Diagnostic performance of a novel digital immunoassay (RapidTesta SARS-CoV-2): A prospective observational study with nasopharyngeal samples

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.

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.

Prospective study of three saliva qualitative antigen testing kits for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 among mainly symptomatic patients in Japan

INTRODUCTION

Rapid qualitative antigen testing has been widely used for the laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 with nasopharyngeal samples. Saliva samples have been used as alternative samples, but the analytical performance of those samples for qualitative antigen testing has not been sufficiently evaluated.

METHODS

A prospective observational study evaluated the analytical performance of three In Vitro Diagnostics (IVD) approved COVID-19 rapid antigen detection kits for saliva between June 2022 and July 2022 in Japan using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) as a reference. A nasopharyngeal sample and a saliva sample were simultaneously obtained, and RT-qPCR was performed.

RESULTS

In total, saliva samples and nasopharyngeal samples were collected from 471 individuals (RT-qPCR-positive, n = 145) for the analysis. Of these, 96.6% were symptomatic. The median copy numbers were 1.7 × 10⁶ copies/mL for saliva samples and 1.2 × 10⁸ copies/mL for nasopharyngeal samples (p < 0.001). Compared with the reference, the sensitivity and specificity were 44.8% and 99.7% for ImunoAce SARS-CoV-2 Saliva, 57.2% and 99.1% for Espline SARS-CoV-2 N, and 60.0% and 99.1% for QuickChaser Auto SARS-CoV-2, respectively. The sensitivities of all antigen testing kit were 100% for saliva samples with a high viral load (>10⁷ copies/mL), whereas the sensitivities were <70% for high-viral-load nasopharyngeal samples (>10⁷ copies/mL).

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 rapid antigen detection kits with saliva showed high specificity, but the sensitivity varied among kits, and were also insufficient for the detection of symptomatic COVID-19 patients.

Analytical performance of the rapid qualitative antigen kit for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 during widespread circulation of the Omicron variant

INTRODUCTION

Rapid qualitative antigen testing is essential in the clinical management of COVID-19. However, most evaluations of antigen tests have been performed before the emergence of the Omicron variant.

METHODS

This prospective observational study evaluated QuickNavi-COVID19 Ag, a rapid antigen detection test between December 2021 and February 2022 in Japan, using real-time reverse transcription (RT)-PCR as a reference. Two nasopharyngeal samples were simultaneously collected for antigen testing and for RT-PCR. Variant analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequencing was also performed.

RESULTS

In total, nasopharyngeal samples were collected from 1073 participants (417 positive; 919 symptomatic; 154 asymptomatic) for analysis. Compared with those of RT-PCR, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 94.2% (95% CI: 91.6%-96.3%), 99.5% (95% CI: 98.7%-99.9%), 99.2% (95% CI: 97.8%-99.8%), and 96.5% (95% CI: 94.8%-97.7%), respectively. The sensitivity among symptomatic individuals was 94.3% (95% CI: 91.5%-96.4%). Overall, 85.9% of sequences were classified as Omicron sublineage BA.1, 12.4% were Omicron sublineage BA.2, and 1.6% were Delta B.1.617.2. (Delta variant). Most of the samples (87.1%) had Ct values of <25, and the sensitivity was 47.4% for low viral load samples (Ct ≥ 30); a similar trend has been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The QuickNavi-COVID19 Ag test showed sufficient diagnostic performance for the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron sublineages BA.1 and BA.2 from nasopharyngeal samples. However, the current study was mainly performed in symptomatic patients and the results are not sufficiently applicable for asymptomatic patients.

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.