Clinical evaluation of rapid point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection

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.

[From the practice of monitoring SARS-CoV-2 test sites in the city of Cologne]

In spring 2021, a law for the nationwide opening of test centers in Germany was passed. The local health department fulfilled the task of monitoring the test centers that subsequently opened throughout Cologne regarding the infectious and hygienic risks. Inspections were carried out using structured checklists. A retrospect evaluation of the identified deficiencies was run for the period between March 15 and July 31, 2021. In 84% of the cases, hygienic deficiencies were found when the test sites were inspected for the first time. 35% of the test sites were closed immediately, most of them temporarily. These first results provide information on frequent and important hygienic problems of the rapid set up of test sites and important advice for avoiding those and thus protecting employees and test persons.

Integrating Water Purification with Electrochemical Aptamer Sensing for Detecting SARS-CoV-2 in Wastewater

Wastewater analysis of pathogens, particularly SARS-CoV-2, is instrumental in tracking and monitoring infectious diseases in a population. This method can be used to generate early warnings regarding the onset of an infectious disease and predict the associated infection trends. Currently, wastewater analysis of SARS-CoV-2 is almost exclusively performed using polymerase chain reaction for the amplification-based detection of viral RNA at centralized laboratories. Despite the development of several biosensing technologies offering point-of-care solutions for analyzing SARS-CoV-2 in clinical samples, these remain elusive for wastewater analysis due to the low levels of the virus and the interference caused by the wastewater matrix. Herein, we integrate an aptamer-based electrochemical chip with a filtration, purification, and extraction (FPE) system for developing an alternate in-field solution for wastewater analysis. The sensing chip employs a dimeric aptamer, which is universally applicable to the wild-type, alpha, delta, and omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2. We demonstrate that the aptamer is stable in the wastewater matrix (diluted to 50%) and its binding affinity is not significantly impacted. The sensing chip demonstrates a limit of detection of 1000 copies/L (1 copy/mL), enabled by the amplification provided by the FPE system. This allows the integrated system to detect trace amounts of the virus in native wastewater and categorize the amount of contamination into trace (<10 copies/mL), medium (10-1000 copies/mL), or high (>1000 copies/mL) levels, providing a viable wastewater analysis solution for in-field use.

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.

Comparison of the SARS-CoV-2 BD Veritor Nasal Antigen Test with Nasopharyngeal Reverse Transcription-PCR in Symptomatic Patients

This study evaluated the BD Veritor system for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2, an immunochromatographic point-of-care test, by comparing it with a standard reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) methodology using samples from symptomatic patients. Samples from 146 symptomatic and 2 asymptomatic patients between the 1st and the 40th day of infection were evaluated. The nasopharyngeal and/or oropharyngeal swabs were inserted in a tube containing 0.9% saline solution and stored at refrigerator temperature until the moment of use. The samples were first tested with the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (GeneXpert) kit (RT-PCR method), and the cycle thresholds (C_Ts) for the E and N2 genes encoding the SARS-CoV-2 envelope and nucleoprotein, respectively, were established. Subsequently, the same samples were tested using the Veritor rapid test. We analyzed the C_Ts of the N2 gene, which is detected in both methodologies, and observed sensitivities of 100%, 98.8%, 89.6%, and 82.7% for the C_Ts of <25, <27, and <30 and all the C_Ts, respectively. The greatest sensitivity was observed when we performed the test on patients within 5 days of symptom onset. The BD Veritor system’s workflow is simple and fast, taking approximately 16 min from sample preparation to obtaining the test result. In addition to its satisfactory sensitivity, with results that correlate with those of the RT-PCR, the BD Veritor analyzer instrument reduces the subjectivity of unaided visual readings and consequent potential variation in result interpretation. Therefore, our results showed that the BD Veritor diagnostic test can provide a rapid and accurate diagnosis for SARS-CoV-2.

IMPORTANCE This study provides important and useful information, especially for diagnostic laboratories, since the results show that the BD Veritor system can provide a fast and safe point-of-care antigen diagnostic test for rapid detection of COVID-19 that has high sensitivity, reproducibility, and accuracy.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Clinical evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-based rapid diagnostic test kit for detection of COVID-19 cases in Bangladesh

The rapid and early detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections is key to control the current Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The present study was conducted to clinically evaluate a rapid diagnostic test (RDT) kit, Standard Q COVID-19 Ag Test (SD Biosensor®, Republic of Korea), with reference to the standard real-time RT-PCR for detection of COVID-19 cases in Bangladesh. Nasopharyngeal swabs were taken from 900 COVID-19 suspected patients. Among them, 34.11% (n = 307) were diagnosed as COVID-19 cases by RT-PCR assay, of which 85% (n = 261) were also detectable using the RDT. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the RDT compared to RT-PCR were 85.02% and 100%, respectively, regardless of age, sex, and type of SARS-CoV-2 variants. Most of the RT-PCR positive cases (94%) were found within the first five days of disease onset, and the sensitivity of RDT was 85.91% for the same samples. The positive predictive value (PPV) of the RDT was 100%, and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 92.8%. The Cohen's kappa value of 0.882 indicated excellent agreement between the RDT and RT-PCR assays. The findings of this study showed the potential use of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-based RDT to expedite the diagnostic process and onward COVID-19 management in Bangladesh.