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

Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Screening Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Infection at Correctional Facilities in Korea: March - May 2022

BACKGROUND

The number of confirmed cases of individuals with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection increased rapidly due to the Omicron variant. Correctional facilities are vulnerable to infectious diseases, and they introduced rapid antigen tests (RATs) to allow for early detection and rapid response. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance and usefulness of SARS-CoV-2 RATs in newly incarcerated people.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study at correctional facilities in Korea from 9 March to 22 May 2022. The study population was newly incarcerated people who were divided into two groups. In one group, 799 paired SARS-CoV-2 RATs and real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) were conducted simultaneously in 522 individuals in March 2022. In the other group, 4,034 paired RATs and RT-PCR consecutively in 4,034 participants; only individuals with negative RATs results underwent RT-PCR from April to May 2022. We analyzed data using descriptive statistics and a logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Among the 799 specimens in March, RT-PCR was positive in 72 (9.0%), and among the 4,034 specimens in April - May 2022, RT-PCR was positive in 40 (1.0%). Overall, the RATs had a sensitivity of 58.3%, specificity of 100.0%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 100.0%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 96.0%. Asymptomatic individuals constituted 98.2% of the study group, and symptomatic individuals 1.8%. In asymptomatic cases, the sensitivity of RATs was 52.5%, specificity was 100.0%, PPV was 100.0%, and NPV was 96.3%. In symptomatic cases, the sensitivity of RATs was 84.6%, specificity was 100.0%, PPV was 100.0%, and NPV was 33.3%. Sensitivity (P = 0.034) and NPV (P = 0.004) differed significantly according to the presence and absence of symptoms, and the F1 score was the highest at 0.9 in symptomatic individuals in March. There was a positive linear trend in the proportion of false-negative RATs in newly incarcerated people following the weekly incidence of SARS-CoV-2 (P = 0.033). The best-associated predictors of RATs for SARS-CoV-2 infection involved symptoms, timing of sample collection, and repeat testing.

CONCLUSION

Sensitivity and NPV significantly depend on whether symptoms are present, and the percentage of false negatives is correlated with the incidence. Thus, using RATs should be adjusted according to the presence or absence of symptoms and the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community. RATs could be a useful screening tool as an effective first-line countermeasure because they can rapidly identify infectious patients and minimize SARS-CoV-2 transmission in correctional facilities.

Association Between Rapid Antigen Detection Tests and Real-Time Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

Objectives: We aimed to assess the association between rapid antigen detection tests and real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction assay for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and the Web of Science from their inception to 31 May 2023. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate false positives in the RADTs group, relative to those in the RT-PCR group, and subgroup analyses were conducted based on the different Ct value cut-offs (<40 or ≥40). We performed this study in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Results: Fifty-one studies were included and considered to be of moderate quality. We found a satisfactory overall false positive rate (0.01, 95% CI: 0.00-0.01) for the RADTs compared to RT-PCR. In the stratified analysis, we also found that the false positive rates of the RADTs did not increase when Ct values of RT-PCR (Ct < 40, 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00-0.01; Ct ≥ 40, 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00-0.01). Conclusion: In conclusion, the best available evidence supports an association between RADTs and RT-PCR. When Ct-values were analyzed using cut-off <40 or ≥40, this resulted in an estimated false positive rate of only 1%.

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.