Preanalytical issues affecting the diagnosis of COVID-19

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among recruits in a US Army training environment: a brief report

BACKGROUND

In 2020, preventive measures were implemented to mitigate the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among 600-700 recruits arriving weekly at a basic combat training (BCT) facility in the southern United States. Trainees were sorted into companies and platoons (cocoons) at arrival, tested, quarantined for 14 days with daily temperature and respiratory-symptom monitoring and retested before release into larger groups for training where symptomatic testing was conducted. Nonpharmaceutical measures, such as masking, and social distancing, were maintained throughout quarantine and BCT. We assessed for SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the quarantine milieu.

METHODS

Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs were collected at arrival and at the end of quarantine and blood specimens at both timepoints and at the end of BCT. Epidemiological characteristics were analyzed for transmission clusters identified from whole-genome sequencing of NP samples.

RESULTS

Among 1403 trainees enrolled from 25 August to 7 October 2020, epidemiological analysis identified three transmission clusters (n = 20 SARS-CoV-2 genomes) during quarantine, which spanned five different cocoons. However, SARS-CoV-2 incidence decreased from 2.7% during quarantine to 1.5% at the end of BCT; prevalence at arrival was 3.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest layered SARS-CoV-2 mitigation measures implemented during quarantine minimized the risk of further transmission in BCT.

Molecular test for COVID-19 diagnosis based on a colorimetric genomagnetic assay

The world is in a long pandemic period caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus and massive diagnostic tests to assist efforts to control the spread of the disease and also to avoid new coronavirus variants are still needed. Herein, we propose a simple and accurate saliva-based colorimetric test for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Magnetic beads (MBs) modified with a sequence of single-strand DNA (ssDNA) complementary to the N gene of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA were developed and used for magnetic capture and separation from a complex saliva sample. A second biotinylated ssDNA sequence was applied, and the colorimetric detection was carried out by adding streptavidin-horseradish peroxidase conjugate, H₂O_2, and tetramethylbenzidine (TMB) as chromogenic substrate. The test does not require viral RNA isolation, transcription, or amplification steps and can be performed at room temperature. The molecular assay test can be run using 96-well microplates, allowing the diagnosis of a large number of samples in 90 min. A simple support for magnets was designed and constructed using a 3D printer that allows the magnetic separations directly in the 96-well microplate. The colorimetric test showed an excellent ability to discriminate between healthy individuals and patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, with 92% and 100% of clinical sensitivity and specificity, respectively. This performance was similar to that achieved using the gold standard RT-PCR technique. The proposed genomagnetic assay offers an opportunity to greatly increase population testing, contribute to controlling the spread of the virus, and improve health equity in testing for COVID-19.

[PCR for COVID in the transplant protocol]

Background

Since the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, identifying the COVID-19 pathophysiology not only has been addressed to applying diagnostic tests or preventing through vaccines, but also to the timely detection, especially of patients in risk groups such as those in transplants areas (renal, hematology, etcetera). In the case of these patients, using RT-PCR tests avoids putting them at risk by subjecting them to states of immunosuppression that could aggravate their situation if they were faced with an onset of a COVID-19 infection.

Objective

To present the results of patients of a transplant unit tested for SARS-CoV-2.

Material and methods

Descriptive, observational, cross-sectional, and retrolective study. Data of results of RT-PCR tests of patients who underwent transplantation from June 2021 to April 2022 in a third level hospital were collected.

Results

755 tests were done to patients who underwent transplantation. 384 (50.8%) were women. Out of all patients, only 73 (9.7%) were positive to SARS-CoV-2.

Conclusions

Implementing RT-PCR tests as a transplant protocol to detect SARS-CoV-2 prevents fatal complications due to COVID infection to donors and receptors.

Evaluation of five immunoassays and one lateral flow immunochromatography for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detection

INTRODUCTION

In order to deal with the current pandemic caused by the novel SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus several serological immunoassays have been recently developed with the objective of being used as a complementary diagnostic tool and to support the RT-PCR technique currently considered the "gold-standard" method. However, these new assays need to be evaluated and validated. The purpose of this study was to assess the performance of five immunoassays (two ELISA and three CLIA assays) and one rapid immunochromatographic test for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

METHODS

Five semiquantitative immunoassays (MENARINI®, PALEX®, VIRCLIA®, ROCHE® and SIEMENS®) and one lateral flow rapid test (WONDFO®) were performed. A total of 124 samples were studied. Case serum samples (n=78) were obtained from COVID-19 patients confirmed by real-time RT-PCR/epidemiological-clinical-radiological criteria, and control non-SARS-CoV-2 samples (n=46) belonged to healthy healthcare workers involved in a seroprevalence study.

RESULTS

Overall, the tests showed sensitivities around 70-90% and specificities greater than 95%, including the immunochromatographic test. In addition, we observed very good agreements among them, being better for the detection of IgG than for IgM antibodies (Cohen's kappa index of 0.95 for VIRCLIA® IgG with ROCHE®), as well as good diagnostic power of the tests as determined by the ROC curves.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the proper performance of the different immunoassays in order to be applied in the clinical practice as support in the diagnostic approach and in the development of vaccines and seroepidemiological studies of COVID-19.

Nationwide Harmonization Effort for Semi-Quantitative Reporting of SARS-CoV-2 PCR Test Results in Belgium

From early 2020, a high demand for SARS-CoV-2 tests was driven by several testing indications, including asymptomatic cases, resulting in the massive roll-out of PCR assays to combat the pandemic. Considering the dynamic of viral shedding during the course of infection, the demand to report cycle threshold (Ct) values rapidly emerged. As Ct values can be affected by a number of factors, we considered that harmonization of semi-quantitative PCR results across laboratories would avoid potential divergent interpretations, particularly in the absence of clinical or serological information. A proposal to harmonize reporting of test results was drafted by the National Reference Centre (NRC) UZ/KU Leuven, distinguishing four categories of positivity based on RNA copies/mL. Pre-quantified control material was shipped to 124 laboratories with instructions to setup a standard curve to define thresholds per assay. For each assay, the mean Ct value and corresponding standard deviation was calculated per target gene, for the three concentrations (107, 105 and 103 copies/mL) that determine the classification. The results of 17 assays are summarized. This harmonization effort allowed to ensure that all Belgian laboratories would report positive PCR results in the same semi-quantitative manner to clinicians and to the national database which feeds contact tracing interventions.

RT-PCR negative COVID-19

Background

COVID-19 is a multi-system infection with emerging evidence-based antiviral and anti-inflammatory therapies to improve disease prognosis. However, a subset of patients with COVID-19 signs and symptoms have repeatedly negative RT-PCR tests, leading to treatment hesitancy. We used comparative serology early in the COVID-19 pandemic when background seroprevalence was low to estimate the likelihood of COVID-19 infection among RT-PCR negative patients with clinical signs and/or symptoms compatible with COVID-19.

Methods

Between April and October 2020, we conducted serologic testing of patients with (i) signs and symptoms of COVID-19 who were repeatedly negative by RT-PCR (‘Probables’; N = 20), (ii) signs and symptoms of COVID-19 but with a potential alternative diagnosis (‘Suspects’; N = 15), (iii) no signs and symptoms of COVID-19 (‘Non-suspects’; N = 43), (iv) RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients (N = 40), and (v) pre-pandemic samples (N = 55).

Results

Probables had similar seropositivity and levels of IgG and IgM antibodies as propensity-score matched RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients (60.0% vs 80.0% for IgG, p-value = 0.13; 50.0% vs 72.5% for IgM, p-value = 0.10), but multi-fold higher seropositivity rates than Suspects and matched Non-suspects (60.0% vs 13.3% and 11.6% for IgG; 50.0% vs 0% and 4.7% for IgM respectively; p-values < 0.01). However, Probables were half as likely to receive COVID-19 treatment than the RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients with similar disease severity.

Conclusions

Findings from this study indicate a high likelihood of acute COVID-19 among RT-PCR negative with typical signs/symptoms, but a common omission of COVID-19 therapies among these patients. Clinically diagnosed COVID-19, independent of RT-PCR positivity, thus has a potential vital role in guiding treatment decisions.

Distinct Outcomes in COVID-19 Patients with Positive or Negative RT-PCR Test

Identification of the SARS-CoV-2 virus by RT-PCR from a nasopharyngeal swab sample is a common test for diagnosing COVID-19. However, some patients present clinical, laboratorial, and radiological evidence of COVID-19 infection with negative RT-PCR result(s). Thus, we assessed whether positive results were associated with intubation and mortality. This study was conducted in a Brazilian tertiary hospital from March to August of 2020. All patients had clinical, laboratory, and radiological diagnosis of COVID-19. They were divided into two groups: positive (+) RT-PCR group, with 2292 participants, and negative (−) RT-PCR group, with 706 participants. Patients with negative RT-PCR testing and an alternative most probable diagnosis were excluded from the study. The RT-PCR(+) group presented increased risk of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, length of hospital stay, and 28-day mortality, when compared to the RT-PCR(−) group. A positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR result was independently associated with intubation and 28 day in-hospital mortality. Accordingly, we concluded that patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis based on clinical data, despite a negative RT-PCR test from nasopharyngeal samples, presented more favorable outcomes than patients with positive RT-PCR test(s).

Analysis by real-time PCR of five transport and conservation mediums of nasopharyngeal swab samples to COVID-19 diagnosis in Santiago of Chile

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many transport kits have been manufactured to preserve and transport nasopharyngeal swab samples (NPSs) from patients. However, there is no information on the performance of the different virus transport media (VTM) used in COVID-19 diagnosis in the population of Santiago de Chile. We compared the RT-qPCR amplification profile of five different viral transport kit mediums, including DNA/RNA Shield™, NAT, VTM-N, Ezmedlab™, and phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), for NPSs from Central Metropolitan Health Service, Santiago, Chile. The DNA/RNA Shield™ medium showed a better performance in terms of Cq and RFU values for the internal reference RNase P and viral ORF1ab probes. By contrast, the PBS transport medium registered higher Cq values for the viral and reference gene, compared to the other VTM. DNA/RNA Shield™ shows higher relative fluorescence units (RFUs) and lower Cq values for the reference gene. Collectively, our results suggest that the PBS medium could compromise the sample diagnosis because of its lower RT-qPCR performance. The NAT, Ezmedlab and VTM-N, and DNA/RNA Shield™ media show acceptable RT-qPCR parameters and, consequently, seem suitable for use in COVID-19 diagnosis.

CRISPR/Cas-New Molecular Scissors in Diagnostics and Therapeutics of COVID-19

The current pandemic of COVID-19, with its climbing number of cases and deaths, has us searching for tools for rapid, reliable, and affordable methods of detection on one hand, and novel, improved therapeutic strategies on the other. The currently employed RT-PCR method, despite its all-encompassing utility, has its shortcomings. Newer diagnostic tools, based on the Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats/Cas(CRISPR-Cas) system, with its better diagnostic accuracy measures, have come up to fill that void. These assay platforms are expected to slowly take up the place of COVID-19 diagnostics. Further, the current therapeutic options focus mainly on counteracting the viral proteins and components and their entry into host cells. The CRISPR-based system, especially through the RNA-guided Cas13 approach, can identify the genomic characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 and provide a novel inhibition strategy for coronaviruses. In this mini-review, we have discussed the available and upcoming CRISPR-based diagnostic assays and the potential of the CRISPR/Cas system as a therapeutic or prevention strategy in COVID-19. CRISPR-Cas system shows promise in both diagnostics as well as therapeutics and may as well change the face of molecular diagnosis and precision medicine.

Less Exposure for Health Care Workers, More Comfort for Patients During COVID-19 Swab Testing

BACKGROUND

Nasopharyngeal (NP) and oropharyngeal (OP) swab sampling for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis may lead to droplet and/or airborne particle transmission and increase the exposure risk for health care workers (HCWs). However, there is limited evidence for effective methods to reduce occupational exposure from NP and OP swab sampling. This study aimed to reduce droplet-forming responses (DFRs) and the related exposure risk of NP and OP swab sampling by administering 10% lidocaine spray (LS) to the NP and OP areas prior to conducting swab tests.

METHODS

This quasi-experimental study was conducted with 100 patients who presented to our tertiary care hospital with symptoms of COVID-19 between December 1 and 15, 2020. First, NP and OP swabbings were performed on each patient. Thereafter, LS was applied to the OP and NP regions, and the swab samples were taken once again. Frequency of DFRs and real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test results before and after LS application were recorded for comparison. In addition, the cycle threshold (Ct) was used as a proxy indicator for SARS-CoV-2 viral load in COVID-19 positive cases.

FINDINGS

Significant differences in OP DFR frequencies before and after LS intervention were found (37% and 9%, respectively), as well as before and after NP DFR (31% and 18%, respectively). The mean Ct values for the positive samples did not differ before and after applying LS.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that applying LS to the OP and NP area prior to swab testing reduces DFR frequencies without affecting (RT-PCR) test results for SARS-CoV-2 and may increase patient and practitioner comfort.

False-Negative RT-PCR Findings and Double Mutant Variant as Factors of an Overwhelming Second Wave of COVID-19 in India: an Emerging Global Health Disaster

RT-PCR is considered to be the standard gold diagnostic test for detecting COVID-19 causing SARS-CoV-2. Recent reports and recent pieces of evidence from scientific literature, however, tell a different story. There have been speculations of SARS-CoV-2 escaping the RT-PCR because of the series of mutations it has gone through. It is possible that host-dependent RNA editing and high person-to-person transmission have equipped the virus with mutations enabling it to spread faster and even evade the RT-PCR. Added to this is burnout among healthcare workers and technicians handling the RT-PCR machines and sampling. All of these factors may be working in unison to result in the deluge of false-negative cases India is facing during the second COVID-19 wave. The mutant strains are spreading to other parts, posing challenges to the whole world. These circumstances warrant supplementary diagnostic tests such as serological and radiological findings to deal with cases of high clinical suspicion. Even one misdiagnosed COVID-19 patient poses a risk to hundreds of others in the vicinity. Healthcare workers' burnout also has to be dealt with. Erroneous staff should be re-trained.

Diagnostic Properties of Three SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Tests

Serological assays emerged as complementary tools to RT-PCR in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 as well as being needed for epidemiological studies. This study aimed to assess the performance of a rapid test (RT) compared to that of serological tests using finger prick blood samples. A total of 183 samples were evaluated, 88 of which were collected from individuals with negative RT-PCR and 95 from positive RT-PCR individuals. The diagnostic performance of RT (WONDFO^®) and LUMIT (PROMEGA^®) were compared to that of ELISA (EUROIMMUN^®) for detecting antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 according to time from symptoms onset. The IgG antibody tests were detected in 77.4% (LUMIT), 77.9% (RT), and 80.0% (ELISA) of individuals. The detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 increases in accordance with increasing time from symptoms onset. Considering only time from symptoms onset >21 days, the positivity rate ranged from 81.8 to 97.0% between the three tests. The RT and LUMIT showed high agreement with ELISA (agreement = 91.5%, k = 0.83, and agreement = 96.3%, k = 0.9, respectively) in individuals who had symptoms 15 to 21 days before sample collection. Compared to that of the ELISA assay, our results show sensitivity ranged from 95% to 100% for IgG antibody detection in individuals with symptoms onset between 15 and 21 days before sample collection. The specificity was 100% in individuals with symptoms onset >15 days before serological tests. This study shows good performance and high level of agreement of three immunoassays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

Detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is influenced by the type of transport medium: Implications for diagnosis and monitoring

It is unclear if the use of a molecular transport medium (MTM) containing guanidine isothiocyanate (GITC) would be advantageous over the CDC recommended, commonly used viral transport medium (VTM). We retested 70 SARS-CoV2 cases by RT-PCR in varying stages of follow-up using MTM and VTM in parallel and found discrepant results of RNase P, E and N genes. Majority (81%) patients tested positive with MTM as compared with VTM (27.1%). Even patients who were sampled 3 weeks after diagnosis demonstrated a significant discrepancy in the positivity rates between MTM vs VTM raising concerns about the clinical utility of VTM.

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Detection by Rapid Antigen and by Three Commercial RT-qPCR Tests: A Study from Martin University Hospital in Slovakia

The global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is having a tremendous impact on the global economy, health care systems and the lives of almost all people in the world. The Central European country of Slovakia reached one of the highest daily mortality rates per 100,000 inhabitants in the first 3 months of 2021, despite implementing strong prophylactic measures, lockdowns and repeated nationwide antigen testing. The present study reports a comparison of the performance of the Standard Q COVID-19 antigen test (SD Biosensor) with three commercial RT-qPCR kits (vDetect COVID-19-MultiplexDX, gb SARS-CoV-2 Multiplex-GENERI BIOTECH Ltd. and Genvinset COVID-19 [E]-BDR Diagnostics) in the detection of infected individuals among employees of the Martin University Hospital in Slovakia. Health care providers, such as doctors and nurses, are classified as “critical infrastructure”, and there is no doubt about the huge impact that incorrect results could have on patients. Out of 1231 samples, 14 were evaluated as positive for SARS-CoV-2 antigen presence, and all of them were confirmed by RT-qPCR kit 1 and kit 2. As another 26 samples had a signal in the E gene, these 40 samples were re-isolated and subsequently re-analysed using the three kits, which detected the virus in 22, 23 and 12 cases, respectively. The results point to a divergence not only between antigen and RT-qPCR tests, but also within the “gold standard” RT-qPCR testing. Performance analysis of the diagnostic antigen test showed the positive predictive value (PPV) to be 100% and negative predictive value (NPV) to be 98.10%, indicating that 1.90% of individuals with a negative result were, in fact, positive. If these data are extrapolated to the national level, where the mean daily number of antigen tests was 250,000 in April 2021, it points to over 4700 people per day being misinterpreted and posing a risk of virus shedding. While mean Ct values of the samples that were both antigen and RT-qPCR positive were about 20 (kit 1: 20.47 and 20.16 for Sarbeco E and RdRP, kit 2: 19.37 and 19.99 for Sarbeco E and RdRP and kit 3: 17.47 for ORF1b/RdRP), mean Ct values of the samples that were antigen-negative but RT-qPCR-positive were about 30 (kit 1: 30.67 and 30.00 for Sarbeco E and RdRP, kit 2: 29.86 and 31.01 for Sarbeco E and RdRP and kit 3: 27.47 for ORF1b/RdRP). It confirms the advantage of antigen test in detecting the most infectious individuals with a higher viral load. However, the reporting of Ct values is still a matter of ongoing debates and should not be conducted without normalisation to standardised controls of known concentration.

An intra-host SARS-CoV-2 dynamics model to assess testing and quarantine strategies for incoming travelers, contact management, and de-isolation

Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) remain decisive tools to contain SARS-CoV-2. Strategies that combine NPIs with testing may improve efficacy and shorten quarantine durations. We developed a stochastic within-host model of SARS-CoV-2 that captures temporal changes in test sensitivities, incubation periods, and infectious periods. We used the model to simulate relative transmission risk for (1) isolation of symptomatic individuals, (2) contact person management, and (3) quarantine of incoming travelers. We estimated that testing travelers at entry reduces transmission risks to 21.3% ([20.7, 23.9], by PCR) and 27.9% ([27.1, 31.1], by rapid diagnostic test [RDT]), compared with unrestricted entry. We calculated that 4 (PCR) or 5 (RDT) days of pre-test quarantine are non-inferior to 10 days of quarantine for incoming travelers and that 8 (PCR) or 10 (RDT) days of pre-test quarantine are non-inferior to 14 days of post-exposure quarantine. De-isolation of infected individuals 13 days after symptom onset may reduce the transmission risk to <0.2% (<0.01, 6.0).

Clinical and laboratory characteristics in outpatient diagnosis of COVID-19 in healthcare professionals in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

AIMS

This study aimed to identify the symptoms associated with early stage SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infections in healthcare professionals (HCPs) using both clinical and laboratory data.

METHODS

A total of 1297 patients, admitted between 18 March and 8 April 2020, were stratified according to their risk of developing COVID-19 using their responses to a questionnaire designed to evaluate symptoms and risk conditions.

RESULTS

Anosmia/hyposmia (p<0.0001), fever (p<0.0001), body pain (p<0.0001) and chills (p=0.001) were all independent predictors for COVID-19, with a 72% estimated probability for detecting COVID-19 in nasopharyngeal swab samples. Leucopenia, relative monocytosis, decreased eosinophil values, C reactive protein (CRP) and platelets were also shown to be significant independent predictors for COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

The significant clinical features for COVID-19 were identified as anosmia, fever, chills and body pain. Elevated CRP, leucocytes under 5400×10⁹/L and relative monocytosis (>9%) were common among patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. These variables may help, in the absence of reverse transcriptase PCR tests, to identify possible COVID-19 infections during pandemic outbreaks.

SUMMARY

From 19 March to 8 April 2020, 1297 patients attended the Polyclinic Piquet Carneiro for COVID-19 detection. HCP data were analysed, and significant clinical features were anosmia, fever, chills and body pain. Elevated CRP, leucopenia and monocytosis were common in COVID-19.

Evaluation of five immunoassays and one lateral flow immunochromatography for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detection

INTRODUCTION

In order to deal with the current pandemic caused by the novel SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus several serological immunoassays have been recently developed with the objective of being used as a complementary diagnostic tool and to support the RT-PCR technique currently considered the "gold-standard" method. However, these new assays need to be evaluated and validated. The purpose of this study was to assess the performance of five immunoassays (two ELISA and three CLIA assays) and one rapid immunochromatographic test for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

METHODS

Five semiquantitative immunoassays (MENARINI®, PALEX®, VIRCLIA®, ROCHE® and SIEMENS®) and one lateral flow rapid test (WONDFO®) were performed. A total of 124 samples were studied. Case serum samples (n=78) were obtained from COVID-19 patients confirmed by real-time RT-PCR/epidemiological-clinical-radiological criteria, and control non-SARS-CoV-2 samples (n=46) belonged to healthy healthcare workers involved in a seroprevalence study.

RESULTS

Overall, the tests showed sensitivities around 70-90% and specificities greater than 95%, including the immunochromatographic test. In addition, we observed very good agreements among them, being better for the detection of IgG than for IgM antibodies (Cohen's kappa index of 0.95 for VIRCLIA® IgG with ROCHE®), as well as good diagnostic power of the tests as determined by the ROC curves.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the proper performance of the different immunoassays in order to be applied in the clinical practice as support in the diagnostic approach and in the development of vaccines and seroepidemiological studies of COVID-19.

Evaluation of two rapid antigen tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 in a hospital setting

Successful containment strategies for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic will depend on reliable diagnostic assays. Point-of-care antigen tests (POCT) may provide an alternative to time-consuming PCR tests to rapidly screen for acute infections on site. Here, we evaluated two SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests: the STANDARD™ F COVID-19 Ag FIA (FIA) and the SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (RAT). For diagnostic assessment, we used a large set of PCR-positive and PCR-negative respiratory swabs from asymptomatic and symptomatic patients and health care workers in the setting of two University Hospitals in Munich, Germany, i.e. emergency rooms, patient care units or employee test centers. For FIA, overall clinical sensitivity and specificity were 45.4% (n = 381) and 97.8% (n = 360), respectively, and for RAT, 50.3% (n = 445) and 97.7% (n = 386), respectively. For primary diagnosis of asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals, diagnostic sensitivities were 60.9% (FIA) (n = 189) and 64.5% (RAT) (n = 256). This questions these tests' utility for the reliable detection of acute SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals, in particular in high-risk settings. We support the proposal that convincing high-quality outcome data on the impact of false-negative and false-positive antigen test results need to be obtained in a POCT setting. Moreover, the efficacy of alternative testing strategies to complement PCR assays must be evaluated by independent laboratories, prior to widespread implementation in national and international test strategies.