Covid-19 antigen testing: better than we know? A test accuracy study

The importance of quarantine: modelling the COVID-19 testing process

We incorporate the disease state and testing state into the formulation of a COVID-19 epidemic model. For this model, the basic reproduction number is identified and its dependence on model parameters related to the testing process and isolation efficacy is discussed. The relations between the basic reproduction number, the final epidemic and peak sizes, and the model parameters are further explored numerically. We find that fast test reporting does not always benefit the control of the COVID-19 epidemic if good quarantine while awaiting test results is implemented. Moreover, the final epidemic and peak sizes do not always increase along with the basic reproduction number. Under some circumstances, lowering the basic reproduction number increases the final epidemic and peak sizes. Our findings suggest that properly implementing isolation for individuals who are waiting for their testing results would lower the basic reproduction number as well as the final epidemic and peak sizes.

Comparison of Two Commercially Available Interferon-γ Release Assays for T-Cell-Mediated Immunity and Evaluation of Humoral Immunity against SARS-CoV-2 in Healthcare Workers

Cellular immunity against SARS-CoV-2 is an important component of the immune response to the virus. At present, two such tests based on interferon-gamma release (interferon-γ release assays, IGRAs) are available-Quan-T-Cell SARS-CoV-2 by EUROIMMUN and T-SPOT.COVID by Oxford Immunotec. In this paper, we compared the results of these two tests in 90 subjects employed at the Public Health Institute Ostrava who had previously undergone COVID-19 infection or were vaccinated against that disease. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first head-to-head comparison of these two tests evaluating T-cell-mediated immunity against SARS-CoV-2. In addition, we also evaluated humoral immunity in the same individuals using the in-house virus neutralization test and IgG ELISA assay. The evaluation yielded similar results for both IGRAs, with Quan-T-Cell appearing to be insignificantly (p = 0.08) more sensitive (all 90 individuals were at least borderline positive) than T-SPOT.COVID (negative results found in five patients). The overall qualitative (presence/absence of immune response) agreement of both tests with virus neutralization test and anti-S IgG was also excellent (close or equal to 100% in all subgroups, with the exception of unvaccinated Omicron convalescents, a large proportion of whom, i.e., four out of six subjects, were IgG negative while at least borderline positive for T-cell-mediated immunity measured by Quan-T). This implies that the evaluation of T-cell-mediated immunity is a more sensitive indicator of immune response than the evaluation of IgG seropositivity. This is true at least for unvaccinated patients with a history of being infected only by the Omicron variant, but also likely for other groups of patients.

Diagnostic accuracy of rapid point-of-care tests for diagnosis of current SARS-CoV-2 infections in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically assess the diagnostic accuracy of rapid point-of-care tests for diagnosis of current SARS-CoV-2 infections in children under real-life conditions.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, INAHTA HTA database, preprint servers (via Europe PMC), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP from 1 January 2020 to 7 May 2021; NICE Evidence Search, NICE Guidance, FIND Website from 1 January 2020 to 24 May 2021.

REVIEW METHODS

Diagnostic cross-sectional or cohort studies were eligible for inclusion if they had paediatric study participants and compared rapid point-of care tests for diagnosing current SARS-CoV-2 infections with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as the reference standard. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess the risk of bias and the applicability of the included studies. Bivariate meta-analyses with random effects were performed. Variability was assessed by subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

17 studies with a total of 6355 paediatric study participants were included. All studies compared antigen tests against RT-PCR. Overall, studies evaluated eight antigen tests from six different brands. Only one study was at low risk of bias. The pooled overall diagnostic sensitivity and specificity in paediatric populations was 64.2% (95% CI 57.4% to 70.5%) and 99.1% (95% CI 98.2% to 99.5%), respectively. In symptomatic children, the pooled diagnostic sensitivity was 71.8% (95% CI 63.6% to 78.8%) and the pooled diagnostic specificity was 98.7% (95% CI 96.6% to 99.5%). The pooled diagnostic sensitivity in asymptomatic children was 56.2% (95% CI 47.6% to 64.4%) and the pooled diagnostic specificity was 98.6% (95% CI 97.3% to 99.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

The performance of current antigen tests in paediatric populations under real-life conditions varies broadly. Relevant data were only identified for very few antigen tests on the market, and the risk of bias was mostly unclear due to poor reporting. Additionally, the most common uses of these tests in children (eg, self-testing in schools or parents testing their toddlers before kindergarten) have not been addressed in clinical performance studies yet. The observed low diagnostic sensitivity may impact the planned purpose of the broad implementation of testing programmes.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021236313.

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.

Immune Response 5–7 Months after Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in Elderly Nursing Home Residents in the Czech Republic: Comparison of Three Vaccines

Background and Aims: Elderly nursing home residents are especially prone to a severe course of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this study, we aimed to investigate the complex immune response after vaccination depending on the convalescence status and vaccine. Methods: Sampling took place in September–October 2021. IgG antibodies against spike protein and nucleocapsid protein, the titer of virus neutralization antibodies against delta and (on a subset of patients) omicron, and cellular immunity (interferon-gamma release assay) were tested in nursing home residents vaccinated with Pfizer, Moderna (both 30–31 weeks after the completion of vaccination), or AstraZeneca (23 weeks) vaccines. The prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was evaluated in Stata version 17. Results: 95.2% (95% CI: 92.5–97.1%) of the 375 participants had positive results of anti-S IgG, 92.8% (95% CI: 89.7–95.2%) were positive in virus neutralization assay against delta, and 89.0% (95% CI: 84.5–92.5%) in the interferon-gamma-releasing assay detecting cellular immunity. Results of the virus neutralization assay against omicron correlated with those against delta but the neutralization capacity was reduced by about half. As expected, the worst results were found for the AstraZeneca vaccine, although the vaccination-to-test period was the shortest for this vaccine. All immune parameters were significantly higher in convalescent residents than in naive residents after vaccination. No case of COVID-19 occurred during the vaccination-to-test period. Conclusions: A high immune response, especially among vaccinated convalescents (i.e., residents with hybrid immunity), was found in elderly nursing home residents 5–7 months after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. In view of this, it appears that such residents are much better protected from COVID-19 than those who are only vaccinated and the matter of individual approach to the booster dose in such individuals should be further discussed.

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.

Infection Control in the Era of COVID-19: A Narrative Review

COVID-19 quickly became a pandemic causing millions of infections and mortalities. It required real-time adjustments to healthcare systems and infection prevention and control (IPC) measures to limit the spread and protect healthcare providers and hospitalized patients. IPC guidelines were adopted and developed based on experience gained during the MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV outbreaks. The aim of this narrative review is to summarize current evidence on IPC in healthcare settings and patients with COVID-19 to prevent nosocomial infections during the actual pandemic. A search was run on PubMed using the terms (‘COVID-19’ [Mesh]) AND (‘Infection Control’ [Mesh]) between 2019 and 2021. We identified 86 studies that were in accordance with our aim and summarized them under certain themes as they related to COVID-19 infection control measures. All the guidelines recommend early diagnosis and rapid isolation of COVID-19 patients. The necessary precautions should be taken comprising the whole process, starting with an infectious disease plan, administrative and engineering controls, triage, and PPE training. Guidelines should target modes of transmission, droplet, aerosol, and oral–fecal, while recommending control precautions. Healthcare facilities must promptly implement a multidisciplinary defense system to combat the outbreak.

Performance of Seven SARS-CoV-2 Self-Tests Based on Saliva, Anterior Nasal and Nasopharyngeal Swabs Corrected for Infectiousness in Real-Life Conditions: A Cross-Sectional Test Accuracy Study

Many studies reported good performance of nasopharyngeal swab-based antigen tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals; however, studies independently evaluating the quality of antigen tests utilizing anterior nasal swabs or saliva swabs are still rare, although such tests are widely used for mass testing. In our study, sensitivities, specificities and predictive values of seven antigen tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2 (one using nasopharyngeal swabs, two using anterior nasal swabs and four using saliva) were evaluated. In a setting of a high-capacity testing center, nasopharyngeal swabs for quantitative PCR (qPCR) were taken and, at the same time, antigen testing was performed in accordance with manufacturers' instructions for the respective tests. In samples where qPCR and antigen tests yielded different results, virus culture was performed to evaluate the presence of the viable virus. Sensitivities and specificities of individual tests were calculated using both qPCR and qPCR corrected for viability as the reference. In addition, calculations were also performed for data categorized according to the cycle threshold and symptomatic status. The test using nasopharyngeal swabs yielded the best results (sensitivity of 80.6% relative to PCR and 91.2% when corrected for viability) while none of the remaining tests (anterior nasal swab or saliva-based tests) came even close to the WHO criteria for overall sensitivity. Hence, we advise caution when using antigen tests with alternative sampling methods without independent validation.