Evaluation of the rapid antigen detection test STANDARD F COVID-19 Ag FIA for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2: Experience from an Emergency Department

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.

The Suitability of RNA from Positive SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Tests for Whole Virus Genome Sequencing and Variant Identification to Maintain Genomic Surveillance

The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed laboratory management, with a surge in demand for diagnostic tests prompting the adoption of new diagnostic assays and the spread of variant surveillance tools. Rapid antigen tests (RATs) were initially used only for screening and later as suitable infection assessment tools. This study explores the feasibility of sequencing the SARS-CoV-2 genome from the residue of the nasopharyngeal swab extraction buffers of rapid antigen tests (RATs) to identify different COVID-19 lineages and sub-lineages.

METHODS

Viral RNA was extracted from the residue of the nasopharyngeal swab extraction buffers of RATs and, after a confirmation of positivity through a reaction of RT-PCR, viral genome sequencing was performed.

RESULTS

Overall, the quality of the sequences obtained from the RNA extracted from the residue of the nasopharyngeal swab extraction buffers of RATs was adequate and allowed us to identify the SARS-CoV-2 variants' circulation and distribution in a period when the use of molecular swabs had been drastically reduced.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the potential for genomic surveillance by sequencing SARS-CoV-2 from the residue of the nasopharyngeal swab extraction buffers of RATs, highlighting alternative possibilities for tracking variants.

SARS-CoV-2 Testing of Emergency Department Patients Using cobas® Liat® and eazyplex® Rapid Molecular Assays

Rapid testing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) of patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs) facilitates the decision for isolation on admission to hospital wards. Differences in the sensitivity of molecular assays have implications for diagnostic workflows. This study evaluated the performance of the cobas^® Liat^® RT-PCR, which is routinely used as the initial test for ED patients in our hospitals, compared with the eazyplex^® RT-LAMP. A total of 378 oropharyngeal and nasal swabs with positive Liat^® results were analysed. Residual sample aliquots were tested using NeuMoDx™, cobas^® RT-PCR, and the eazyplex^® assay. Patients were divided into asymptomatic (n = 157) and symptomatic (n = 221) groups according to the WHO case definition. Overall, 14% of positive Liat^® results were not confirmed by RT-PCR. These samples were mainly attributed to 26.8% of asymptomatic patients, compared to 3.8% of the symptomatic group. Therefore, positive Liat^® results were used to provisionally isolate patients in the ED until RT-PCR results were available. The eazyplex^® assay identified 62% and 90.6% of RT-PCR-confirmed cases in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients, respectively. False-negative eazyplex^® results were associated with RT-PCR Ct values > 30, and were more frequent in the asymptomatic group than in the symptomatic group (38.1% vs. 5.1%, respectively). Both the Liat^® and eazyplex^® assays are suitable for testing symptomatic patients. Their use in screening asymptomatic patients depends on the need to exclude any infection or identify those at high risk of transmission.

Rapid Antigen Tests during the COVID-19 Era in Korea and Their Implementation as a Detection Tool for Other Infectious Diseases

Rapid antigen tests (RATs) are diagnostic tools developed to specifically detect a certain protein of infectious agents (viruses, bacteria, or parasites). RATs are easily accessible due to their rapidity and simplicity. During the COVID-19 pandemic, RATs have been widely used in detecting the presence of the specific SARS-CoV-2 antigen in respiratory samples from suspected individuals. Here, the authors review the application of RATs as detection tools for COVID-19, particularly in Korea, as well as for several other infectious diseases. To address these issues, we present general knowledge on the design of RATs that adopt the lateral flow immunoassay for the detection of the analyte (antigen). The authors then discuss the clinical utilization of the authorized RATs amidst the battle against the COVID-19 pandemic in Korea and their role in comparison with other detection methods. We also discuss the implementation of RATs for other, non-COVID-19 infectious diseases, the challenges that may arise during the application, the limitations of RATs as clinical detection tools, as well as the possible problem solving for those challenges to maximize the performance of RATs and avoiding any misinterpretation of the test result.