Field performance and public health response using the BinaxNOW TM Rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection assay during community-based testing

The New Normal: Delayed Peak SARS-CoV-2 Viral Loads Relative to Symptom Onset and Implications for COVID-19 Testing Programs

BACKGROUND

Early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, peak viral loads coincided with symptom onset. We hypothesized that in a highly immune population, symptom onset might occur earlier in infection, coinciding with lower viral loads.

METHODS

We assessed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and influenza A viral loads relative to symptom duration in symptomatic adults (≥16 years) presenting for testing in Georgia (4/2022-4/2023; Omicron variant predominant). Participants provided symptom duration and recent testing history. Nasal swabs were tested by Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV assay and cycle threshold (Ct) values recorded. Nucleoprotein concentrations in SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive samples were measured by single molecule array. To estimate hypothetical antigen rapid diagnostic test (Ag RDT) sensitivity on each day after symptom onset, percentages of individuals with Ct value ≤30 or ≤25 were calculated.

RESULTS

Of 348 newly-diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive individuals (65.5% women, median 39.2 years), 317/348 (91.1%) had a history of vaccination, natural infection, or both. By both Ct value and antigen concentration measurements, median viral loads rose from the day of symptom onset and peaked on the fourth/fifth day. Ag RDT sensitivity estimates were 30.0%-60.0% on the first day, 59.2%-74.8% on the third day, and 80.0%-93.3% on the fourth day of symptoms.In 74 influenza A PCR-positive individuals (55.4% women; median 35.0 years), median influenza viral loads peaked on the second day of symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

In a highly immune adult population, median SARS-CoV-2 viral loads peaked around the fourth day of symptoms. Influenza A viral loads peaked soon after symptom onset. These findings have implications for ongoing use of Ag RDTs for COVID-19 and influenza.

COVID-19 passenger screening to reduce travel risk and translocation of disease

Aviation passenger screening has been used worldwide to mitigate the translocation risk of SARS-CoV-2. We present a model that evaluates factors in screening strategies used in air travel and assess their relative sensitivity and importance in identifying infectious passengers. We use adapted Monte Carlo simulations to produce hypothetical disease timelines for the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 for travelling passengers. Screening strategy factors assessed include having one or two RT-PCR and/or antigen tests prior to departure and/or post-arrival, and quarantine length and compliance upon arrival. One or more post-arrival tests and high quarantine compliance were the most important factors in reducing pathogen translocation. Screening that combines quarantine and post-arrival testing can shorten the length of quarantine for travelers, and variability and mean testing sensitivity in post-arrival RT-PCR and antigen tests decrease and increase with the greater time between the first and second post-arrival test, respectively. This study provides insight into the role various screening strategy factors have in preventing the translocation of infectious diseases and a flexible framework adaptable to other existing or emerging diseases. Such findings may help in public health policy and decision-making in present and future evidence-based practices for passenger screening and pandemic preparedness.

Assessment of the detection accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test in children and adolescents: An updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Real-time and appropriate antigen tests play a pivotal role in preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. However, a previous meta-analysis reported that the antigen test had lower sensitivity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in children. To provide a comprehensive evaluation of diagnostic efficiency, we performed an updated meta-analysis to assess the detection accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests stratified by days after symptom onset and specimen type in children and adolescents.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched for appropriate studies in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies on the diagnostic accuracy of antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 in children and adolescents were included. The relevant data of the included studies were extracted to construct a 2 × 2 table on a per-patient basis. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests were estimated using a bivariate random-effects model.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies enrolling 10 912 patients were included in the present meta-analysis. For the detection accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests, the meta-analysis generated a pooled sensitivity of 77.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 67.3%-85.8%) and a pooled specificity of 99.6% (95% CI: 98.9%-99.8%). The subgroup analysis of studies that examined antigen tests in symptomatic participants ≦7 days after symptom onset generated a pooled sensitivity of 79.4% (95% CI: 47.6%-94.2%) and a pooled specificity of 99.4% (95% CI: 98.2%-99.8%). Another subgroup analysis of studies that evaluated nasal swab specimens demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 80.1% (95% CI: 65.0%-89.7%) and a pooled specificity of 98.5% (95% CI: 97.3%-9.2%).

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrated that the antigen test performed using nasal swab specimens exhibited high sensitivity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 within 7 days after symptom onset. Therefore, antigen testing using nasal swabs may be effective in blocking SARS-CoV-2 transmission in children.

Daily SARS-CoV-2 Nasal Antigen Tests Miss Infected and Presumably Infectious People Due to Viral Load Differences among Specimen Types

In a recent household transmission study of SARS-CoV-2, we found extreme differences in SARS-CoV-2 viral loads among paired saliva, anterior nares swab (ANS), and oropharyngeal swab specimens collected from the same time point. We hypothesized these differences may hinder low-analytical-sensitivity assays (including antigen rapid diagnostic tests [Ag-RDTs]) by using a single specimen type (e.g., ANS) from reliably detecting infected and infectious individuals. We evaluated daily at-home ANS Ag-RDTs (Quidel QuickVue) in a cross-sectional analysis of 228 individuals and a longitudinal analysis (throughout infection) of 17 individuals enrolled early in the course of infection. Ag-RDT results were compared to reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) results and high, presumably infectious viral loads (in each, or any, specimen type). The ANS Ag-RDT correctly detected only 44% of time points from infected individuals on cross-sectional analysis, and this population had an inferred limit of detection of 7.6 × 106 copies/mL. From the longitudinal cohort, daily Ag-RDT clinical sensitivity was very low (<3%) during the early, preinfectious period of the infection. Further, the Ag-RDT detected ≤63% of presumably infectious time points. The poor observed clinical sensitivity of the Ag-RDT was similar to what was predicted based on quantitative ANS viral loads and the inferred limit of detection of the ANS Ag-RDT being evaluated, indicating high-quality self-sampling. Nasal Ag-RDTs, even when used daily, can miss individuals infected with the Omicron variant and even those presumably infectious. Evaluations of Ag-RDTs for detection of infected or infectious individuals should be compared with a composite (multispecimen) infection status to correctly assess performance. IMPORTANCE We reveal three findings from a longitudinal study of daily nasal antigen rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) evaluated against SARS-CoV-2 viral load quantification in three specimen types (saliva, nasal swab, and throat swab) in participants enrolled at the incidence of infection. First, the evaluated Ag-RDT showed low (44%) clinical sensitivity for detecting infected persons at all infection stages. Second, the Ag-RDT poorly detected (≤63%) time points that participants had high and presumably infectious viral loads in at least one specimen type. This poor clinical sensitivity to detect infectious individuals is inconsistent with the commonly held view that daily Ag-RDTs have near-perfect detection of infectious individuals. Third, use of a combination nasal-throat specimen type was inferred by viral loads to significantly improve Ag-RDT performance to detect infectious individuals.

The New Normal: Delayed Peak SARS-CoV-2 Viral Loads Relative to Symptom Onset and Implications for COVID-19 Testing Programs

Background

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, peak viral loads coincided with symptom onset. We hypothesized that in a highly immune population, symptom onset might occur earlier in infection, coinciding with lower viral loads.

Methods

We assessed SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A viral loads relative to symptom duration in recently-tested adults. Symptomatic participants ≥16y presenting to testing sites in Georgia (4/2022-4/2023; Omicron variant predominant) provided symptom duration. Nasal swab samples were tested by the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV assay and Ct values recorded. Nucleoprotein concentrations in SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive samples were measured by Single Molecule Array. To estimate hypothetical antigen rapid diagnostic test (Ag RDT) sensitivity on each day after symptom onset, percentages of individuals with Ct value ≤30 or ≤25 were calculated.

Results

Of 621 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive individuals (64.1% women, median 40.9y), 556/621 (89.5%) had a history of vaccination, natural infection, or both. By both Ct value and antigen concentration measurements, median viral loads rose from the day of symptom onset and peaked on the fourth day. Ag RDT sensitivity estimates were 35.7-71.4% on the first day, 63.9-78.7% on the third day, and 78.6-90.6% on the fourth day of symptoms.In 74 influenza A PCR-positive individuals (55.4% women; median 35.0y), median influenza viral loads peaked on the second day of symptoms.

Conclusions

In a highly immune adult population, median SARS-CoV-2 viral loads peaked on the fourth day of symptoms. Influenza A viral loads peaked soon after symptom onset. These findings have implications for ongoing use of Ag RDTs for COVID-19 and influenza.

Key Points

In a highly immune adult population, median SARS-CoV-2 viral loads by cycle threshold and antigen measurements peaked on the fourth day of symptoms, with implications for testing practice. In contrast, viral loads for influenza A peaked soon after symptom onset.

Lessons From the Field: Rapid Antigen Testing Is Efficient and Practical for Mitigation of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Outbreaks in Long-Term Care Facilities

Background

Mitigation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreaks in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) is facilitated by rapid identification and isolation of infectious individuals to interrupt viral transmission. Immunochromatographic (IC) tests, or rapid antigen tests, have high sensitivity and specificity during the contagious period for COVID-19. Mathematical modeling predicts frequent IC surveillance will be more efficient than polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based strategies, especially during community surges when reporting of PCR results can be delayed. However, there are few published field studies evaluating IC testing strategies in this long-term care setting.

Methods

In fall and winter of 2020, the Marin Health and Human Services Department implemented thrice-weekly IC mass testing by nonlaboratory workers in outbreaks that occurred in 2 LTCFs, in addition to then-standard semiweekly PCR testing. The IC test performance was characterized using same-day PCR specimens as reference standard. Cumulative incidence and duration of transmission for the 2 IC intervention facility outbreaks were compared with 6 reference LTCFs that used weekly to semiweekly PCR alone during an outbreak response.

Results

Of 123 same-day test pairs, IC test sensitivity and specificity were 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 48%-93%) and 100% (95% CI, 97%-100%), respectively. The median duration of outbreak transmission was 19.5 days in the 2 intervention sites and 28 days in the reference facilities (P = .40). Cumulative incidence for the outbreaks among LTCF residents was 41% in the intervention facilities versus 52% in the reference facilities (P = .04, Fisher 2-sided exact).

Conclusions

Thrice-weekly mass IC testing as used by nonlaboratory personnel can be highly practical and effective for COVID-19 outbreak mitigation in the LTCF setting.

COVID-19 Symptoms and Duration of Rapid Antigen Test Positivity at a Community Testing and Surveillance Site During Pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron BA.1 Periods

Importance

Characterizing the clinical symptoms and evolution of community-based SARS-CoV-2 infections may inform health practitioners and public health officials in a rapidly changing landscape of population immunity and viral variants.

Objectives

To compare COVID-19 symptoms among people testing positive with a rapid antigen test (RAT) during the Omicron BA.1 variant period (December 1, 2021, to January 30, 2022) with the pre-Delta (January 10 to May 31, 2021) and Delta (June 1 to November 30, 2021) variant periods and to assess the duration of RAT positivity during the Omicron BA.1 surge.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study was conducted from January 10, 2021, to January 31, 2022, at a walk-up community COVID-19 testing site in San Francisco, California. Participants included children and adults seeking COVID-19 testing with an RAT, regardless of age, vaccine status, or symptoms.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Fisher exact tests or χ2 tests were used to compare COVID-19 symptoms during the Omicron BA.1 period with the pre-Delta and Delta periods for vaccination status and age group. Among people returning for repeated testing during the Omicron period, the proportion with a positive RAT between 4 and 14 days from symptom onset or since first positive test if asymptomatic was estimated.

Results

Among 63 277 persons tested (median [IQR] age, 32 [21-44] years, with 12.0% younger than 12 years; 52.0% women; and 68.5% Latinx), a total of 18 301 people (28.9%) reported symptoms, of whom 4565 (24.9%) tested positive for COVID-19. During the Omicron BA.1 period, 3032 of 7283 symptomatic participants (41.6%) tested positive, and the numbers of these reporting cough and sore throat were higher than during pre-Delta and Delta periods (cough: 2044 [67.4%] vs 546 [51.3%] of 1065 participants, P < .001 for pre-Delta, and 281 [60.0%] of 468 participants, P = .002, for Delta; sore throat: 1316 [43.4%] vs 315 [29.6%] of 1065 participants, P < .001 for pre-Delta, and 136 [29.1%] of 468 participants, P < .001, for Delta). Compared with the 1065 patients with positive test results in the pre-Delta period, congestion among the 3032 with positive results during the Omicron BA.1 period was more common (1177 [38.8%] vs 294 [27.6%] participants, P < .001), and loss of taste or smell (160 [5.3%] vs 183 [17.2%] participants, P < .001) and fever (921 [30.4%] vs 369 [34.7%] participants, P = .01) were less common. In addition, during the Omicron BA.1 period, fever was less common among the people with positive test results who had received a vaccine booster compared with those with positive test results who were unvaccinated (97 [22.5%] of 432 vs 42 [36.2%] of 116 participants, P = .003), and fever and myalgia were less common among participants who had received a booster compared with those with positive results who had received only a primary series (fever: 97 [22.5%] of 432 vs 559 [32.8%] of 1705 participants, P < .001; myalgia: 115 [26.6%] of 432 vs 580 [34.0%] of 1705 participants, P = .003). During the Omicron BA.1 period, 5 days after symptom onset, 507 of 1613 people (31.1%) with COVID-19 stated that their symptoms were similar, and 95 people (5.9%) reported worsening symptoms. Among people testing positive, 80.2% of participants who were symptomatic and retested remained positive 5 days after symptom onset.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study, COVID-19 upper respiratory tract symptoms were more commonly reported during the Omicron BA.1 period than during the pre-Delta and Delta periods, with differences by vaccination status. Rapid antigen test positivity remained high 5 days after symptom onset, supporting guidelines requiring a negative test to inform the length of the isolation period.

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.

Smart and connected devices in point-of-care molecular diagnostics: what role can they play in the response to COVID-19?

INTRODUCTION

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has been a huge public health challenge that has led to significant morbidity and mortality across the globe. Given the high prevalence and continued circulation of SARS-CoV-2 infection globally, accurate and rapid point-of-care testing is critical.

AREAS COVERED

Knowledge of role of digital technology including smart and connected devices in rapid diagnosis of COVID-19 is an evolving area of scientific investigation. This review discusses the importance of rapid at-home point-of-care testing, highlighting the possible role of smart and connected device-based molecular diagnostics for COVID-19.

EXPERT OPINION

Accurate and rapid diagnostic modalities have the potential to improve accessibility and efficiency of diagnosis of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients and could be instrumental in timely implementation of appropriate therapeutic interventions as well as public health measures to mitigate spread of infection. With emerging challenges like newer, virulent viral variants, global vaccine shortages and vaccine hesitancy, accurate diagnostic testing with the ability to rapidly identify infection remains critical and has the potential to be pivotal in pandemic control. Digital technologies are likely to become important tools in future of healthcare and technological advancements may play a crucial role in response to COVID-19 with the goal of ultimately overcoming this pandemic.

A Single-Component Luminescent Biosensor for the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein

Many existing protein detection strategies depend on highly functionalized antibody reagents. A simpler and easier to produce class of detection reagent is highly desirable. We designed a single-component, recombinant, luminescent biosensor that can be expressed in laboratory strains of Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. This biosensor is deployed in multiple homogeneous and immobilized assay formats to detect recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike antigen and cultured virus. The chemiluminescent signal generated facilitates detection by an unaugmented cell phone camera. Binding-activated tandem split-enzyme (BAT) biosensors may serve as a useful template for diagnostics and reagents that detect SARS-CoV-2 antigens and other proteins of interest.

A SARS-CoV-2 Negative Antigen Rapid Diagnostic in RT-qPCR Positive Samples Correlates With a Low Likelihood of Infectious Viruses in the Nasopharynx

Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) transmission occurs even among fully vaccinated individuals; thus, prompt identification of infected patients is central to control viral circulation. Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are highly specific, but sensitivity is variable. Discordant RT-qPCR vs. Ag-RDT results are reported, raising the question of whether negative Ag-RDT in positive RT-qPCR samples could imply the absence of infectious viruses. To study the relationship between negative Ag-RDT results with virological, molecular, and serological parameters, we selected a cross-sectional and a follow-up dataset and analyzed virus culture, subgenomic RNA quantification, and sequencing to determine infectious viruses and mutations. We demonstrated that RT-qPCR positive while SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT negative discordant results correlate with the absence of infectious virus in nasopharyngeal samples. A decrease in sgRNA detection together with an expected increase in detectable anti-S and anti-N IgGs was also verified in these samples. The data clearly demonstrate that a negative Ag-RDT sample is less likely to harbor infectious SARS-CoV-2 and, consequently, has a lower transmissible potential.

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.

A single-component luminescent biosensor for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.. [PMID: 35734091 PMCID: PMC9216720 DOI: 10.1101/2022.06.15.496006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0]

Many existing protein detection strategies depend on highly functionalized antibody reagents. A simpler and easier to produce class of detection reagent is highly desirable. We designed a single-component, recombinant, luminescent biosensor that can be expressed in laboratory strains of E. coli and S. cerevisiae. This biosensor is deployed in multiple homogenous and immobilized assay formats to detect recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike antigen and cultured virus. The chemiluminescent signal generated facilitates detection by an un-augmented cell phone camera. Binding Activated Tandem split-enzyme (BAT) biosensors may serve as a useful template for diagnostics and reagents that detect SARS-CoV-2 antigens and other proteins of interest.

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction and BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen Tests at a Community Site During an Omicron Surge : A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests are an important public health tool.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate field performance of the BinaxNOW rapid antigen test (Abbott) compared with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for detecting infection with the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional surveillance study.

SETTING

Free, walk-up, outdoor, urban community testing and vaccine site led by Unidos en Salud, serving a predominantly Latinx community highly impacted by COVID-19.

PARTICIPANTS

Persons seeking COVID-19 testing in January 2022.

MEASUREMENTS

Simultaneous BinaxNOW and RT-PCR from nasal, cheek, and throat swabs, including cycle threshold (Ct) measures; a lower Ct value is a surrogate for higher amounts of virus.

RESULTS

Among 731 persons tested with nasal swabs, there were 296 (40.5%) positive results on RT-PCR; 98.9% were the Omicron variant. BinaxNOW detected 95.2% (95% CI, 91% to 98%) of persons who tested positive on RT-PCR with a Ct value below 30, 82.1% (CI, 77% to 87%) of those who tested positive on RT-PCR with a Ct value below 35, and 65.2% (CI, 60% to 71%) of all who were positive on RT-PCR. Among 75 persons with simultaneous nasal and cheek swabs, BinaxNOW using a cheek swab failed to detect 91% (20 of 22) of specimens that were positive on BinaxNOW with a nasal swab. Among persons with simultaneous nasal and throat swabs who were positive on RT-PCR with a Ct value below 30, 42 of 49 (85.7%) were detected by nasal BinaxNOW, 23 of 49 (46.9%) by throat BinaxNOW, and 44 of 49 (89.8%) by either.

LIMITATION

Participants were a cross-sectional sample from a community-based sentinel surveillance site, precluding study of viral or symptom dynamics.

CONCLUSION

BinaxNOW detected persons with high SARS-CoV-2 levels during the Omicron surge, enabling rapid responses to positive test results. Cheek or throat swabs should not replace nasal swabs. As currently recommended, high-risk persons with an initial negative BinaxNOW result should have repeated testing.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

University of California, San Francisco.

Implementation of rapid and frequent SARS-CoV2 antigen testing and response in congregate homeless shelters

Background

People experiencing homelessness who live in congregate shelters are at high risk of SARS-CoV2 transmission and severe COVID-19. Current screening and response protocols using rRT-PCR in homeless shelters are expensive, require specialized staff and have delays in returning results and implementing responses.

Methods

We piloted a program to offer frequent, rapid antigen-based tests (BinaxNOW) to residents and staff of congregate-living shelters in San Francisco, California, from January 15^th to February 19^th, 2021. We used the Reach-Effectiveness-Adoption-Implementation-Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to evaluate the implementation.

Results

Reach: We offered testing at ten of twelve eligible shelters. Shelter residents and staff had variable participation across shelters; approximately half of eligible individuals tested at least once; few tested consistently during the study.

Effectiveness: 2.2% of participants tested positive. We identified three outbreaks, but none exceeded 5 cases. All BinaxNOW-positive participants were isolated or left the shelters.

Adoption: We offered testing to all eligible participants within weeks of the project’s initiation.

Implementation: Adaptations made to increase reach and improve consistency were promptly implemented.

Maintenance: San Francisco Department of Public Health expanded and maintained testing with minimal support after the end of the pilot.

Conclusion

Rapid and frequent antigen testing for SARS-CoV2 in homeless shelters is a viable alternative to rRT-PCR testing that can lead to immediate isolation of infectious individuals. Using the RE-AIM framework, we evaluated and adapted interventions to enable the expansion and maintenance of protocols.

Small form factor flow virometer for SARS-CoV-2

Current diagnostics of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection heavily rely on reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or on rapid antigen detection tests. The former suffers from long time-to-result and high cost while the latter from poor sensitivity. Therefore, it is crucial to develop rapid, sensitive, robust, and inexpensive methods for SARS-CoV-2 testing. Herein, we report a novel optofluidic technology, a flow-virometry reader (FVR), for fast and reliable SARS-CoV-2 detection in saliva samples. A small microfluidic chip together with a laser-pumped optical head detects the presence of viruses tagged with fluorescent antibodies directly from saliva samples. The technology has been validated using clinical samples with high sensitivity (91.2%) and specificity (90%). Thanks also to its short time-to-result (<30 min) and small size (25 × 30 × 13 cm), which can be further reduced in the future, it is a strong alternative to existing tests, especially for point-of-care (POC) and low resource settings.

Relationship of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen and Reverse Transcription PCR Positivity for Viral Cultures

We assessed the relationship between antigen and reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) test positivity and successful virus isolation. We found that antigen test results were more predictive of virus recovery than RT-PCR results. However, virus was isolated from some antigen-negative and RT-PCR‒positive paired specimens, providing support for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention antigen testing algorithm.

Sensitivity and Specificity of SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Detection Tests Using Oral, Anterior Nasal, and Nasopharyngeal Swabs: a Diagnostic Accuracy Study

The objective of our study was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of rapid antigen detection tests versus those of reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) using oral, anterior nasal, and nasopharyngeal swabs. The underlying prospective, diagnostic case-control-type accuracy study included 87 hospitalized and nonhospitalized participants in a positive and a negative sample cohort between 16 March and 14 May 2021 in two hospitals in Vienna. SARS-CoV-2 infection status was confirmed by RT-PCR. Participants self-performed one oral and one anterior nasal swab for the rapid antigen test, immediately followed by two nasopharyngeal swabs for the rapid antigen test and RT-PCR by the investigator. Test results were read after 15 min, and participants completed a questionnaire in the meantime. Test parameters were calculated based on the evaluation of 87 participants. The overall sensitivity of rapid antigen detection tests versus that of RT-PCR with oral, anterior nasal, and nasopharyngeal samples was 18.18% (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.19% to 32.71%), 63.04% (95% CI 47.55% to 76.79%), and 73.33% (95% CI 58.06% to 85.4%), respectively. All sampling methods had a test specificity of 100% regardless of the cycle threshold (CT) value. Rapid antigen detection tests using self-collected anterior nasal swabs proved to be as sensitive as and more tolerable than professionally collected nasopharyngeal swabs for CT values up to 30 determined by RT-PCR. This finding illustrates the reliability of tests obtained by adequate self-collected anterior nasal specimen. Sensitivity was dependent upon the CT value for each sampling method. While the main advantage of rapid antigen detection tests is the immediate availability of results, PCR should be preferred in crucial settings wherever possible. IMPORTANCE Rapid antigen detection devices for SARS-CoV-2 represent a valuable tool for monitoring the spread of infection. However, the reliability of the tests depends largely on the test performance and the respective sampling method. Nasopharyngeal swabs mark the gold standard for sample collection in suspected respiratory tract infections but are unsuitable for widespread application, as they must be performed by medically trained personnel. With the underlying study, the head-to-head test performance and the usability of self-collected samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection using rapid antigen detection devices were evaluated. The results confirm similar sensitivity of self-collected anterior nasal swabs to that of professionally collected nasopharyngeal swabs for patients with a CT of < 30 determined by RT-PCR.

Determining the reliability of rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection in fully vaccinated individuals

Background

Rapid antigen detection tests (RADT) are commonly used as SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests both by medical professionals and laypeople. However, the performance of RADT in vaccinated individuals has not been fully investigated.

Objectives

RT-qPCR and rapid antigen detection testing were performed to evaluate the performance of the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag Test in detecting SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in vaccinated individuals.

Study design

Two swab specimens, one for RT-qPCR and one for RADT, were collected from vaccinated individuals in an outpatient clinic. For comparison of RADT performance in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, a dataset already published by this group was used as reference.

Results

During the delta wave, a total of 696 samples were tested with both RT-qPCR and RADT that included 692 (99.4%) samples from vaccinated individuals. Of these, 76 (11.0%) samples were detected SARS-CoV-2 positive by RT-qPCR and 45 (6.5%) samples by the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test. Stratified by Ct values, sensitivity of the RADT was 100.0%, 94.4% and 81.1% for Ct ≤ 20 (n=18), Ct ≤ 25 (n=36) and Ct ≤ 30 (n=53), respectively. Samples with Ct values ≥ 30 (n=23) were not detected. Overall RADT specificity was 99.7% and symptom status did not affect RADT performance. Notably, RADT detected 4 out of 4 samples of probable Omicron variant infection based on single nucleotide polymorphism analysis.

Conclusion

Our results show that RADT testing remains a valuable tool in detecting breakthrough infections with high viral RNA loads.

High Parental Vaccine Motivation at a Neighborhood-Based Vaccine and Testing Site Serving a Predominantly Latinx Community

Purpose: To understand vaccine attitudes of Latinx parents highly impacted by COVID-19. Methods: In April 2021, we surveyed parents about their attitudes for COVID-19 vaccination of their children at a community-based outdoor testing/vaccination site serving predominantly low-income Latinx persons in San Francisco. Results: Among 1033 parents (75% Latinx), 92% would "definitely" or "probably" vaccinate their children. Vaccine concerns were higher for younger children and included side effects and impacts on fertility. Doctors and community organizations were noted as trusted sources of information, including among vaccine-concerned parents. Conclusion: Latinx parents accessing neighborhood-based COVID-19 testing/vaccination services are highly motivated to vaccinate their children for COVID-19.

Estimation of Secondary Household Attack Rates for Emergent Spike L452R Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Variants Detected by Genomic Surveillance at a Community-Based Testing Site in San Francisco

BACKGROUND

Sequencing of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral genome from patient samples is an important epidemiological tool for monitoring and responding to the pandemic, including the emergence of new mutations in specific communities.

METHODS

SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequences were generated from positive samples collected, along with epidemiological metadata, at a walk-up, rapid testing site in the Mission District of San Francisco, California during 22 November to 1 December, 2020, and 10-29 January 2021. Secondary household attack rates and mean sample viral load were estimated and compared across observed variants.

RESULTS

A total of 12 124 tests were performed yielding 1099 positives. From these, 928 high-quality genomes were generated. Certain viral lineages bearing spike mutations, defined in part by L452R, S13I, and W152C, comprised 54.4% of the total sequences from January, compared to 15.7% in November. Household contacts exposed to the "California" or "West Coast" variants (B.1.427 and B.1.429) were at higher risk of infection compared to household contacts exposed to lineages lacking these variants (0.36 vs 0.29, risk ratio [RR] = 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.00-1.64). The reproductive number was estimated to be modestly higher than other lineages spreading in California during the second half of 2020. Viral loads were similar among persons infected with West Coast versus non-West Coast strains, as was the proportion of individuals with symptoms (60.9% vs 64.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

The increase in prevalence, relative household attack rates, and reproductive number are consistent with a modest transmissibility increase of the West Coast variants. Summary: We observed a growing prevalence and modestly elevated attack rate for "West Coast" severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants in a community testing setting in San Francisco during January 2021, suggesting its modestly higher transmissibility.

Performance of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19 Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The identification of viral RNA using reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is the gold standard for identifying an infection caused by SARS-CoV-2. The limitations of RT-qPCR such as requirement of expensive instruments, trained staff and laboratory facilities led to development of rapid antigen tests (RATs). The performance of RATs has been widely evaluated and found to be varied in different settings. The present systematic review aims to evaluate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of the commercially available RATs. This review was registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021278105). Literature search was performed through PubMed, Embase and Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to search studies published up to 26 August 2021. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of RATs and subgroup analyses were calculated. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) was used to assess the risk of bias in each study. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of RATs were 70% (95% CI: 69–71) and 98% (95% CI: 98–98), respectively. In subgroup analyses, nasal swabs showed the highest sensitivity of 83% (95% CI: 80–86) followed by nasopharyngeal swabs 71% (95% CI: 70–72), throat swabs 69% (95% CI: 63–75) and saliva 68% (95% CI: 59–77). Samples from symptomatic patients showed a higher sensitivity of 82% (95% CI: 82–82) as compared to asymptomatic patients at 68% (95% CI: 65–71), while a cycle threshold (Ct) value ≤25 showed a higher sensitivity of 96% (95% CI: 95–97) as compared to higher Ct value. Although the sensitivity of RATs needs to be enhanced, it may still be a viable option in places where laboratory facilities are lacking for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease.

Implementation and Accuracy of BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen COVID-19 Test in Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Populations in a High-Volume Self-Referred Testing Site

Rapid antigen tests are simple to perform and provide results within 15 min. We describe our implementation and assess performance of the BinaxNOW COVID-19 Antigen Test (Abbott Laboratories) in 6,099 adults at a self-referred walk-up testing site. Participants were grouped by self-reported COVID-19 exposure and symptom status. Most (89%) were asymptomatic, of whom 17% reported potential exposure. Overall test sensitivity compared with reference laboratory reverse-transcription [RT] PCR testing was 81% (95% confidence interval [CI] 75%, 86%). It was higher in symptomatic (87%; 95% CI 80%, 91%) than asymptomatic (71%; 95% CI 61%, 80%) individuals. Sensitivity was 82% (95% CI 66%, 91%) for asymptomatic individuals with potential exposure and 64% (95% CI 51%, 76%) for those with no exposure. Specificity was greater than 99% for all groups. BinaxNOW has high accuracy among symptomatic individuals and is below the FDA threshold for emergency use authorization in asymptomatic individuals. Nonetheless, rapid antigen testing quickly identifies positive among those with symptoms and/or close contact exposure and could expedite isolation and treatment. IMPORTANCE The BinaxNOW rapid antigen COVID-19 test had a sensitivity of 87% in symptomatic and 71% asymptomatic individuals when performed by health care workers in a high-throughput setting. The performance may expedite isolation decisions or referrals for time-sensitive monoclonal antibody treatment in communities where timely COVID PCR tests are unavailable.

Diagnostic Accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Tests for Community Transmission Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused the global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Rapid identification and isolation of infectious patients are critical methods to block COVID-19 transmission. Antigen tests can contribute to prompt identification of infectious individuals. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2. We conducted a literature search in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Biomed Central databases. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 in community participants were included. Only English-language articles were reviewed. We included eligible studies that provided available data to construct a 2 × 2 table on a per-patient basis. Overall sensitivity and specificity for antigen tests were generated using a bivariate random-effects model. Eighteen studies with 34,865 participants were retrieved. The meta-analysis for SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests generated a pooled sensitivity of 0.82 and a pooled specificity of 1.00. A subgroup analysis of ten studies that reported outcomes for 5629 symptomatic participants generated a pooled sensitivity of 0.87 and a pooled specificity of 1.00. Antigen tests might have higher sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic patients in the community and may be an effective tool to identify patients to be quarantined to prevent further SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Performance characteristics of the Abbott BinaxNOW SARS-CoV-2 antigen test in comparison to real-time RT-PCR and viral culture in community testing sites during November 2020

Point-of-care antigen tests are an important tool for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Antigen tests are less sensitive than real-time reverse-transcriptase PCR (rRT-PCR). Data on the performance of the BinaxNOW antigen test compared to rRT-PCR and viral culture by symptom and known exposure status, timing during disease or exposure period and demographic variables are limited. During November 3^rd-17^th, 2020, we collected paired upper respiratory swab specimens to test for SARS-CoV-2 by rRT-PCR and Abbott BinaxNOW (BinaxNOW) antigen test at two community testing sites in Pima County, Arizona. We administered a questionnaire to capture symptoms, known exposure status and previous SARS-CoV-2 test results. Specimens positive by either test were analyzed by viral culture. Previously we showed overall BinaxNOW sensitivity was 52.5%. Here we showed BinaxNOW sensitivity increased to 65.7% among currently symptomatic individuals reporting a known exposure. BinaxNOW sensitivity was lower among participants with a known exposure and previously symptomatic (32.4%) or never symptomatic (47.1%) within 14 days of testing. Sensitivity was 71.1% in participants within a week of symptom onset. In participants with a known exposure, sensitivity was highest 8-10 days post-exposure (75%). The positive predictive value for recovery of virus in cell culture was 56.7% for BinaxNOW-positive and 35.4% for rRT-PCR-positive specimens. Result reporting time was 2.5 hours for BinaxNOW and 26 hours for rRT-PCR. Point-of-care antigen tests have a shorter turn-around time compared to laboratory-based nucleic acid amplification tests, which allows for more rapid identification of infected individuals. Antigen test sensitivity limitations are important to consider when developing a testing program.

[Evaluation of two COVID-19 antigenic diagnostic tests: BIOSYNEX® COVID-19 Ag BSS and BIOSYNEX® COVID-19 Ag + BSS compared to AmpliQuick® SARS-CoV-2 PCR]

Introduction

la pandémie à COVID-19 pose des problèmes de diagnostic biologique qui restent d´actualité dans les pays à faible revenu en général et au Cameroun en particulier. Les tests rapides détectant l´antigène du virus SARS-CoV-2 fiables se présentent comme une alternative importante. L´objectif de notre étude était d´évaluer les performances diagnostiques des tests de diagnostic rapide BIOSYNEX^®COVID-19 Ag BSS et BIOSYNEX^®COVID-19 Ag+ BSS comparés entre eux, puis comparés au test PCR AmpliQuick^® SARS-CoV-2.

Méthodes

une étude transversale et comparative a été menée du 27 avril au 29 mai 2021 dans la ville de Douala au Cameroun. Les échantillons étaient constitués de prélèvements nasopharyngés reçus au laboratoire de biologie moléculaire de l'Hôpital Gynéco-Obstétrique et Pédiatrique de Douala. Les paramètres sociodémographiques (âge, profession (footballeurs, voyageurs, autres), statut matrimonial, nationalité), comorbidité et statut connu du COVID-19, ont été enregistrés sur les sites de collecte. Les principaux sites de collecte étaient le District de santé de Deïdo et l'Hôpital Gynéco-Obstétrique et Pédiatrique de Douala. Nous avons effectué le diagnostic du COVID-19 en utilisant les tests de diagnostic rapide BIOSYNEX^® COVID-19 Ag BSS et BIOSYNEX^® COVID-19 Ag+ BSS que nous avons d´abord comparé entre eux, puis nous les avons comparés au test PCR AmpliQuick^®SARS-CoV-2 sur chaque échantillon. L'analyse statistique des données a été réalisée à l'aide des logiciels Microsoft Excel et SPSS version 17. Pour déterminer la sensibilité des deux tests de diagnostic rapide, le modèle bayésien de classe latente a été réalisé sur la médiane avec un intervalle de confiance à 95 %, et p<0,05 comme seuil de significativité. Une autorisation éthique a été demandée et obtenue auprès du Comité d'éthique Institutionnel (CEI) de l'Université de Douala.

Résultats

un total de 1813 participants a été inclus dans cette étude, avec une prédominance d'hommes (1226, 68,68 %) et la tranche d'âge la plus représentée était celle des 31 à 40 ans (568, 31,33 %). La plupart des participants étaient mariés (888, 53,46%) et seuls quelques-uns avaient un statut COVID-19 connu (75, 5,47%). Les prévalences de COVID-19 retrouvées avec les deux tests de diagnostic rapide étaient de 2,03 et 2,17 pour BIOSYNEX^® COVID-19 Ag BSS et BIOSYNEX^®COVID-19 Ag + BSS respectivement. Une sensibilité de 94,1% a été retrouvée pour le test BIOSYNEX^® COVID-19 Ag BSS tandis que pour le test BIOSYNEX^® COVID-19 Ag + BSS, la sensibilité était de 87,5%. La spécificité était de 98,9% et 98,7% pour le test BIOSYNEX^® COVID-19 Ag + BSS et BIOSYNEX^® COVID-19 Ag BSS respectivement par rapport à AmpliQuick^® SARS-CoV-2. Le test BIOSYNEX^® COVID-19 Ag + BSS a montré une valeur prédictive négative de 99.9% par rapport au test BIOSYNEX^® COVID-19 Ag BSS. Un accord de 99,9% a été retrouvé entre les tests BIOSYNEX^® COVID-19 Ag BSS et BIOSYNEX^® COVID-19 Ag + BSS. Conclusion: les tests de diagnostic rapide BIOSYNEX^® COVID-19 Ag + BSS et BIOSYNEX^® COVID-19 Ag BSS peuvent être utilisés pour le diagnostic du SARS-CoV-2 et peuvent être d´un apport important dans le dépistage de masse et le dépistage en zones reculées.

Factors that Influence the Reported Sensitivity of Rapid Antigen Testing for SARS-CoV-2

Tests that detect the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen in clinical specimens from the upper respiratory tract can provide a rapid means of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis and help identify individuals who may be infectious and should isolate to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission. This systematic review assesses the diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection in COVID-19 symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals compared to quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and summarizes antigen test sensitivity using meta-regression. In total, 83 studies were included that compared SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen-based lateral flow testing (RALFT) to RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2. Generally, the quality of the evaluated studies was inconsistent; nevertheless, the overall sensitivity for RALFT was determined to be 75.0% (95% confidence interval: 71.0-78.0). Additionally, RALFT sensitivity was found to be higher for symptomatic vs. asymptomatic individuals and was higher for a symptomatic population within 7 days from symptom onset compared to a population with extended days of symptoms. Viral load was found to be the most important factor for determining SARS-CoV-2 antigen test sensitivity. Other design factors, such as specimen storage and anatomical collection type, also affect the performance of RALFT. RALFT and RT-qPCR testing both achieve high sensitivity when compared to SARS-CoV-2 viral culture.

Synergistic interventions to control COVID-19: Mass testing and isolation mitigates reliance on distancing

Stay-at-home orders and shutdowns of non-essential businesses are powerful, but socially costly, tools to control the pandemic spread of SARS-CoV-2. Mass testing strategies, which rely on widely administered frequent and rapid diagnostics to identify and isolate infected individuals, could be a potentially less disruptive management strategy, particularly where vaccine access is limited. In this paper, we assess the extent to which mass testing and isolation strategies can reduce reliance on socially costly non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as distancing and shutdowns. We develop a multi-compartmental model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission incorporating both preventative non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) and testing and isolation to evaluate their combined effect on public health outcomes. Our model is designed to be a policy-guiding tool that captures important realities of the testing system, including constraints on test administration and non-random testing allocation. We show how strategic changes in the characteristics of the testing system, including test administration, test delays, and test sensitivity, can reduce reliance on preventative NPIs without compromising public health outcomes in the future. The lowest NPI levels are possible only when many tests are administered and test delays are short, given limited immunity in the population. Reducing reliance on NPIs is highly dependent on the ability of a testing program to identify and isolate unreported, asymptomatic infections. Changes in NPIs, including the intensity of lockdowns and stay at home orders, should be coordinated with increases in testing to ensure epidemic control; otherwise small additional lifting of these NPIs can lead to dramatic increases in infections, hospitalizations and deaths. Importantly, our results can be used to guide ramp-up of testing capacity in outbreak settings, allow for the flexible design of combined interventions based on social context, and inform future cost-benefit analyses to identify efficient pandemic management strategies.

High Likelihood of Accepting COVID-19 Vaccine in a Latinx Community at High SARS-CoV-2 Risk in San Francisco

Of 4133 persons surveyed at a low-barrier coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) test site with high positivity in an urban Latinx community in January 2021, 86% indicated that they would accept a COVID-19 vaccination. The top reasons for vaccine hesitancy included concerns around side effects and safety and distrust of health care systems.

Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen detection tests to real time polymerase chain reaction in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Timely and accurate diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is crucial to reduce the risk of viral transmission. We investigated the diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register. The sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and a hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic curve (HSROC) of RADTs were pooled using meta-analysis. We used commercial and laboratory-developed reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as reference standards.

RESULTS

We identified 24 studies comprising 14,188 patients. The overall pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR of RADTs for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 were 0.68 (95%CI, 0.59 - 0.76), 0.99 (95%CI, 0.99 - 1.00), and 426.70 (95% CI, 168.37 - 1081.65), respectively. RADTs and RT-PCR had moderate agreement with an estimated pooled Cohen's kappa statistic of 0.75 (95%CI, 0.74-0.77), and area under the HSROC of 0.98 (95%CI, 0.96 - 0.99). The pooled sensitivity of RADTs was significantly increased in subjects with viral load of Ct-value ≤25 or in those within 5 days after symptom onset than it was in subjects with lower viral loads or longer symptom duration.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall sensitivity of RADTs was inferior to that of the RT-PCR assay. The RADTs were more sensitive for samples of Ct-value ≤ 25 and might be suitable for subjects in the community within 5 days of symptom onset.

Evaluation of six commercial SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests in nasopharyngeal swabs: Better knowledge for better patient management?

Robust antigen point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 tests have been proposed as an efficient tool to address the COVID-19 pandemic. This requirement was raised after acknowledging the constraints that are brought by molecular biology. However, worldwide markets have been flooded with cheap and potentially underperforming lateral flow assays. Herein we retrospectively compared the overall performance of five qualitative rapid antigen SARS-CoV-2 assays and one quantitative automated test on 239 clinical swabs. While the overall sensitivity and specificity are relatively similar for all tests, concordance with molecular based methods varies, ranging from 75,7% to 83,3% among evaluated tests. Sensitivity is greatly improved when considering patients with higher viral excretion (Ct≤33), proving that antigen tests accurately distinguish infectious patients from viral shedding. These results should be taken into consideration by clinicians involved in patient triage and management, as well as by national authorities in public health strategies and for mass campaign approaches.

Effectiveness of Abbott BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen Test for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Infections in Outbreak among Horse Racetrack Workers, California, USA

The Abbott BinaxNOW rapid antigen test is cheaper and faster than real-time reverse transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. We compared BinaxNOW with rRT-PCR in 769 paired specimens from 342 persons during a coronavirus disease outbreak among horse racetrack workers in California, USA. We found positive percent agreement was 43.3% (95% CI 34.6%–52.4%), negative percent agreement 100% (95% CI 99.4%–100%), positive predictive value 100% (95% CI 93.5%–100%), and negative predictive value 89.9% (95% CI 87.5%–92.0%). Among 127 rRT-PCR–positive specimens, the 55 with paired BinaxNOW-positive results had a lower mean cycle threshold than the 72 with paired BinaxNOW-negative results (17.8 vs. 28.5; p<0.001). Of 100 specimens with cycle threshold <30, a total of 51 resulted in positive virus isolation; 45 (88.2%) of those were BinaxNOW-positive. Our comparison supports immediate isolation for BinaxNOW-positive persons and confirmatory testing for negative persons.

IFCC interim guidelines on rapid point-of-care antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 detection in asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals

With an almost unremittent progression of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections all around the world, there is a compelling need to introduce rapid, reliable, and high-throughput testing to allow appropriate clinical management and/or timely isolation of infected individuals. Although nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) remains the gold standard for detecting and theoretically quantifying SARS-CoV-2 mRNA in various specimen types, antigen assays may be considered a suitable alternative, under specific circumstances. Rapid antigen tests are meant to detect viral antigen proteins in biological specimens (e.g. nasal, nasopharyngeal, saliva), to indicate current SARS-CoV-2 infection. The available assay methodology includes rapid chromatographic immunoassays, used at the point-of-care, which carries some advantages and drawbacks compared to more conventional, instrumentation-based, laboratory immunoassays. Therefore, this document by the International Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Taskforce on COVID-19 aims to summarize available data on the performance of currently available SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid detection tests (Ag-RDTs), providing interim guidance on clinical indications and target populations, assay selection, and evaluation, test interpretation and limitations, as well as on pre-analytical considerations. This document is hence mainly aimed to assist laboratory and regulated health professionals in selecting, validating, and implementing regulatory approved Ag-RDTs.

Evaluation of a Rapid Antigen Test To Detect SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Identify Potentially Infectious Individuals

The identification and isolation of highly infectious SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals is an important public health strategy. Rapid antigen detection tests (RADT) are promising tools for large-scale screenings due to timely results and feasibility for on-site testing. Nonetheless, the diagnostic performance of RADT in detecting infectious individuals is not yet fully determined. In this study, RT-qPCR and virus culture of RT-qPCR-positive samples were used to evaluate and compare the performance of the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test in detecting SARS-CoV-2-infected and possibly infectious individuals. To this end, two combined oro- and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected at a routine SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic center. A total of 2,028 samples were tested, and 118 virus cultures were inoculated. SARS-CoV-2 infection was detected in 210 samples by RT-qPCR, representing a positive rate of 10.36%. The Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test yielded a positive result in 92 (4.54%) samples resulting in an overall sensitivity and specificity of 42.86 and 99.89%, respectively. For adjusted C_T values of <20 (n = 14), <25 (n = 57), and <30 (n = 88), the RADT reached sensitivities of 100, 98.25, and 88.64%, respectively. All 29 culture-positive samples were detected by the RADT. Although the overall sensitivity was low, the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test reliably detected patients with high RNA loads. In addition, negative RADT results fully corresponded with the lack of viral cultivability in Vero E6 cells. These results indicate that RADT can be a valuable tool for the detection of individuals with high RNA loads that are likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2.

Point-of-Care Antigen Test for SARS-CoV-2 in Asymptomatic College Students

We used the BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card to screen 1,540 asymptomatic college students for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in a low-prevalence setting. Compared with reverse transcription PCR, BinaxNOW showed 20% overall sensitivity; among participants with culturable virus, sensitivity was 60%. BinaxNOW provides point-of-care screening but misses many infections.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Test Kits for Detecting SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 17,171 Suspected COVID-19 Patients

Early diagnosis is still as crucial as the initial stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. As RT-PCR sometimes is not feasible in developing nations or rural areas, health professionals may use a rapid antigen test (RAT) to lessen the load of diagnosis. However, the efficacy of RAT is yet to be investigated thoroughly. Hence, we tried to evaluate the overall performance of RAT in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Based on our PROSPERO registered protocol (CRD42021231432), we searched online databases (i.e., PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science) and analysed overall pooled specificity and sensitivity of RAT along with study quality, publication bias, heterogeneity and more. The overall pooled specificity and sensitivity of RAT were detected as 99.4% (95% CI: 99.1–99.8; I² = 90%) and 68.4% (95% CI: 60.8–75.9; I² = 98%), respectively. In subgroup analyses, nasopharyngeal specimens and symptomatic patient’s samples were more sensitive in RAT, while cycle threshold (Ct) values were found to have an inverse relationship with sensitivity. In the European and American populations, RAT showed better performance. Although the sensitivity of RAT is yet to be improved, it could still be an alternative in places with poor laboratory set up. Nevertheless, the negative samples of RAT can be re-tested using RT-PCR to reduce false negative results.

A Real-World Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen vs. Polymerase Chain Reaction Testing in Florida

Background The reported sensitivity of rapid, antigen-based diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2 infection varies. Few studies have evaluated rapid antigen tests in real-world settings or among large populations. Methods Beginning October 2020, Florida offered individuals presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing if they tested positive by the Abbott BinaxNOW^TM COVID-19 Ag Card, were symptomatic, or required or requested PCR testing. We compared test results among individuals who received both types of tests at four publicly-accessible testing sites across Florida. We calculated the positive percent agreement (PPA) between the two test types by symptom status. Subsequently, we evaluated the PPA among individuals regardless of symptoms with lower cycle threshold values (<30). Results Overall, 18,457 individuals were tested via both methods, of which 3,153 (17.1%) were positive by PCR. The PPA for the Abbott BinaxNOW^TM COVID-19 Ag Card using the PCR comparator was 49.2% (95% CI 47.4%-50.9%). That performance was moderately improved among symptomatic individuals (51.9%; 95% CI 49.7%-54.0%). When restricted to positive PCR tests with a cycle threshold value <30, regardless of symptom status, the PPA was 75.3% (95% CI 72.8%-77.6%). Conclusion The PPA of the Abbott BinaxNOW^TM COVID-19 Ag Card with PCR was lower than among previous reports. Our findings may reflect the performance of the BinaxNOW^TM antigen test in real-world settings.

Rapid Antigen Test Combined with Chest Computed Tomography to Rule Out COVID-19 in Patients Admitted to the Emergency Department

OBJECTIVE

Correct and timely identification of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients is critical in the emergency department (ED) prior to admission to medical wards. Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are a rapid alternative to Reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for the diagnosis of COVID-19 but have lower sensitivity.

METHODS

We evaluated the performance in real-life conditions of a strategy combining Ag-RDT and chest computed tomography (CT) to rule out COVID-19 infection in 1015 patients presenting in the ED between 16 November 2020 and 18 January 2021 in order to allow non-COVID-19 patients to be hospitalized in dedicated units directly. The combined strategy performed in the ED for patients with COVID-19 symptoms was assessed and compared with RT-PCR.

RESULTS

Compared with RT-PCR, the negative predictive value was 96.7% for Ag-RDT alone, 98.5% for Ag-RDT/CT combined, and increased to 100% for patients with low viral load.

CONCLUSION

A strategy combining Ag-RDT and chest CT is effective in ruling out COVID-19 in ED patients with high precision.

Proposed Framework for Considering SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Testing of Unexposed Asymptomatic Workers in Selected Workplaces

OBJECTIVES

To propose a framework for considering SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing of unexposed asymptomatic workers in selected workplaces.

METHODS

This is a commentary based on established occupational safety and health principles, published articles, and other pertinent literature, including non-peer-reviewed preprints in medrixiv.org prior to April 16, 2021.

RESULTS

Not applicable to this commentary/viewpoint article.

CONCLUSION

Antigen testing is a rapidly evolving and useful public health tool that can be used to guide measures to reduce spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the community and in selected workplaces. This commentary provides a proposed framework for occupational safety and health practitioners and employers for considering antigen testing as a method to screen asymptomatic workers in selected non-healthcare settings. When applied selectively, antigen testing can be a useful, effective part of a comprehensive workplace program for COVID-19 prevention and control.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 at the point of care

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the etiologic agent of COVID-19. Testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection is a critical element of the public health response to COVID-19. Point-of-care (POC) tests can drive patient management decisions for infectious diseases, including COVID-19. POC tests are available for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections and include those that detect SARS-CoV-2 antigens as well as amplified RNA sequences. We provide a review of SARS-CoV-2 POC tests including their performance, settings for which they might be used, their impact and future directions. Further optimization and validation, new technologies as well as studies to determine clinical and epidemiological impact of SARS-CoV-2 POC tests are needed.

Multidisciplinary assessment of the Abbott BinaxNOW SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care antigen test in the context of emerging viral variants and self-administration

While there has been significant progress in the development of rapid COVID-19 diagnostics, as the pandemic unfolds, new challenges have emerged, including whether these technologies can reliably detect the more infectious variants of concern and be viably deployed in non-clinical settings as "self-tests". Multidisciplinary evaluation of the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card (BinaxNOW, a widely used rapid antigen test, included limit of detection, variant detection, test performance across different age-groups, and usability with self/caregiver-administration. While BinaxNOW detected the highly infectious variants, B.1.1.7 (Alpha) first identified in the UK, B.1.351 (Beta) first identified in South Africa, P.1 (Gamma) first identified in Brazil, B.1.617.2 (Delta) first identified in India and B.1.2, a non-VOC, test sensitivity decreased with decreasing viral loads. Moreover, BinaxNOW sensitivity trended lower when devices were performed by patients/caregivers themselves compared to trained clinical staff, despite universally high usability assessments following self/caregiver-administration among different age groups. Overall, these data indicate that while BinaxNOW accurately detects the new viral variants, as rapid COVID-19 tests enter the home, their already lower sensitivities compared to RT-PCR may decrease even more due to user error.

Performance Evaluation of Serial SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Testing During a Nursing Home Outbreak

BACKGROUND

To address high COVID-19 burden in U.S. nursing homes, rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests have been widely distributed in those facilities. However, performance data are lacking, especially in asymptomatic people.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing when used for facility-wide testing during a nursing home outbreak.

DESIGN

A prospective evaluation involving 3 facility-wide rounds of testing where paired respiratory specimens were collected to evaluate the performance of the BinaxNOW antigen test compared with virus culture and real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Early and late infection were defined using changes in RT-PCR cycle threshold values and prior test results.

SETTING

A nursing home with an ongoing SARS-CoV-2 outbreak.

PARTICIPANTS

532 paired specimens collected from 234 available residents and staff.

MEASUREMENTS

Percentage of positive agreement (PPA) and percentage of negative agreement (PNA) for BinaxNOW compared with RT-PCR and virus culture.

RESULTS

BinaxNOW PPA with virus culture, used for detection of replication-competent virus, was 95%. However, the overall PPA of antigen testing with RT-PCR was 69%, and PNA was 98%. When only the first positive test result was analyzed for each participant, PPA of antigen testing with RT-PCR was 82% among 45 symptomatic people and 52% among 343 asymptomatic people. Compared with RT-PCR and virus culture, the BinaxNOW test performed well in early infection (86% and 95%, respectively) and poorly in late infection (51% and no recovered virus, respectively).

LIMITATION

Accurate symptom ascertainment was challenging in nursing home residents; test performance may not be representative of testing done by nonlaboratory staff.

CONCLUSION

Despite lower positive agreement compared with RT-PCR, antigen test positivity had higher agreement with shedding of replication-competent virus. These results suggest that antigen testing could be a useful tool to rapidly identify contagious people at risk for transmitting SARS-CoV-2 during nascent outbreaks and help reduce COVID-19 burden in nursing homes.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Performance and Operational Evaluation of the Access Bio CareStart Rapid Antigen Test in a High-Throughput Drive-Through Community Testing Site in Massachusetts

BACKGROUND

To facilitate deployment of point-of-care testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, we evaluated the Access Bio CareStart COVID-19 Antigen test in a high-throughput, drive-through, free community testing site using anterior nasal (AN) swab reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for clinical testing.

METHODS

Consenting symptomatic and asymptomatic children (≤18 years) and adults received dual AN swabs. CareStart testing was performed with temperature/humidity monitoring. All tests had 2 independent reads to assess interoperator agreement. Patients with positive CareStart results were called and instructed to isolate pending RT-PCR results. The paired RT-PCR result was the reference for sensitivity and specificity calculations.

RESULTS

Of 1603 participants, 1245 adults and 253 children had paired RT-PCR/CareStart results and complete symptom data. Eighty-three percent of adults and 87% of children were asymptomatic. CareStart sensitivity/specificity were 84.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 71.1-93.7)/97.2% (95% CI, 92.0-99.4) and 85.7% (95% CI, 42.1-99.6)/89.5% (95% CI, 66.9-98.7) in adults and children, respectively, within 5 days of symptoms. Sensitivity/specificity were 50.0% (95% CI, 41.0-59.0)/99.1% (95% CI, 98.3-99.6) in asymptomatic adults and 51.4% (95% CI, 34.4-68.1)/97.8% (95% CI, 94.5-99.4) in asymptomatic children. Sensitivity in all 234 RT-PCR-positive people was 96.3% with cycle threshold (Ct) ≤25, 79.6% with Ct ≤30, and 61.4% with Ct ≤35. All 21 false-positive CareStart tests had faint but normal bands. Interoperator agreement was 99.5%. Operational challenges included identification of faint test bands and inconsistent swab elution volumes.

CONCLUSIONS

CareStart had high sensitivity in people with Ct ≤25 and moderate sensitivity in symptomatic people overall. Specificity was unexpectedly lower in symptomatic versus asymptomatic people. Excellent interoperator agreement was observed, but operational challenges indicate that operator training is warranted.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Antigen Testing

BACKGROUND

Immunoassays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens are now commercially available. The most widely used tests are rapid lateral flow assays that generate results in approximately 15 minutes for diagnosis at the point-of-care. Higher throughput, laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Ag) assays have also been developed. The overall accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests, however, is not well defined. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 Ag testing. This guideline is the third in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines developed by IDSA.

OBJECTIVE

IDSA's goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations or suggestions that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, public health authorities, administrators and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests in both medical and non-medical settings.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on five diagnostic recommendations. These recommendations address antigen testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals as well as assess single versus repeat testing strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Data on the clinical performance of U.S. Food and Drug Administration SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization is mostly limited to single, one-time testing versus standard nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) as the reference standard. Rapid Ag tests have high specificity and low to modest sensitivity compared to reference NAAT methods. Antigen test sensitivity is heavily dependent on viral load, with differences observed between symptomatic compared to asymptomatic individuals and the time of testing post onset of symptoms. Based on these observations, rapid RT-PCR or laboratory-based NAAT remain the diagnostic methods of choice for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, when molecular testing is not readily available or is logistically infeasible, Ag testing can help identify some individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The overall quality of available evidence supporting use of Ag testing was graded as very low to moderate.

Modeling the effectiveness of olfactory testing to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission

A central problem in the COVID-19 pandemic is that there is not enough testing to prevent infectious spread of SARS-CoV-2, causing surges and lockdowns with human and economic toll. Molecular tests that detect viral RNAs or antigens will be unable to rise to this challenge unless testing capacity increases by at least an order of magnitude while decreasing turnaround times. Here, we evaluate an alternative strategy based on the monitoring of olfactory dysfunction, a symptom identified in 76-83% of SARS-CoV-2 infections-including those with no other symptoms-when a standardized olfaction test is used. We model how screening for olfactory dysfunction, with reflexive molecular tests, could be beneficial in reducing community spread of SARS-CoV-2 by varying testing frequency and the prevalence, duration, and onset time of olfactory dysfunction. We find that monitoring olfactory dysfunction could reduce spread via regular screening, and could reduce risk when used at point-of-entry for single-day events. In light of these estimated impacts, and because olfactory tests can be mass produced at low cost and self-administered, we suggest that screening for olfactory dysfunction could be a high impact and cost-effective method for broad COVID-19 screening and surveillance.

A systematic review comparing at-home diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2: Key points for pharmacy practice, including regulatory information

BACKGROUND

Home-based rapid diagnostic testing can play an integral role in controlling the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to identify and compare at-home diagnostic tests that have been granted Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) and convey details about COVID-19 diagnostic tests, including regulatory information, pertinent to pharmacy practice.

METHODS

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) online resources pertaining to COVID-19 tests, EUAs, and medical devices were consulted, as were linked resources from FDA's webpages. Homepages of the 9 COVID-19 home tests with EUAs were comprehensively reviewed. PubMed literature searches were performed, most recently in May 2021, to locate literature about the identified home tests, as were searches of Google Scholar, medRxiv, and bioRxiv. Studies were included if they were performed at home or if subjects self-tested at study sites. Samples were collected by a parent or guardian for patients under 18 years of age. Positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) for the clinical diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus was evaluated.

RESULTS

Limited data have been published for these home tests given that they are available through EUAs that do not require clinical trials. Fifteen studies were located from searching the literature, but only 2 met the inclusion criteria. Review of the home tests' websites yielded a single study for each test, with the 3 BinaxNOW platforms using the same study for their EUAs. The 9 COVID-19 home tests with EUAs as of May 7, 2021, include 3 molecular tests and 6 antigen tests. These tests had similar performance on the basis of PPA ranging from 83.5% to 97.4% and NPA ranging from 97% to 100%.

CONCLUSION

The 9 SARS-CoV-2 home tests demonstrated satisfactory performance in comparison with laboratory real time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction tests. The convenience and ease of use of these tests make them well-suited for home-based rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing.

HIV and COVID-19: Lessons From HIV and STI Harm Reduction Strategies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review highlights the intersection of the COVID-19, HIV, and STI pandemics and examines how harm reduction strategies can be applied broadly to controlling a pandemic.

RECENT FINDINGS

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, remarkable advances in the understanding of COVID-19 prevention, diagnosis, and treatment have been made at a much faster pace than prior pandemics, yet much more still remains to be discovered. Many of the strategies to control the COVID-19 pandemic mirror those employed to stem the HIV pandemic. Harm reduction principles used in the HIV pandemic can be applied to reduce the morbidity and mortality of the COVID-19 pandemic through effective prevention, detection, and treatment strategies.

Considerations for Assessment and Deployment of Rapid Antigen Tests for Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease 2019

Diagnostic testing is a critical tool to mitigate the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, but molecular testing capacity remains limited. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) that detect SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens (Ag) offer the potential to substantially expand testing capacity and to allow frequent, large-scale, population screening. Testing is simple, rapid (results generally available within 15 minutes), and applicable for diagnosis at point of care. However, implementation of Ag RDTs requires a detailed understanding of test performance and operational characteristics in each testing scenario and population being evaluated. Successful implementation of Ag RDTs on a large scale should combine testing with technical oversight and with clinical and public health infrastructure, and will require production at levels much higher than presently possible. In this commentary, we provide detailed considerations for Ag RDT assessment and use cases to encourage and enable broader manufacturing and deployment.

Clinical and Economic Effects of Widespread Rapid Testing to Decrease SARS-CoV-2 Transmission

BACKGROUND

The value of frequent, rapid testing to reduce community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

To define performance standards and predict the clinical, epidemiologic, and economic outcomes of nationwide, home-based antigen testing.

DESIGN

A simple compartmental epidemic model that estimated viral transmission, portrayed disease progression, and forecast resource use, with and without testing.

DATA SOURCES

Parameter values and ranges as informed by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance and published literature.

TARGET POPULATION

U.S. population.

TIME HORIZON

60 days.

PERSPECTIVE

Societal; costs included testing, inpatient care, and lost workdays.

INTERVENTION

Home-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Cumulative infections and deaths, number of persons isolated and hospitalized, and total costs.

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

Without a testing intervention, the model anticipates 11.6 million infections, 119 000 deaths, and $10.1 billion in costs ($6.5 billion in inpatient care and $3.5 billion in lost productivity) over a 60-day horizon. Weekly availability of testing would avert 2.8 million infections and 15 700 deaths, increasing costs by $22.3 billion. Lower inpatient outlays ($5.9 billion) would partially offset additional testing expenditures ($12.5 billion) and workdays lost ($14.0 billion), yielding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $7890 per infection averted and $1 430 000 per death averted.

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Outcome estimates vary widely under different behavioral assumptions and testing frequencies. However, key findings persist across all scenarios, with large reductions in infections, mortality, and hospitalizations. Costs per death averted are roughly an order of magnitude lower than commonly accepted willingness-to-pay values per statistical life saved ($5 to $17 million).

LIMITATIONS

Analysis was restricted to at-home testing. There are uncertainties concerning test performance.

CONCLUSION

High-frequency home testing for SARS-CoV-2 with an inexpensive, imperfect test could contribute to pandemic control at justifiable cost and warrants consideration as part of a national containment strategy.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institutes of Health.

Same-day SARS-CoV-2 antigen test screening in an indoor mass-gathering live music event: a randomised controlled trial

Background

The banning of mass-gathering indoor events to prevent SARS-CoV-2 spread has had an important effect on local economies. Despite growing evidence on the suitability of antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) for mass screening at the event entry, this strategy has not been assessed under controlled conditions. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of a prevention strategy during a live indoor concert.

Methods

We designed a randomised controlled open-label trial to assess the effectiveness of a comprehensive preventive intervention for a mass-gathering indoor event (a live concert) based on systematic same-day screening of attendees with Ag-RDTs, use of facial masks, and adequate air ventilation. The event took place in the Sala Apolo, Barcelona, Spain. Adults aged 18–59 years with a negative result in an Ag-RDT from a nasopharyngeal swab collected immediately before entering the event were randomised 1:1 (block randomisation stratified by age and gender) to either attend the indoor event for 5 hours or go home. Nasopharyngeal specimens used for Ag-RDT screening were analysed by real-time reverse-transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) and cell culture (Vero E6 cells). 8 days after the event, a nasopharyngeal swab was collected and analysed by Ag-RDT, RT-PCR, and a transcription-mediated amplification test (TMA). The primary outcome was the difference in incidence of RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at 8 days between the control and the intervention groups, assessed in all participants who were randomly assigned, attended the event, and had a valid result for the SARS-CoV-2 test done at follow-up. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04668625.

Findings

Participant enrollment took place during the morning of the day of the concert, Dec 12, 2020. Of the 1140 people who responded to the call and were deemed eligible, 1047 were randomly assigned to either enter the music event (experimental group) or continue with normal life (control group). Of the 523 randomly assigned to the experimental group, 465 were included in the analysis of the primary outcome (51 did not enter the event and eight did not take part in the follow-up assessment), and of the 524 randomly assigned to the control group, 495 were included in the final analysis (29 did not take part in the follow-up). At baseline, 15 (3%) of 495 individuals in the control group and 13 (3%) of 465 in the experimental group tested positive on TMA despite a negative Ag-RDT result. The RT-PCR test was positive in one case in each group and cell viral culture was negative in all cases. 8 days after the event, two (<1%) individuals in the control arm had a positive Ag-RDT and PCR result, whereas no Ag-RDT nor RT-PCR positive results were found in the intervention arm. The Bayesian estimate for the incidence between the experimental and control groups was –0·15% (95% CI –0·72 to 0·44).

Interpretation

Our study provides preliminary evidence on the safety of indoor mass-gathering events during a COVID-19 outbreak under a comprehensive preventive intervention. The data could help restart cultural activities halted during COVID-19, which might have important sociocultural and economic implications.

Funding

Primavera Sound Group and the #YoMeCorono Initiative.

Translation

For the Spanish translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.