis of duration of illness and Ct values was also analyzed.

Results

In this study, 445 (43.04%) were rRT PCR positive, out of which 374 samples were RAT positive as well. 31 samples were RAT positive but PCR negative. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of the rapid antigen test was 84.04%, 94.74%, 92.35% and 88.71% respectively. The negative predictive value of the test in asymptomatic patients without any significant contact history was 97.07%.

Conclusions

This study recommends the use of the antigen test as a method of diagnosis for SARS CoV-2. However a negative result with RAT in suspected patients and their contacts should be viewed with caution. This study also finds the utility of using RAT test in the community settings as a screening test in schools, colleges and mass gatherings.

Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics and risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in Zambia

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a diagnostic validation study of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic kits.

METHODS

We compared SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test results from 3 RT-PCR assays used by the Zambian government between November 2020 and February 2021 (Panther Fusion assay, Da An Gene's 2019-nCoV RNA kit and Maccura's PCR Kit) with the Altona RealStar RT-PCR kit which served as the gold standard. We also evaluated results from rapid antigen testing and whether comorbidities were linked with increased odds of infection.

RESULTS

We recruited 244 participants, 61% (149/244) were positive by at least 1 PCR assay. Da An Gene, Maccura, and Panther Fusion assays had sensitivities of 0.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0%-41%), 27.1% (95% CI 15%-42%), and 76% (95% CI 65%-85%), respectively, but specificity was low (<85% for all 3 assays). HIV and TB were not associated with SARS-CoV-2, whereas female sex (OR 0.5 [0.3-0.9], p = 0.026) and chronic pulmonary disease (0.1 [0.0-0.8], p = 0.031) were associated with lower odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of 44 samples, 84% sequenced were Beta variant.

CONCLUSIONS

The RT-PCR assays evaluated did not meet WHO recommended minimum sensitivity of 80%. Local diagnostic validation studies should be embedded within preparedness plans for future outbreaks to improve the public health response.

Performance of Antigen Detection Tests for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) initiated global health care challenges such as the necessity for new diagnostic tests. Diagnosis by real-time PCR remains the gold-standard method, yet economical and technical issues prohibit its use in points of care (POC) or for repetitive tests in populations. A lot of effort has been exerted in developing, using, and validating antigen-based tests (ATs). Since individual studies focus on few methodological aspects of ATs, a comparison of different tests is needed. Herein, we perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from articles in PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv. The bivariate method for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests pooling sensitivities and specificities was used. Most of the AT types for SARS-CoV-2 were lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA), fluorescence immunoassays (FIA), and chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassays (CLEIA). We identified 235 articles containing data from 220,049 individuals. All ATs using nasopharyngeal samples show better performance than those with throat saliva (72% compared to 40%). Moreover, the rapid methods LFIA and FIA show about 10% lower sensitivity compared to the laboratory-based CLEIA method (72% compared to 82%). In addition, rapid ATs show higher sensitivity in symptomatic patients compared to asymptomatic patients, suggesting that viral load is a crucial parameter for ATs performed in POCs. Finally, all methods perform with very high specificity, reaching around 99%. LFIA tests, though with moderate sensitivity, appear as the most attractive method for use in POCs and for performing seroprevalence studies.

Direct comparison of Altona-SARS-CoV-2 dual target RT-qPCR assay with commercial LAMP assay using throat washes in health care staff testing

Background

Rapid molecular diagnostics by PCR has a crucial role in handling the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. As diagnoses are time-sensitive and global supply chains are susceptible to various factors alternative detection methods would be an important backup.

Objectives

During the study the performance of a commercially available isothermal LAMP method for SARS-CoV-2 detection was compared to a IVD RT-PCR Assays using throat wash specimens that were routinely taken in our hospital setting.

Study design

Throat wash specimens of hospital staff (n = 174) previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by the Altona Diagnostics RealStar SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR (Altona Diagnostics, Hamburg, Germany) was tested for SARS-CoV-2 also by the SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Colorimetric LAMP Assay (NEB Germany GmbH, Frankfurt a.M., Germany).

Results

The sensitivity of the colorimetric LAMP Assay compared to RT-qPCR was 78.74%, and the specificity was determined to 88.24% with a positive predictive value of 0.986 and a negative predicitve value of 0.882. The positive and negative likelihood ratio for LAMP was 6.693 and 0.241, respectively, while the diagnostic odds ratio was 27.77.

Conclusions

In times of limited PCR test ressources and in settings with limited PCR capacities, the colorimetric LAMP Assay could serve as an alternative, if a calculable loss of sensitivity is acceptable from the Public Health perspective in certain settings.

Rapid Antigen Assays for SARS-CoV-2: Promise and Peril

Though rapid antigen tests have historically problematic performance characteristics for the diagnosis of respiratory viral infections such as influenza, they have attained an unprecedented level of use in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ease of use and scalability of rapid antigen tests has facilitated a democratization and scale of testing beyond anything reasonably achievable by traditional laboratory-based testing. In this chapter, we discuss the performance characteristics of rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 detection and their application to non-traditional uses beyond clinical diagnostic testing.

Impaired detection of omicron by SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests

Since autumn 2020, rapid antigen tests (RATs) have been implemented in several countries as an important pillar of the national testing strategy to rapidly screen for infections on site during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The current surge in infection rates around the globe is driven by the variant of concern (VoC) omicron (B.1.1.529). Here, we evaluated the performance of nine SARS-CoV-2 RATs in a single-centre laboratory study. We examined a total of 115 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative and 166 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive respiratory swab samples (101 omicron, 65 delta (B.1.617.2)) collected from October 2021 until January 2022 as well as cell culture-expanded clinical isolates of both VoCs. In an assessment of the analytical sensitivity in clinical specimen, the 50% limit of detection (LoD50) ranged from 1.77 × 106 to 7.03 × 107 RNA copies subjected to the RAT for omicron compared to 1.32 × 105 to 2.05 × 106 for delta. To score positive in these point-of-care tests, up to 10-fold (LoD50) or 101-fold (LoD95) higher virus loads were required for omicron- compared to delta-containing samples. The rates of true positive test results for omicron samples in the highest virus load category (Ct values < 25) ranged between 31.4 and 77.8%, while they dropped to 0-8.3% for samples with intermediate Ct values (25-30). Of note, testing of expanded virus stocks suggested a comparable RAT sensitivity of both VoCs, questioning the predictive value of this type of in vitro-studies for clinical performance. Given their importance for national test strategies in the current omicron wave, awareness must be increased for the reduced detection rate of omicron infections by RATs and a short list of suitable RATs that fulfill the minimal requirements of performance should be rapidly disclosed.

Diagnostic Performance of Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests, Chest Computed Tomography, and Lung Point-of-Care-Ultrasonography for SARS-CoV-2 Compared with RT-PCR Testing: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: The comparative performance of various diagnostic methods for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the comparison of the 3 index test performances of rapid antigen diagnostic tests (RDTs), chest computed tomography (CT), and lung point-of-care-ultrasonography (US) with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), the reference standard, to provide more evidence-based data on the appropriate use of these index tests. (2) Methods: We retrieved data from electronic literature searches of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE from 1 January 2020, to 1 April 2021. Diagnostic performance was examined using bivariate random-effects diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) models. (3) Results: Of the 3992 studies identified in our search, 118 including 69,445 participants met our selection criteria. Among these, 69 RDT, 38 CT, and 15 US studies in the pairwise meta-analysis were included for DTA with NMA. CT and US had high sensitivity of 0.852 (95% credible interval (CrI), 0.791–0.914) and 0.879 (95% CrI, 0.784–0.973), respectively. RDT had high specificity, 0.978 (95% CrI, 0.960–0.996). In accuracy assessment, RDT and CT had a relatively higher than US. However, there was no significant difference in accuracy between the 3 index tests. (4) Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that, compared with the reference standard RT-PCR, the 3 index tests (RDTs, chest CT, and lung US) had similar and complementary performances for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. To manage and control COVID-19 effectively, future large-scale prospective studies could be used to obtain an optimal timely diagnostic process that identifies the condition of the patient accurately.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 Spatial Care Path: Home, Community, and Emergency Diagnostic Portals

This research uses mathematically derived visual logistics to interpret COVID-19 molecular and rapid antigen test (RAgT) performance, determine prevalence boundaries where risk exceeds expectations, and evaluate benefits of recursive testing along home, community, and emergency spatial care paths. Mathematica and open access software helped graph relationships, compare performance patterns, and perform recursive computations. Tiered sensitivity/specificity comprise: (T1) 90%/95%; (T2) 95%/97.5%; and (T3) 100%/≥99%, respectively. In emergency medicine, median RAgT performance peaks at 13.2% prevalence, then falls below T1, generating risky prevalence boundaries. RAgTs in pediatric ERs/EDs parallel this pattern with asymptomatic worse than symptomatic performance. In communities, RAgTs display large uncertainty with median prevalence boundary of 14.8% for 1/20 missed diagnoses, and at prevalence > 33.3−36.9% risk 10% false omissions for symptomatic subjects. Recursive testing improves home RAgT performance. Home molecular tests elevate performance above T1 but lack adequate validation. Widespread RAgT availability encourages self-testing. Asymptomatic RAgT and PCR-based saliva testing present the highest chance of missed diagnoses. Home testing twice, once just before mingling, and molecular-based self-testing, help avoid false omissions. Community and ER/ED RAgTs can identify contagiousness in low prevalence. Real-world trials of performance, cost-effectiveness, and public health impact could identify home molecular diagnostics as an optimal diagnostic portal.

Clinical Accuracy of Instrument-Read SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests (Ag-IRRDTs)

This systematic review (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021282476) aims to collect and analyse current evidence on real-world performance based on clinical accuracy of instrument-read rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-IRRDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 identification. We used PRISMA Checklist and searched databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-IRRDTs as of 30 September 2021, and included 40 independent clinical studies resulting in 48 Ag-IRRDT datasets with 137,770 samples. Across all datasets, pooled Ag-IRRDT sensitivity was 67.1% (95% CI: 65.9%-68.3%) and specificity was 99.4% with a tight CI. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-IRRDTs did not demonstrate a significant superiority over SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests which do not require a reader instrument, even in the case where surveillance and screening datasets were excluded from the analysis. Nevertheless, they provide connectivity advantages and remove operator interface (in results-reading) issues. The lower sensitivity of certain brands of Ag-IRRDTs can be overcome in high prevalence areas with high frequency of testing. New SARS-CoV-2 variants are major concern for current and future diagnostic performance of these tests.

Accuracy of rapid point-of-care antigen-based diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression analyzing influencing factors

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive information about the accuracy of antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is essential to guide public health decision makers in choosing the best tests and testing policies. In August 2021, we published a systematic review and meta-analysis about the accuracy of Ag-RDTs. We now update this work and analyze the factors influencing test sensitivity in further detail.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched preprint and peer-reviewed databases for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 until August 31, 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing as a reference. To evaluate factors influencing test sensitivity, we performed 3 different analyses using multivariable mixed-effects meta-regression models. We included 194 studies with 221,878 Ag-RDTs performed. Overall, the pooled estimates of Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 72.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.8 to 74.2) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6 to 99.1). When manufacturer instructions were followed, sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.7 to 78.7). Sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values (97.9% [95% CI 96.9 to 98.9] and 90.6% [95% CI 88.3 to 93.0] for Ct-values <20 and <25, compared to 54.4% [95% CI 47.3 to 61.5] and 18.7% [95% CI 13.9 to 23.4] for Ct-values ≥25 and ≥30) and was estimated to increase by 2.9 percentage points (95% CI 1.7 to 4.0) for every unit decrease in mean Ct-value when adjusting for testing procedure and patients' symptom status. Concordantly, we found the mean Ct-value to be lower for true positive (22.2 [95% CI 21.5 to 22.8]) compared to false negative (30.4 [95% CI 29.7 to 31.1]) results. Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (81.9% [95% CI 77.7 to 85.5]) compared to testing after 1 week (51.8%, 95% CI 41.5 to 61.9). Similarly, sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (76.2% [95% CI 73.3 to 78.9]) compared to asymptomatic (56.8% [95% CI 50.9 to 62.4]) persons. However, both effects were mainly driven by the Ct-value of the sample. With regards to sample type, highest sensitivity was found for nasopharyngeal (NP) and combined NP/oropharyngeal samples (70.8% [95% CI 68.3 to 73.2]), as well as in anterior nasal/mid-turbinate samples (77.3% [95% CI 73.0 to 81.0]). Our analysis was limited by the included studies' heterogeneity in viral load assessment and sample origination.

CONCLUSIONS

Ag-RDTs detect most of the individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2, and almost all (>90%) when high viral loads are present. With viral load, as estimated by Ct-value, being the most influential factor on their sensitivity, they are especially useful to detect persons with high viral load who are most likely to transmit the virus. To further quantify the effects of other factors influencing test sensitivity, standardization of clinical accuracy studies and access to patient level Ct-values and duration of symptoms are needed.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19 Detection: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

Introduction

Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to detect SARS-CoV-2 is time-consuming and sometimes not feasible in developing nations. Rapid antigen test (RAT) could decrease the load of diagnosis. However, the efficacy of RAT is yet to be investigated comprehensively. Thus, the current systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of RAT against RT-PCR methods as the reference standard.

Methods

We searched the MEDLINE/Pubmed and Embase databases for the relevant records. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. Diagnostic accuracy measures [i.e., sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratios (PLR), negative likelihood ratios (NLR), and the area under the curve (AUC)] were pooled with a random-effects model. All statistical analyses were performed with Meta-DiSc (Version 1.4, Cochrane Colloquium, Barcelona, Spain).

Results

After reviewing retrieved records, we identified 60 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the rapid antigen tests against the reference test (the real-time PCR) were 69% (95% CI: 68–70) and 99% (95% CI: 99–99). The PLR, NLR, DOR and the AUC estimates were found to be 72 (95% CI: 44–119), 0.30 (95% CI: 0.26–0.36), 316 (95% CI: 167–590) and 97%, respectively.

Conclusion

The present study indicated that using RAT kits is primarily recommended for the early detection of patients suspected of having COVID-19, particularly in countries with limited resources and laboratory equipment. However, the negative RAT samples may need to be confirmed using molecular tests, mainly when the symptoms of COVID-19 are present.

Potential Application of SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Diagnostic Tests for the Detection of Infectious Individuals Attending Mass Gatherings - A Simulation Study

Rapid Antigen Diagnostic Tests (RADTs) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 offer advantages in that they are cheaper and faster than currently used PCR tests but have reduced sensitivity and specificity. One potential application of RADTs is to facilitate gatherings of individuals, through testing of attendees at the point of, or immediately prior to entry at a venue. Understanding the baseline risk in the tested population is of particular importance when evaluating the utility of applying diagnostic tests for screening purposes. We used incidence data from January and from July-August 2021, periods of relatively high and low levels of infection, to estimate the prevalence of infectious individuals in the community at particular time points and simulated mass gatherings by sampling from a series of age cohorts. Nine different illustrative scenarios were simulated, small (n = 100), medium (n = 1,000) and large (n = 10,000) gatherings each with 3 possible age constructs: mostly younger, mostly older or a gathering with equal numbers from each age cohort. For each scenario, we estimated the prevalence of infectious attendees, then simulated the likely number of positive and negative test results, the proportion of cases detected and the corresponding positive and negative predictive values, and the cost per case identified. Our findings suggest that for each reported case on a given day, there are likely to be 13.8 additional infectious individuals also present in the community. Prevalence ranged from 0.26% for "mostly older" events in July-August, to 2.6% for "mostly younger" events in January. For small events (100 attendees) the expected number of infectious attendees ranged from <1 across all age constructs of attendees in July-August, to 2.6 for "mostly younger" events in January. For large events (10,000 attendees) the expected number of infectious attendees ranged from 27 (95% confidence intervals 12 to 45) for mostly older events in July-August, to 267 (95% confidence intervals 134 to 436) infectious attendees for mostly younger attendees in January. Given rapid changes in SARS-CoV-2 incidence over time, we developed an RShiny app to allow users to run updated simulations for specific events.

Evaluation of rapid antigen detection kits for detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 virus

Aim: Currently, there is lack of data regarding rapid antigen detection (RAD) kits to detect SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 virus. Objective: The purpose of this evaluation is to assess analytical sensitivity of 12 RAD kits against SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2. Study design: Analytical sensitivity was determined by limit of detection (LOD). A serial tenfold dilution set from a respiratory specimen collected from a COVID-19 patient infected by SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 was used. RT-PCR was used as a reference method. Results: The LOD results showed that 11 and one RAD kits were 100- and 1000-fold less sensitive than RT-PCR respectively. Conclusion: The results showed that the RAD kits evaluated in this study may be used for first-line screening of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 variant.

Rapid and sensitive identification of omicron by variant-specific PCR and nanopore sequencing: paradigm for diagnostics of emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants

On November 26, 2021, the World Health Organization classified B.1.1.529 as a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant of concern (VoC), named omicron. Spike-gene dropouts in conventional SARS-CoV-2 PCR systems have been reported over the last weeks as indirect diagnostic evidence for the identification of omicron. Here, we report the combination of PCRs specific for heavily mutated sites in the spike gene and nanopore-based full-length genome sequencing for the rapid and sensitive identification of the first four COVID-19 patients diagnosed in Germany to be infected with omicron on November 28, 2021. This study will assist the unambiguous laboratory-based diagnosis and global surveillance for this highly contagious VoC with an unprecedented degree of humoral immune escape. Moreover, we propose that specialized diagnostic laboratories should continuously update their assays for variant-specific PCRs in the spike gene of SARS-CoV-2 to readily detect and diagnose emerging variants of interest and VoCs. The combination with established nanopore sequencing procedures allows both the rapid confirmation by whole genome sequencing as well as the sensitive identification of newly emerging variants of this pandemic β-coronavirus in years to come.

Performance of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19 Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The identification of viral RNA using reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is the gold standard for identifying an infection caused by SARS-CoV-2. The limitations of RT-qPCR such as requirement of expensive instruments, trained staff and laboratory facilities led to development of rapid antigen tests (RATs). The performance of RATs has been widely evaluated and found to be varied in different settings. The present systematic review aims to evaluate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of the commercially available RATs. This review was registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021278105). Literature search was performed through PubMed, Embase and Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to search studies published up to 26 August 2021. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of RATs and subgroup analyses were calculated. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) was used to assess the risk of bias in each study. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of RATs were 70% (95% CI: 69–71) and 98% (95% CI: 98–98), respectively. In subgroup analyses, nasal swabs showed the highest sensitivity of 83% (95% CI: 80–86) followed by nasopharyngeal swabs 71% (95% CI: 70–72), throat swabs 69% (95% CI: 63–75) and saliva 68% (95% CI: 59–77). Samples from symptomatic patients showed a higher sensitivity of 82% (95% CI: 82–82) as compared to asymptomatic patients at 68% (95% CI: 65–71), while a cycle threshold (Ct) value ≤25 showed a higher sensitivity of 96% (95% CI: 95–97) as compared to higher Ct value. Although the sensitivity of RATs needs to be enhanced, it may still be a viable option in places where laboratory facilities are lacking for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease.

SARS-CoV-2 Aerosol Transmission Indoors: A Closer Look at Viral Load, Infectivity, the Effectiveness of Preventive Measures and a Simple Approach for Practical Recommendations

There is uncertainty about the viral loads of infectious individuals required to transmit COVID-19 via aerosol. In addition, there is a lack of both quantification of the influencing parameters on airborne transmission and simple-to-use models for assessing the risk of infection in practice, which furthermore quantify the influence of non-medical preventive measures. In this study, a dose-response model was adopted to analyze 25 documented outbreaks at infection rates of 4-100%. We show that infection was only possible if the viral load was higher than 108 viral copies/mL. Based on mathematical simplifications of our approach to predict the probable situational attack rate (PARs) of a group of persons in a room, and valid assumptions, we provide simplified equations to calculate, among others, the maximum possible number of persons and the person-related virus-free air supply flow necessary to keep the number of newly infected persons to less than one. A comparison of different preventive measures revealed that testing contributes the most to the joint protective effect, besides wearing masks and increasing ventilation. In addition, we conclude that absolute volume flow rate or person-related volume flow rate are more intuitive parameters for evaluating ventilation for infection prevention than air exchange rate.

Field evaluation of seven SARS-COV-2 antigen assays

There is a global demand for rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and the interest in their clinical compliance is growing. In this study, we evaluated the clinical compliance of seven different severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen RDTs. Nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swab specimens from COVID-19-confirmed cases and reverse-transcription PCR (RT-PCR) screening were used to evaluate the performance of seven RDTs. Using the RT-PCR and RDT results, we predicted the cycle threshold (Ct) of each target gene (E, RdRP, and N genes) which 50% (Ct₅₀) and 95% (Ct₉₅) detection rates were achieved in the RDTs. A total of 482 specimens were enrolled in our study: 316 specimens from COVID-19-confirmed cases and 166 RT-PCR-negative specimens. The median values of Ct₅₀ and Ct₉₅ for the seven RDTs were in the ranges of ranged 24.3-30.9 and 19.3-22.6 for E, 25.5-31.5 and 20.9-24.0 for RdRP, and 26.8-32.3 and 22.7-25.7 for N, respectively. The RDTs showed acceptable compliance only for specimens with high viral burdens (Ct < 20). However, the false-negative rate increased by more than 50% for most of the RDTs in low-viral burden specimens (Ct> 30). These results suggest that RDTs should not be used without molecular assays for COVID-19 screening for asymptomatic patients because of their high false-negative rates.

What is the true place of the SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care antigen test in the hospital setting? Lessons learned from real life

To assist in the clinical management of patients and to support infection control, we tested the use of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) point‐of‐care antigen test (AgPOC) for unplanned hospitalization, coupled with a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) using specimens collected at the same time upon arrival. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of the AgPOC in this specific use compared to NAAT for SARS‐CoV‐2 diagnosis, in the context of the low prevalence of infection. For 5 months (between two peaks in France of the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic), all patients admitted who undertook the AgPOC/NAAT paired tests were included in the study. AgPOC performances were determined considering the clinical status and the delay of symptoms onset. NAAT and AgPOC results were available for 4425 subjects. AgPOC results showed a homogeneous specificity (>97%) but a low sensitivity at 45.8%. Considering the national guidelines, sensitivity dropped to 32.5% in cases of symptomatic patients with symptoms older than 5 days or more. This study shows the poor performance of AgPOC for entry screening of patients in hospitals. AgPOC may represent a useful tool in the hospital setting only if the use is restricted to patients with consistent symptoms less than 4 days old.

–

SARS‐CoV‐2 point‐of‐care antigen tests (AgPOC) are poorly evaluated to screen patients for unplanned hospitalization.

–

Performance of AgPOC showed low sensitivity in hospital setting.

–

Use of AgPOC in hospital should be restricted to patients with consistent symptoms less than 4 days old.

Evaluation of the Practicability of Biosynex Antigen Self-Test COVID-19 AG+ for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Protein from Self-Collected Nasal Mid-Turbinate Secretions in the General Public in France

Due to their ease-of-use, lateral flow assay SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests could be suitable candidates for antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic self-test (Ag-RDST). We evaluated the practicability of the Ag-RDST BIOSYNEX Antigen Self-Test COVID-19 Ag+ (Biosynex Swiss SA, Freiburg, Switzerland), using self-collected nasal secretions from the turbinate medium (NMT), in 106 prospectively included adult volunteers living in Paris, France. The majority of the participants correctly understood the instructions for use (94.4%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 88.3-97.4), showing a great ability to perform the entire self-test procedure to obtain a valid and interpretable result (100%; 95% CI: 96.5-100), and demonstrated the ability to correctly interpret test results (96.2%; 95% CI: 94.2-97.5) with a high level of general satisfaction. About one in eight participants (# 15%) needed verbal help to perform or interpret the test, and only 3.8% of test results were misinterpreted. By reference to multiplex real-time RT-PCR, the Ag-RDST showed 90.9% and 100% sensitivity and specificity, respectively, and high agreement (98.1%), reliability (0.94), and accuracy (90.9%) to detect SARS-CoV-2 antigen. Taken together, our study demonstrates the high usability and accuracy of BIOSYNEX Antigen Self-Test COVID-19 Ag+ for supervised self-collected NMT sampling in an unselected adult population living in France.

Discrimination of SARS-CoV-2 Infections From Other Viral Respiratory Infections by Scent Detection Dogs

Background: Testing of possibly infected individuals remains cornerstone of containing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Detection dogs could contribute to mass screening. Previous research demonstrated canines' ability to detect SARS-CoV-2-infections but has not investigated if dogs can differentiate between COVID-19 and other virus infections. Methods: Twelve dogs were trained to detect SARS-CoV-2 positive samples. Three test scenarios were performed to evaluate their ability to discriminate SARS-CoV-2-infections from viral infections of a different aetiology. Naso- and oropharyngeal swab samples from individuals and samples from cell culture both infected with one of 15 viruses that may cause COVID-19-like symptoms were presented as distractors in a randomised, double-blind study. Dogs were either trained with SARS-CoV-2 positive saliva samples (test scenario I and II) or with supernatant from cell cultures (test scenario III). Results: When using swab samples from individuals infected with viruses other than SARS-CoV-2 as distractors (test scenario I), dogs detected swab samples from SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals with a mean diagnostic sensitivity of 73.8% (95% CI: 66.0-81.7%) and a specificity of 95.1% (95% CI: 92.6-97.7%). In test scenario II and III cell culture supernatant from cells infected with SARS-CoV-2, cells infected with other coronaviruses and non-infected cells were presented. Dogs achieved mean diagnostic sensitivities of 61.2% (95% CI: 50.7-71.6%, test scenario II) and 75.8% (95% CI: 53.0-98.5%, test scenario III), respectively. The diagnostic specificities were 90.9% (95% CI: 87.3-94.6%, test scenario II) and 90.2% (95% CI: 81.1-99.4%, test scenario III), respectively. Conclusion: In all three test scenarios the mean specificities were above 90% which indicates that dogs can distinguish SARS-CoV-2-infections from other viral infections. However, compared to earlier studies our scent dogs achieved lower diagnostic sensitivities. To deploy COVID-19 detection dogs as a reliable screening method it is therefore mandatory to include a variety of samples from different viral respiratory tract infections in dog training to ensure a successful discrimination process.

Portable Tools for COVID-19 Point-of-Care Detection: A Review

Recently, several methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection have been developed to obtain rapid, portable, cheap, and easy-to-use diagnostic tools. This review paper summarizes and discusses studies on the development of point-of-care devices for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis with comparisons between them from several aspects. Various detection methods of the recently developed portable COVID-19 biosensor will be presented in this review. The discussion is divided into four major classifications based on the target biomarkers of SARS-CoV-2, such as antibodies, nucleic acids, antigens, and metabolic products. An overview of the potential development for future study is also provided. Moreover, basic knowledge of biosensors is also explained for tutoring the implementation of theory into the research of COVID-19 biosensors. This review paper is aimed to provide a tutorial by collecting the information on the development of a point-of-care device for SARS-CoV-2 detection to provide information for further research and propose the new COVID-19 portable diagnostic tool.

Analytical performance of the point-of-care BIOSYNEX COVID-19 Ag BSS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein in nasopharyngeal swabs: a prospective field evaluation during the COVID-19 third wave in France

BACKGROUND

The accuracy and reliability of rapid diagnostic tests are critical for monitoring and diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population. This study aimed to evaluate the analytical performance of the BIOSYNEX COVID-19 Ag BSS (Biosynex Swiss SA, Fribourg, Switzerland) antigen rapid diagnostic test (BIOSYNEX Ag-RDT), which targets the SARS-CoV-2 N-nucleocapsid protein for the diagnosis of COVID-19. The Ag-RDT was compared with a real-time RT-PCR (rtRT-PCR) as gold standard for performance measurement.

METHODS

Two nasopharyngeal flocked swabs were prospectively collected simultaneously in March and April 2021 from 967 individuals aged ≥ 18 years tested for SARS-CoV-2 in two private laboratories, Paris, France.

RESULTS

Overall, the Ag-RDT demonstrated high sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 81.8%, 99.6%, 96.6%, and 97.5%, respectively. The agreement (97.0%), reliability assessed using Cohen's κ-coefficient (0.87), and accuracy evaluated using Youden index (J) (81.6%) in detecting SARS-CoV-2 were high. The analytical performance of the Ag-RDT remained high when there was significant viral shedding (i.e., N gene C_t values ≤ 33 on reference RT-PCR). The sensitivity was only 55.2% in case of low or very low viral excretion (C_t > 33).

CONCLUSIONS

The BIOSYNEX Ag-RDT is a promising, potentially simple diagnostic tool, especially in symptomatic COVID-19 patients with substantial viral excretion in the nasopharynx.

A proof of concept study for the differentiation of SARS-CoV-2, hCoV-NL63, and IAV-H1N1 in vitro cultures using ion mobility spectrometry

Rapid, high-throughput diagnostic tests are essential to decelerate the spread of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While RT-PCR tests performed in centralized laboratories remain the gold standard, rapid point-of-care antigen tests might provide faster results. However, they are associated with markedly reduced sensitivity. Bedside breath gas analysis of volatile organic compounds detected by ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) may enable a quick and sensitive point-of-care testing alternative. In this proof-of-concept study, we investigated whether gas analysis by IMS can discriminate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from other respiratory viruses in an experimental set-up. Repeated gas analyses of air samples collected from the headspace of virus-infected in vitro cultures were performed for 5 days. A three-step decision tree using the intensities of four spectrometry peaks correlating to unidentified volatile organic compounds allowed the correct classification of SARS-CoV-2, human coronavirus-NL63, and influenza A virus H1N1 without misassignment when the calculation was performed with data 3 days post infection. The forward selection assignment model allowed the identification of SARS-CoV-2 with high sensitivity and specificity, with only one of 231 measurements (0.43%) being misclassified. Thus, volatile organic compound analysis by IMS allows highly accurate differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 from other respiratory viruses in an experimental set-up, supporting further research and evaluation in clinical studies.

Factors that Influence the Reported Sensitivity of Rapid Antigen Testing for SARS-CoV-2

Tests that detect the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen in clinical specimens from the upper respiratory tract can provide a rapid means of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis and help identify individuals who may be infectious and should isolate to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission. This systematic review assesses the diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection in COVID-19 symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals compared to quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and summarizes antigen test sensitivity using meta-regression. In total, 83 studies were included that compared SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen-based lateral flow testing (RALFT) to RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2. Generally, the quality of the evaluated studies was inconsistent; nevertheless, the overall sensitivity for RALFT was determined to be 75.0% (95% confidence interval: 71.0-78.0). Additionally, RALFT sensitivity was found to be higher for symptomatic vs. asymptomatic individuals and was higher for a symptomatic population within 7 days from symptom onset compared to a population with extended days of symptoms. Viral load was found to be the most important factor for determining SARS-CoV-2 antigen test sensitivity. Other design factors, such as specimen storage and anatomical collection type, also affect the performance of RALFT. RALFT and RT-qPCR testing both achieve high sensitivity when compared to SARS-CoV-2 viral culture.

Current diagnostic approaches to detect two important betacoronaviruses: Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)

Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are two common betacoronaviruses, which are still causing transmission among the human population worldwide. The major difference between the two coronaviruses is that MERS-CoV is now causing sporadic transmission worldwide, whereas SARS-CoV-2 is causing a pandemic outbreak globally. Currently, different guidelines and reports have highlighted several diagnostic methods and approaches which could be used to screen and confirm MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 infections. These methods include clinical evaluation, laboratory diagnosis (nucleic acid-based test, protein-based test, or viral culture), and radiological diagnosis. With the presence of these different diagnostic approaches, it could cause a dilemma to the clinicians and diagnostic laboratories in selecting the best diagnostic strategies to confirm MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 infections. Therefore, this review aims to provide an up-to-date comparison of the advantages and limitations of different diagnostic approaches in detecting MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 infections. This review could provide insights for clinicians and scientists in detecting MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 infections to help combat the transmission of these coronaviruses.

IFCC interim guidelines on rapid point-of-care antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 detection in asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals

With an almost unremittent progression of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections all around the world, there is a compelling need to introduce rapid, reliable, and high-throughput testing to allow appropriate clinical management and/or timely isolation of infected individuals. Although nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) remains the gold standard for detecting and theoretically quantifying SARS-CoV-2 mRNA in various specimen types, antigen assays may be considered a suitable alternative, under specific circumstances. Rapid antigen tests are meant to detect viral antigen proteins in biological specimens (e.g. nasal, nasopharyngeal, saliva), to indicate current SARS-CoV-2 infection. The available assay methodology includes rapid chromatographic immunoassays, used at the point-of-care, which carries some advantages and drawbacks compared to more conventional, instrumentation-based, laboratory immunoassays. Therefore, this document by the International Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Taskforce on COVID-19 aims to summarize available data on the performance of currently available SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid detection tests (Ag-RDTs), providing interim guidance on clinical indications and target populations, assay selection, and evaluation, test interpretation and limitations, as well as on pre-analytical considerations. This document is hence mainly aimed to assist laboratory and regulated health professionals in selecting, validating, and implementing regulatory approved Ag-RDTs.

Comparison of four commercial, automated antigen tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern

A versatile portfolio of diagnostic tests is essential for the containment of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Besides nucleic acid-based test systems and point-of-care (POCT) antigen (Ag) tests, quantitative, laboratory-based nucleocapsid Ag tests for SARS-CoV-2 have recently been launched. Here, we evaluated four commercial Ag tests on automated platforms and one POCT to detect SARS-CoV-2. We evaluated PCR-positive (n = 107) and PCR-negative (n = 303) respiratory swabs from asymptomatic and symptomatic patients at the end of the second pandemic wave in Germany (February–March 2021) as well as clinical isolates EU1 (B.1.117), variant of concern (VOC) Alpha (B.1.1.7) or Beta (B.1.351), which had been expanded in a biosafety level 3 laboratory. The specificities of automated SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests ranged between 97.0 and 99.7% (Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Fujirebio): 97.03%, Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Roche Diagnostics): 97.69%; LIAISON^® SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Diasorin) and SARS-CoV-2 Ag ELISA (Euroimmun): 99.67%). In this study cohort of hospitalized patients, the clinical sensitivities of tests were low, ranging from 17.76 to 52.34%, and analytical sensitivities ranged from 420,000 to 25,000,000 Geq/ml. In comparison, the detection limit of the Roche Rapid Ag Test (RAT) was 9,300,000 Geq/ml, detecting 23.58% of respiratory samples. Receiver-operating-characteristics (ROCs) and Youden’s index analyses were performed to further characterize the assays’ overall performance and determine optimal assay cutoffs for sensitivity and specificity. VOCs carrying up to four amino acid mutations in nucleocapsid were detected by all five assays with characteristics comparable to non-VOCs. In summary, automated, quantitative SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests show variable performance and are not necessarily superior to a standard POCT. The efficacy of any alternative testing strategies to complement nucleic acid-based assays must be carefully evaluated by independent laboratories prior to widespread implementation.

Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being integrated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix, bioRvix, and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 up until 30 April 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses, and rated study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 assessment tool. From a total of 14,254 articles, we included 133 analytical and clinical studies resulting in 214 clinical accuracy datasets with 112,323 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 71.2% (95% CI 68.2% to 74.0%) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6% to 99.1%), respectively. Sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.1% to 79.2%) if analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers' instructions. LumiraDx showed the highest sensitivity, with 88.2% (95% CI 59.0% to 97.5%). Of instrument-free Ag-RDTs, Standard Q nasal performed best, with 80.2% sensitivity (95% CI 70.3% to 87.4%). Across all Ag-RDTs, sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, i.e., <20 (96.5%, 95% CI 92.6% to 98.4%) and <25 (95.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 97.8%), in comparison to those with Ct ≥ 25 (50.7%, 95% CI 35.6% to 65.8%) and ≥30 (20.9%, 95% CI 12.5% to 32.8%). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (83.8%, 95% CI 76.3% to 89.2%) compared to testing after 1 week (61.5%, 95% CI 52.2% to 70.0%). The best Ag-RDT sensitivity was found with anterior nasal sampling (75.5%, 95% CI 70.4% to 79.9%), in comparison to other sample types (e.g., nasopharyngeal, 71.6%, 95% CI 68.1% to 74.9%), although CIs were overlapping. Concerns of bias were raised across all datasets, and financial support from the manufacturer was reported in 24.1% of datasets. Our analysis was limited by the included studies' heterogeneity in design and reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study we found that Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2-infected persons within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load. Thus, they can have high utility for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease, making them a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization in conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data.

Head-to-head performance comparison of self-collected nasal versus professional-collected nasopharyngeal swab for a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test

In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended two SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow antigen-detecting rapid diagnostics tests (Ag-RDTs), both initially with nasopharyngeal (NP) sample collection. Independent head-to-head studies are necessary for SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT nasal sampling to demonstrate comparability of performance with nasopharyngeal (NP) sampling. We conducted a head-to-head comparison study of a supervised, self-collected nasal mid-turbinate (NMT) swab and a professional-collected NP swab, using the Panbio™ Ag-RDT (distributed by Abbott). We calculated positive and negative percent agreement between the sampling methods as well as sensitivity and specificity for both sampling techniques compared to the reference standard reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). A SARS-CoV-2 infection could be diagnosed by RT-PCR in 45 of 290 participants (15.5%). Comparing the NMT and NP sampling the positive percent agreement of the Ag-RDT was 88.1% (37/42 PCR positives detected; CI 75.0-94.8%). The negative percent agreement was 98.8% (245/248; CI 96.5-99.6%). The overall sensitivity of Panbio with NMT sampling was 84.4% (38/45; CI 71.2-92.3%) and 88.9% (40/45; CI 76.5-95.5%) with NP sampling. Specificity was 99.2% (243/245; CI 97.1-99.8%) for both, NP and NMT sampling. The sensitivity of the Panbio test in participants with high viral load (> 7 log10 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/mL) was 96.3% (CI 81.7-99.8%) for both, NMT and NP sampling. For the Panbio supervised NMT self-sampling yields comparable results to NP sampling. This suggests that nasal self-sampling could be used for to enable scaled-up population testing.Clinical Trial DRKS00021220.

SARS-CoV-2, CT-Values, and Infectivity-Conclusions to Be Drawn from Side Observations

In their recent article published in Viruses, Michel Drancourt and colleagues [...].

Low sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen self-tests under laboratory conditions

SARS-CoV-2-antigen-testing has been proposed as a ‘game-changing’ tool to interrupt infection chains. Thereby European strategies focused on two pillars, namely rapid antigen tests conducted by health care experts and/or trained personal and so-called self-tests. Here, evidence is provided that these assays have a weak performance even under laboratory conditions.

Real-life evaluation of a COVID-19 rapid antigen detection test in hospitalized children

Rapid antigen detection (RAD) tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 are simpler, faster, and less expensive than the reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) that is currently considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The objective of this study was to determine the performance of the PANBIO COVID-19 Ag RAD (Abbott) test, a lateral flow immunoassay that detects the nucleocapsid protein, using as a reference RT-PCR method the Cobas®8800 System (Roche Diagnostics). This prospective study was conducted in a tertiary Children's Hospital and included individuals aged ≤16 years with COVID-19-related symptoms or epidemiological criteria for COVID-19. Two nasopharyngeal samples were collected to perform the PANBIO RAD test and RT-PCR. Of 744 children included, 51 (6.86%) had a positive RT-PCR result. The RAD test detected 42 of 51 PCR-positive children while there were no false-positive results. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 82.35% (95% CI, 71.9%-92.8%) and 100%, respectively. Sensitivity was >95% in symptomatic children. The assay performed poorly in asymptomatically infected children. In agreement with previous studies in adults, the PANBIO RAD test can be useful in screening for COVID-19 in children admitted with symptoms suggestive of the disease, especially in the first days of the illness.

Evaluation of Two Rapid Antigenic Tests for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Nasopharyngeal Swabs

(1) Background: In the current context of the COVID-19 crisis, there is a need for fast, easy-to-use, and sensitive diagnostic tools in addition to molecular methods. We have therefore decided to evaluate the performance of newly available antigen detection kits in "real-life" laboratory conditions. (2) Methods: The sensitivity and specificity of two rapid diagnostic tests (RDT)-the COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip from Coris Bioconcept, Belgium (CoRDT), and the coronavirus antigen rapid test cassette from Healgen Scientific, LLC, USA (HeRDT)-were evaluated on 193 nasopharyngeal samples using RT-PCR as the gold standard. (3) Results: The sensitivity obtained for HeRDT was 88% for all collected samples and 91.1% for samples with Ct ≤ 31. For the CoRDT test, the sensitivity obtained was 62% for all collected samples and 68.9% for samples with Ct ≤ 31. (4) Conclusions: Despite the excellent specificity obtained for both kits, the poor sensitivity of the CoRDT did not allow for its use in the rapid diagnosis of COVID-19. HeRDT satisfied the World Health Organization's performance criteria for rapid antigen detection tests. Its high sensitivity, quick response, and ease of use allowed for the implementation of HeRDT at the laboratory of the University Hospital of Liège.