Performance of anterior nares and tongue swabs for nucleic acid, Nucleocapsid, and Spike antigen testing for detecting SARS-CoV-2 against nasopharyngeal PCR and viral culture

Advances in rapid point-of-care virus testing

Outbreaks of viral diseases seriously jeopardize people's health and cause huge economic losses. At the same time, virology provides a new perspective for biology, molecular biology and cancer research, and it is important to study the discovered viruses with potential applications. Therefore, the development of immediate and rapid viral detection methods for the prevention and treatment of viral diseases as well as the study of viruses has attracted extensive attention from scientists. With the continuous progress of science and technology, especially in the field of bioanalysis, a series of new detection techniques have been applied to the on-site rapid detection of viruses, which has become a powerful approach for human beings to fight against viruses. In this paper, the latest research progress of rapid point-of-care detection of viral nucleic acids, antigens and antibodies is presented. In addition, the advantages and disadvantages of these technologies are discussed from the perspective of practical application requirements. Finally, the problems and challenges faced by rapid viral detection methods and their development prospects are discussed.

Comparable performance of antigen-detecting rapid test by healthcare worker-collected and self-collected swabs for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Usage of self-screening tests has become increasingly relevant in public health perspective for early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the transitioning era of the COVID-19 pandemic into an endemic. This study was designed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of self-conducted and health professional-conducted SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests (Ag-RDTs) and whether the sample was taken from anterior nasal or nasal mid-turbinate. Eligible comparative Ag-RDTs accuracy studies were retrieved from electronic databases systematically, in accordance with PRISMA. Selected studies were assessed for risk of bias using QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C. In total, we selected five out of 1952 studies retrieved using the keywords. The overall sensitivity for the self-collected nasal swab method and healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal swab method was 79% (95% CI 68-87; I2  = 62%) and 83% (95% CI 75-89; I2  = 32%), respectively, which was not statistically different (p = 0.499). Nasal mid-turbinate swabs have a significantly higher sensitivity compared to anterior nasal swabs (p < 0.01). Both sampling methods represent high and comparable specificity values of 98% (95% CI 97-99; I2  = 0%) and 99% (95% CI 98-99; I2  = 0%). Positive predictive value (range 90%-99%) and negative predictive value (range 87%-98%) were equivalent for both methods. Our findings indicated the accuracy of self-collected Ag-RDT on nasal swabs was comparable to those performed by healthcare worker-collected on nasopharyngeal swabs. Self-collected Ag-RDT could be considered as a transmission prevention method in the transition of COVID-19 pandemic.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Molecular Diagnostic Testing

Accurate molecular diagnostic tests are necessary for confirming a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and for identifying asymptomatic carriage of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The number of available SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection tests continues to increase as does the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. Thus, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed an evidence-based diagnostic guideline to assist clinicians, clinical laboratorians, patients, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests. In addition, we provide a conceptual framework for understanding molecular diagnostic test performance, discuss nuances of test result interpretation in a variety of practice settings, and highlight important unmet research needs related to COVID-19 diagnostic testing. IDSA convened a multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review to identify and prioritize clinical questions and outcomes related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. The panel agreed on 12 diagnostic recommendations. Access to accurate SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing is critical for patient care, hospital infection prevention, and the public health response to COVID-19 infection. Information on the clinical performance of available tests continues to grow, but the quality of evidence of the current literature to support this updated molecular diagnostic guideline remains moderate to very low. Recognizing these limitations, the IDSA panel weighed available diagnostic evidence and recommends nucleic acid testing for all symptomatic individuals suspected of having COVID-19. In addition, testing is suggested for asymptomatic individuals with known or suspected contact with a COVID-19 case when the results will impact isolation/quarantine/personal protective equipment (PPE) usage decisions. Evidence in support of rapid testing and testing of upper respiratory specimens other than nasopharyngeal swabs, which offer logistical advantages, is sufficient to warrant conditional recommendations in favor of these approaches.

Rapid Antigen and Antibody Microfluidic Immunofluorescence Assays Compared to Culture, PCR, and Laboratory Reference Tests: Performance in a Longitudinal Cohort

We evaluated the performance of rapid antigen (RAg) and antibody (RAb) microfluidic diagnostics with serial sampling of 71 participants at 6 visits over 2 months following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Rapid tests showed strong agreement with laboratory references (κAg = 81.0%; κAb = 87.8%). RAg showed substantial concordance to both virus growth in culture and PCR positivity 0-5 days since symptom onset (κAg-culture = 60.1% and κAg-PCR = 87.1%). PCR concordance to virus growth in culture was similar (κPCR-culture = 70.0%), although agreement between RAg and culture was better overall (κAg-culture = 45.5% vs κPCR-culture = 10.0%). Rapid antigen and antibody testing by microfluidic immunofluorescence platform are highly accurate for characterization of acute infection.

Evaluation of the efficacy of tongue swab and saliva as samples for testing COVID-19 infection in symptomatic cases in comparison with nasopharyngeal swab

Introduction. COVID-19 caused by SARS CoV-2 continues to be a major health concern globally. Methods for detection of the disease are necessary for public health efforts to monitor the spread of this disease as well as for detecting the emergence of new variants.Gap statement. Collection of Nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), the gold standard sample for the detection of COVID-19 infection by RT-qPCR is invasive and requires the expertise of a trained medical provider. This highlights the need for validating less invasive samples that can be self-collected without the need for trained medical provider.Aim. To validate saliva and tongue swab as potential samples for the diagnosis of COVID-19.Methodology. Adult and paediatric cases who had acute influenza like illness were enrolled in the study. The study involved comparison of Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests (NAAT) results for the detection of COVID-19 obtained by using saliva and tongue swab with that of NPS.Result and Conclusion. The sensitivity and specificity of saliva as sample for COVID-19 detection were found to be 71 and 88% respectively whereas those of tongue swab as sample were 78 and 90 %. Further validation was based on the positive and negative predictive values, the likelihood ratio, agreement percentage and the kappa statistic. The findings of the study point towards tongue swab and saliva as suitable alternative samples for the diagnosis of COVID-19 with a slightly higher accuracy and agreement for tongue swab than saliva. However considering the fatality of COVID-19, they are better suited for mass screening of people than for diagnosis.

COVID-19 Antigen Results Correlate with the Quantity of Replication-Competent SARS-CoV-2 in a Cross-Sectional Study of Ambulatory Adults during the Delta Wave

Appropriate interpretation of various diagnostic tests for COVID-19 is critical, yet the association among rapid antigen tests, reverse transcription (RT)-PCR, and viral culture has not been fully defined. To determine whether rapid antigen testing correlates with the presence and quantity of replication-competent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in ambulatory adults, 626 adult participants were enrolled in a cross-sectional diagnostic study. Each participant had two anterior nasal swabs obtained for rapid antigen and RT-PCR testing and SARS-CoV-2 viral culture. The primary outcomes were the presence and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 growth in VeroE6-ACE2-TMPRSS2 cells in asymptomatic and symptomatic ambulatory adults. In this cross-sectional study of 626 adult outpatients, the sensitivity of a single positive antigen test to identify replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 was 63.6% in asymptomatic and 91.0% in symptomatic participants. Viral culture titers were the highest at the onset of symptoms and rapidly declined by 7 days after symptom onset. The positive agreement of the rapid antigen test with RT-PCR at a cycle threshold CT less than 30 was 66.7% in asymptomatic and 90.7% in symptomatic participants. Among symptomatic participants a with a CT less than 30, a single antigen test had a positive agreement of 90.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84.8% to 94.8%). There was 100% negative agreement as all 425 RT-PCR-negative participants had a negative antigen test. A positive antigen test in symptomatic adults with COVID-19 has a strong correlation with replication-competent SARS-CoV-2. Rapid antigen test results may be a suitable proxy for infectiousness. IMPORTANCE Do rapid antigen test results correlate with replication-competent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (i.e., infectious) virus? In this cross-sectional diagnostic study of 626 adults, the sensitivity of the antigen test to identify replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 was 63.6% in asymptomatic and 91.0% in symptomatic participants. Viral culture titers were the highest at the onset of symptoms and rapidly declined by 7 days after symptom onset. The positive agreement of the rapid antigen test with reverse transcription (RT)-PCR at a CT of less than 30 was 66.7% in asymptomatic participants and 90.7% in symptomatic participants. A positive antigen test may be an appropriate surrogate for identifying replication-competent virus in symptomatic individuals with COVID-19.

Duration of viral infectiousness and correlation with symptoms and diagnostic testing in non-hospitalized adults during acute SARS-CoV-2 infection: A longitudinal cohort study

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for SARS-CoV-2 have relied on limited data on duration of viral infectiousness and correlation with COVID-19 symptoms and diagnostic testing.

METHODS

We enrolled ambulatory adults with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and performed serial measurements of COVID-19 symptoms, nasal swab viral RNA, nucleocapsid (N) and spike (S) antigens, and replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 by viral growth in culture. We determined average time from symptom onset to a first negative test result and estimated risk of infectiousness, as defined by positive viral growth in culture.

RESULTS

Among 95 adults, median [interquartile range] time from symptom onset to first negative test result was 9 [5] days, 13 [6] days, 11 [4] days, and >19 days for S antigen, N antigen, culture growth, and viral RNA by RT-PCR, respectively. Beyond two weeks, virus growth and N antigen titers were rarely positive, while viral RNA remained detectable among half (26/51) of participants tested 21-30 days after symptom onset. Between 6-10 days from symptom onset, N antigen was strongly associated with culture positivity (relative risk=7.61, 95% CI: 3.01-19.22), whereas neither viral RNA nor symptoms were associated with culture positivity. During the 14 days following symptom onset, the presence of N antigen remained strongly associated (adjusted relative risk=7.66, 95% CI: 3.96-14.82) with culture positivity, regardless of COVID-19 symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Most adults have replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 for 10-14 after symptom onset. N antigen testing is a strong predictor of viral infectiousness and may be a more suitable biomarker, rather than absence of symptoms or viral RNA, to discontinue isolation within two weeks from symptom onset.