Ultra-sensitive Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Antigen Detection for the Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Upper Respiratory Samples

Clinical accuracy of instrument-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen diagnostic tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, antigen diagnostic tests were frequently used for screening, triage, and diagnosis. Novel instrument-based antigen tests (iAg tests) hold the promise of outperforming their instrument-free, visually-read counterparts. Here, we provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 iAg tests' clinical accuracy.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, medRxiv, and bioRxiv for articles published before November 7th, 2022, evaluating the accuracy of iAg tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection. We performed a random effects meta-analysis to estimate sensitivity and specificity and used the QUADAS-2 tool to assess study quality and risk of bias. Sub-group analysis was conducted based on Ct value range, IFU-conformity, age, symptom presence and duration, and the variant of concern.

RESULTS

We screened the titles and abstracts of 20,431 articles and included 114 publications that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Additionally, we incorporated three articles sourced from the FIND website, totaling 117 studies encompassing 95,181 individuals, which evaluated the clinical accuracy of 24 commercial COVID-19 iAg tests. The studies varied in risk of bias but showed high applicability. Of 24 iAg tests from 99 studies assessed in the meta-analysis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity compared to molecular testing of a paired NP swab sample were 76.7% (95% CI 73.5 to 79.7) and 98.4% (95% CI 98.0 to 98.7), respectively. Higher sensitivity was noted in individuals with high viral load (99.6% [95% CI 96.8 to 100] at Ct-level ≤ 20) and within the first week of symptom onset (84.6% [95% CI 78.2 to 89.3]), but did not differ between tests conducted as per manufacturer's instructions and those conducted differently, or between point-of-care and lab-based testing.

CONCLUSION

Overall, iAg tests have a high pooled specificity but a moderate pooled sensitivity, according to our analysis. The pooled sensitivity increases with lower Ct-values (a proxy for viral load), or within the first week of symptom onset, enabling reliable identification of most COVID-19 cases and highlighting the importance of context in test selection. The study underscores the need for careful evaluation considering performance variations and operational features of iAg tests.

A Reagent and Virus Benchmarking Panel for a Uniform Analytical Performance Assessment of N Antigen-Based Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19

Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) that detect antigen indicative of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection can help in making quick health care decisions and regularly monitoring groups at risk of infection. With many RDT products entering the market, it is important to rapidly evaluate their relative performance. Comparison of clinical evaluation study results is challenged by protocol design variations and study populations. Laboratory assays were developed to quantify nucleocapsid (N) and spike (S) SARS-CoV-2 antigens. Quantification of the two antigens in nasal eluates confirmed higher abundance of N than S antigen. The median concentration of N antigen was 10 times greater than S per genome equivalent. The N antigen assay was used in combination with quantitative reverse transcription (RT)-PCR to qualify a panel composed of recombinant antigens, inactivated virus, and clinical specimen pools. This benchmarking panel was applied to evaluate the analytical performance of the SD Biosensor Standard Q COVID-19 antigen (Ag) test, Abbott Panbio COVID-19 Ag rapid test, Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag test, and the LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 Ag test. The four tests displayed different sensitivities toward the different panel members, but all performed best with the clinical specimen pool. The concentration for a 90% probability of detection across the four tests ranged from 21 to 102 pg/mL of N antigen in the extracted sample. Benchmarking panels provide a quick way to verify the baseline performance of a diagnostic and enable direct comparisons between diagnostic tests. IMPORTANCE This study reports the results for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-COV-2) nucleocapsid (N) and spike (S) antigen quantification assays and their performance against clinical reverse transcription (RT)-PCR results, thus describing an open-access quantification method for two important SARS-CoV-2 protein analytes. Characterized N antigen panels were used to evaluate the limits of detection of four different rapid tests for SARS-CoV-2 against multiple sources of nucleocapsid antigen, demonstrating proof-of-concept materials and methodology to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen detection tests. Quantification of N antigen was used to characterize the relationship between viral count and antigen concentration among clinical samples and panel members of both clinical sample and viral culture origin. This contributes to a deeper understanding of protein antigen and molecular analytes and presents analytical methods complementary to clinical evaluation for characterizing the performance of both laboratory-based and point-of-care rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2.

Application of ultrasensitive assay for SARS-CoV-2 antigen in nasopharynx in the management of COVID-19 patients with comorbidities during the peak of 2022 Shanghai epidemics in a tertiary hospital

OBJECTIVES

Various comorbidities associated with COVID-19 add up in severity of the disease and obviously prolonged the time for viral clearance. This study investigated a novel ultrasensitive MAGLUMI^® SARS-CoV-2 Ag chemiluminescent immunoassay assay (MAG-CLIA) for diagnosis and monitoring the infectivity of COVID-19 patients with comorbid conditions during the pandemic of 2022 Shanghai.

METHODS

Analytical performances of the MAG-CLIA were evaluated, including precision, limit of quantitation, linearity and specificity. Nasopharyngeal specimens from 232 hospitalized patients who were SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR positive and from 477 healthy donors were included. The longitudinal studies were performed by monitoring antigen concentrations alongside with RT-qPCR results in 14 COVID-19 comorbid participants for up to 22 days. The critical antigen concentration in determining virus infectivity was evaluated at the reference cycle threshold (Ct) of 35.

RESULTS

COVID-19 patients were well-identified using an optimal threshold of 0.64 ng/L antigen concentration, with sensitivity and specificity of 95.7% (95% CI: 92.2-97.9%) and 98.3% (95% CI: 96.7-99.3%), respectively, while the Wondfo LFT exhibited those of 34.9% (95% CI: 28.8-41.4%) and 100% (95% CI: 99.23-100%), respectively. The sensitivity of MAG-CLIA remained 91.46% (95% CI: 83.14-95.8%) for the samples with Ct values between 35 and 40. Close dynamic consistence was observed between MAG-CLIA and viral load time series in the longitudinal studies. The critical value of 8.82 ng/L antigen showed adequate sensitivity and specificity in evaluating the infectivity of hospitalized convalescent patients with comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

The MAG-CLIA SARS-CoV-2 Ag detection is an effective and alternative approach for rapid diagnosis and enables us to evaluate the infectivity of hospitalized convalescent patients with comorbidities.

Measurement of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Antigens in Plasma of Pediatric Patients With Acute Coronavirus Disease 2019 or Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children Using an Ultrasensitive and Quantitative Immunoassay

BACKGROUND

Detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigens in blood has high sensitivity in adults with acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but sensitivity in pediatric patients is unclear. Recent data suggest that persistent SARS-CoV-2 spike antigenemia may contribute to multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). We quantified SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) and spike (S) antigens in blood of pediatric patients with either acute COVID-19 or MIS-C using ultrasensitive immunoassays (Meso Scale Discovery).

METHODS

Plasma was collected from inpatients (<21 years) enrolled across 15 hospitals in 15 US states. Acute COVID-19 patients (n = 36) had a range of disease severity and positive nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR within 24 hours of blood collection. Patients with MIS-C (n = 53) met CDC criteria and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (RT-PCR or serology). Controls were patients pre-COVID-19 (n = 67) or within 24 hours of negative RT-PCR (n = 43).

RESULTS

Specificities of N and S assays were 95-97% and 100%, respectively. In acute COVID-19 patients, N/S plasma assays had 89%/64% sensitivity; sensitivities in patients with concurrent nasopharyngeal swab cycle threshold (Ct) ≤35 were 93%/63%. Antigen concentrations ranged from 1.28-3844 pg/mL (N) and 1.65-1071 pg/mL (S) and correlated with disease severity. In MIS-C, antigens were detected in 3/53 (5.7%) samples (3 N-positive: 1.7, 1.9, 121.1 pg/mL; 1 S-positive: 2.3 pg/mL); the patient with highest N had positive nasopharyngeal RT-PCR (Ct 22.3) concurrent with blood draw.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasensitive blood SARS-CoV-2 antigen measurement has high diagnostic yield in children with acute COVID-19. Antigens were undetectable in most MIS-C patients, suggesting that persistent antigenemia is not a common contributor to MIS-C pathogenesis.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 Spatial Care Path: Home, Community, and Emergency Diagnostic Portals

This research uses mathematically derived visual logistics to interpret COVID-19 molecular and rapid antigen test (RAgT) performance, determine prevalence boundaries where risk exceeds expectations, and evaluate benefits of recursive testing along home, community, and emergency spatial care paths. Mathematica and open access software helped graph relationships, compare performance patterns, and perform recursive computations. Tiered sensitivity/specificity comprise: (T1) 90%/95%; (T2) 95%/97.5%; and (T3) 100%/≥99%, respectively. In emergency medicine, median RAgT performance peaks at 13.2% prevalence, then falls below T1, generating risky prevalence boundaries. RAgTs in pediatric ERs/EDs parallel this pattern with asymptomatic worse than symptomatic performance. In communities, RAgTs display large uncertainty with median prevalence boundary of 14.8% for 1/20 missed diagnoses, and at prevalence > 33.3−36.9% risk 10% false omissions for symptomatic subjects. Recursive testing improves home RAgT performance. Home molecular tests elevate performance above T1 but lack adequate validation. Widespread RAgT availability encourages self-testing. Asymptomatic RAgT and PCR-based saliva testing present the highest chance of missed diagnoses. Home testing twice, once just before mingling, and molecular-based self-testing, help avoid false omissions. Community and ER/ED RAgTs can identify contagiousness in low prevalence. Real-world trials of performance, cost-effectiveness, and public health impact could identify home molecular diagnostics as an optimal diagnostic portal.

Measurement of SARS-CoV-2 antigens in plasma of pediatric patients with acute COVID-19 or MIS-C using an ultrasensitive and quantitative immunoassay

BACKGROUND

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigens in blood has high sensitivity in adults with acute COVID-19, but sensitivity in pediatric patients is unclear. Recent data suggest that persistent SARS-CoV-2 spike antigenemia may contribute to multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). We quantified SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) and spike (S) antigens in blood of pediatric patients with either acute COVID-19 or MIS-C using ultrasensitive immunoassays (Meso Scale Discovery).

METHODS

Plasma was collected from inpatients (<21 years) enrolled across 15 hospitals in 15 US states. Acute COVID-19 patients (n=36) had a range of disease severity and positive nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR within 24 hours of blood collection. Patients with MIS-C (n=53) met CDC criteria and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (RT-PCR or serology). Controls were patients pre-COVID-19 (n=67) or within 24h of negative RT-PCR (n=43).

RESULTS

Specificities of N and S assays were 95-97% and 100%, respectively. In acute COVID-19 patients, N/S plasma assays had 89%/64% sensitivity, respectively; sensitivity in patients with concurrent nasopharyngeal swab cycle threshold (Ct) ≤ 35 were 93%/63%. Antigen concentrations ranged from 1.28-3,844 pg/mL (N) and 1.65-1,071 pg/mL (S) and correlated with disease severity. In MIS-C, antigens were detected in 3/53 (5.7%) samples (3 N-positive: 1.7, 1.9, 121.1 pg/mL; 1 S-positive: 2.3 pg/mL); the patient with highest N had positive nasopharyngeal RT-PCR (Ct 22.3) concurrent with blood draw.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasensitive blood SARS-CoV-2 antigen measurement has high diagnostic yield in children with acute COVID-19. Antigens were undetectable in most MIS-C patients, suggesting that persistent antigenemia is not a common contributor to MIS-C pathogenesis.

KEY POINTS

In a U.S. pediatric cohort tested with ultrasensitive immunoassays, SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigens were detectable in most patients with acute COVID-19, and spike antigens were commonly detectable. Both antigens were undetectable in almost all MIS-C patients.

Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being integrated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix, bioRvix, and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 up until 30 April 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses, and rated study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 assessment tool. From a total of 14,254 articles, we included 133 analytical and clinical studies resulting in 214 clinical accuracy datasets with 112,323 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 71.2% (95% CI 68.2% to 74.0%) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6% to 99.1%), respectively. Sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.1% to 79.2%) if analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers' instructions. LumiraDx showed the highest sensitivity, with 88.2% (95% CI 59.0% to 97.5%). Of instrument-free Ag-RDTs, Standard Q nasal performed best, with 80.2% sensitivity (95% CI 70.3% to 87.4%). Across all Ag-RDTs, sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, i.e., <20 (96.5%, 95% CI 92.6% to 98.4%) and <25 (95.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 97.8%), in comparison to those with Ct ≥ 25 (50.7%, 95% CI 35.6% to 65.8%) and ≥30 (20.9%, 95% CI 12.5% to 32.8%). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (83.8%, 95% CI 76.3% to 89.2%) compared to testing after 1 week (61.5%, 95% CI 52.2% to 70.0%). The best Ag-RDT sensitivity was found with anterior nasal sampling (75.5%, 95% CI 70.4% to 79.9%), in comparison to other sample types (e.g., nasopharyngeal, 71.6%, 95% CI 68.1% to 74.9%), although CIs were overlapping. Concerns of bias were raised across all datasets, and financial support from the manufacturer was reported in 24.1% of datasets. Our analysis was limited by the included studies' heterogeneity in design and reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study we found that Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2-infected persons within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load. Thus, they can have high utility for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease, making them a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization in conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data.

Evaluation of automated antigen detection test for detection of SARS-CoV-2

RT-PCR is the gold standard to detect SARS-CoV-2, however, its capacity is limited. We evaluated an automated antigen detection (AAD) test, Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen (Roche, Germany), for detecting SARS-CoV-2. We compared the limit of detection (LOD) between AAD test, rapid antigen detection (RAD) test; SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (SD Biosensor, Korea), and in-house RT-PCR test. LOD results showed that the AAD test was 100 fold more sensitive than the RAD test, while the sensitivity of the AAD test was comparable to the RT-PCR test. The AAD test detected between 85.7% and 88.6% of RT-PCR-positive specimens collected from COVID-19 patients, false negative results were observed for specimens with Ct values >30. Although clinical sensitivity for the AAD test was not superior or comparable to the RT-PCR test in the present study, the AAD test may be an alternative to RT-PCR test in terms of turn-around time and throughput.