Diagnostic accuracy of two commercial SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid tests at the point of care in community-based testing centers

Prevalence and associated factors of COVID-19 among biomedical science students of Rivers State University, Port Harcourt, Nigeria: a cross-sectional study

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has profoundly affected global health, emphasizing the need to assess specific populations such as university students to better understand the prevalence of the infection and its determinants. This study investigated the prevalence and associated factors of COVID-19 among biomedical science students at Rivers State University, Port Harcourt, Nigeria.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted among 220 students from March to August 2022. Data collection was performed using interviewer-administered questionnaires while COVID-19 infection was screened using the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device. Data analysis involved both descriptive and inferential statistics, with statistical significance set at P ≤ .05.

Results

The prevalence of COVID-19 was 11.4% (95% CI: 7.8-16.2). Significant associations were observed between COVID-19 prevalence and facemask use, handwashing practices, use of sanitizers, and nature of accommodation. However, in the multivariable analysis, only noncompliance with facemask use was identified as a significant independent predictor of COVID-19 infection (aOR = 4.350, 95% CI: 1.379-14.13, P = .0124).

Conclusion

The study highlights a concerning prevalence of COVID-19 among biomedical science students. Tailored public health strategies are essential, emphasizing compliance with preventive measures as a means to mitigate COVID-19 transmission within this crucial demographic.

Net-Shaped DNA Nanostructure-Based Lateral Flow Assays for Rapid and Sensitive SARS-CoV-2 Detection

Lateral flow assay (LFA)-based rapid antigen tests are experiencing extensive global uptake as an expeditious and highly effective modality for the screening of viral infections during the COVID-19 pandemic. While these devices have played a significant role in alleviating the burden on the public healthcare system, their specificity and sensitivity fall short compared with molecular tests. In this study, we endeavor to address both limitations through the utilization of DNA nanotechnology in LFA format, wherein we substitute the target-specific antibody with designer DNA nanostructure-based molecular probes for recognizing the SARS-CoV-2 virus via multivalent, pattern-matching interactions. We meticulously designed a Net-shaped DNA nanostructure and strategically arranged trimeric clusters of aptamers that specifically recognize the spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. This approach has proven instrumental in bolstering virus-binding affinity on the LFAs. Our findings indicate high LFA sensitivity, enabling the detection of viral loads ranging from 103 to 108 viral copies/mL. This notable sensitivity is maintained across various SARS-CoV-2 viral strains, obviating the need for intricate sample preparation protocols. The significance of this heightened sensitivity lies in the crucial role played by the designer DNA nanostructure, which facilitates the detection of extremely low levels of viral loads. This not only enhances the overall reliability of self-testing but also reduces the likelihood of false-negative results, especially in cases of low viral load within patient samples.

The diagnostic performance evaluation of Panbio and STANDARD Q coronavirus disease 2019 antigen tests against real-time polymerase chain reaction in southern Ethiopia

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created a public health crisis. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Panbio and STANDARD Q COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) against the real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) at one of the largest hospitals in southern Ethiopia. Nasopharyngeal samples, which were collected during the pandemic from individuals suspected of COVID-19 and stored at - 70 °C, were analyzed in June and July 2022. The performance of the Panbio COVID-19 antigen tests was evaluated in 200 randomly selected nasopharyngeal samples (100 positives and 100 negatives for severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 by RT-PCR). The STANDARD Q test was evaluated using 100 positive and 50 negative samples. The respective sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive values were 88%, 99%, 98.9% and 89.2% for the Panbio test and 91%, 98%, 98.9% and 84.5%, for the STANDARD Q test. The kappa values were 0.87 for the Panbio and 0.86 for the STANDARD Q test. Based on the findings presented here, the RDTs could be utilized as an alternative to conventional RT-PCR when it is challenging to diagnose COVID-19 owing to a lack of time, skilled lab personnel, or suitable equipment or electricity.

Performance Evaluation of the STANDARD i-Q COVID-19 Ag Test with Nasal and Oral Swab Specimens from Symptomatic Patients

We evaluated the diagnostic performance of the STANDARD i-Q COVID-19 Ag Test, which was developed to detect viral antigens, using nasal and oral swabs. Sixty positive and 100 negative samples were analyzed. We determined the distribution of the Ct values according to the day of sample collection after symptom onset, the diagnostic performance of the total samples and subgroups separated by Ct value or time of sample collection, and the Ct value at which maximal accuracy was expected. No differences were observed in Ct values, except for the samples obtained on the day of symptom onset. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the oral swabs were 75.0 and 100.0%, respectively, whereas those of the nasal swabs were 85.0 and 98.0%, respectively. The sensitivity was higher in samples with a high viral load collected earlier than those collected later, although the difference was not significant. False-negative results were confirmed in all samples with a Ct value ≥ 30.0. These results indicate that tests using oral and nasal swabs are helpful for diagnosing acute symptomatic cases with suspected high viral loads. Our tests exhibited relatively low sensitivity but high specificity rates, indicating the need to assess negative antigen test results.

Application of a SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Immunoassay Based on Active Microfluidic Technology in a Setting of Children and Young Adults

To carry out effective and quick identification of SARS-CoV-2 from nasopharyngeal swabs and contain outbreaks, reliable and rapid tools are needed. Herein, we compared a rapid antigen test based on active microfluidic technology to an RT-qPCR assay in pediatric and young adult patients admitted to the Pediatric Emergency Unit of a Children's Hospital. Nasopharyngeal swabs collected from patients with suspected COVID-19 disease and from those without COVID-19 related symptoms, but requiring hospitalization, were performed with both antigen test and RT-qPCR assays. We included 375 patients with a median age of 5 years in the study, with an estimated overall prevalence of 7.2%. Overall, we observed a specificity of 97.4% (95% CI: 94.9-98.7) and a sensitivity of 66.6% (95% CI: 46.0-82.7) with a positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 25.8 (95% CI: 12.8-51.8). In the subgroup of symptomatic patients, the specificity and the sensitivity were 95.2% (95% CI: 89.4-98.0) and 80.0% (95% CI: 44.2-96.5) respectively; LR+ was 16.6 (95% CI: 7.19-38.6). In the asymptomatic subset, the performance showed a specificity of 98.7% (95% CI: 95.8-99.7), a sensitivity of 58.8% (95% CI: 33.5-80.6), and an LR+ of 43.7 (95% CI: 13.3-144.0). Compared to RT-qPCR, the new microfluidic-based antigen test showed higher specificity (>95%) in the pediatric population, thus representing a suitable point-of-care testing (POCT) in a clinical setting with low prevalence of COVID-19.

Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of two point-of-care tests for COVID-19 when used in symptomatic patients in community settings in the UK primary care COVID diagnostic accuracy platform trial (RAPTOR-C19)

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Point-of-care lateral flow device antigen testing has been used extensively to identify individuals with active SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of two point-of-care tests (POCTs) for SARS-CoV-2 in routine community care.

METHODS

Adults and children with symptoms consistent with suspected current COVID-19 infection were prospectively recruited from 19 UK general practices and two COVID-19 testing centres between October 2020 and October 2021. Participants were tested by trained healthcare workers using at least one of two index POCTs (Roche-branded SD Biosensor Standard™ Q SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test and/or BD Veritor™ System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2). The reference standard was laboratory triplex reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-PCR) using a combined nasal/oropharyngeal swab. Diagnostic accuracy parameters were estimated, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), overall, in relation to RT-PCR cycle threshold and in pre-specified subgroups.

RESULTS

Of 663 participants included in the primary analysis, 39.2% (260/663, 95% CI 35.5% to 43.0%) had a positive RT-PCR result. The SD Biosensor POCT had sensitivity 84.0% (178/212, 78.3% to 88.6%) and specificity 98.5% (328/333, 96.5% to 99.5%), and the BD Veritor POCT had sensitivity 76.5% (127/166, 69.3% to 82.7%) and specificity 98.8% (249/252, 96.6% to 99.8%) compared with RT-PCR. Sensitivity of both devices dropped substantially at cycle thresholds ≥30 and in participants more than 7 days after onset of symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Both POCTs assessed exceed the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency target product profile's minimum acceptable specificity of 95%. Confidence intervals for both tests include the minimum acceptable sensitivity of 80%. In symptomatic patients, negative results on these two POCTs do not preclude the possibility of infection. Tests should not be expected to reliably detect disease more than a week after symptom onset, when viral load may be reduced.

REGISTRATION

ISRCTN142269.

Evaluation of the performance of Abbott Panbio™ COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic test for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 at Harar, Eastern Ethiopia

Background

Rapid antigen tests can help in the effective isolation of symptomatic cases and the systematic tracing of close contacts. However, their reliability must be validated before implementing them widely.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted on 236 COVID-19-suspected patients visiting four different health institutions in Harari Regional State, Harar, Eastern Ethiopia, from June to July 2021. Two nasopharyngeal samples were collected and processed by the Panbio™ Ag-RDT kit and qRT-PCR. The collected data were analyzed using SPSS version 25.0.

Results

The Panbio tests had a sensitivity of 77.5% (95% CI: 61.6-89.2%) and a specificity of 98.5% (95% CI: 95.6-99.7%). It also had a positive predictive value of 91.2% (95% CI: 76.9-96.9%), a negative predictive value of 95.5% (95% CI: 92.3-97.4%), and a kappa of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.7-0.9). The test had a sensitivity of 94.4%, 100%, 100%, and 90% in the samples collected from patients within the 1-5 days post-onset of COVID-19 signs and symptoms, of age group ≤18 years old, with cycle threshold values of <20, and with household contact, respectively.

Conclusion

This test can be used as point-of-care testing for the diagnosis of symptomatic patients with short clinical courses and contact with patients in households.

Evaluation of the analytical sensitivity of ACON and LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests using samples with presumed Omicron variant

BACKGROUND

Analytical sensitivity of 2 rapid antigen tests was evaluated for detection of presumed SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants and earlier variants of concern.

METHODS

A total of 152 SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive samples (N and ORF1ab positive but S gene negative) were tested for SARS-CoV-2 antigen by ACON lateral flow and LumiraDx fluorescence immunoassays. Sensitivity within 3 viral load ranges was compared among these 152 samples and 194 similarly characterized samples collected prior to the circulation of the Delta variant (pre-Delta).

RESULTS

Antigen was detected in >95% of pre-Delta and presumed Omicron samples for both tests at viral loads >500,000 copies/mL, and 65 to 85% of samples with 50,000-500,000 copies/mL. At viral load <50,000 copies/mL, antigen tests showed better sensitivity in detecting pre-Delta compared to Omicron variants. LumiraDx was more sensitive than ACON at low viral load.

CONCLUSIONS

Antigen tests had decreased sensitivity for detecting presumed Omicron compared to pre-Delta variants at low viral load.

SARS-CoV-2 viral load and shedding kinetics

SARS-CoV-2 viral load and detection of infectious virus in the respiratory tract are the two key parameters for estimating infectiousness. As shedding of infectious virus is required for onward transmission, understanding shedding characteristics is relevant for public health interventions. Viral shedding is influenced by biological characteristics of the virus, host factors and pre-existing immunity (previous infection or vaccination) of the infected individual. Although the process of human-to-human transmission is multifactorial, viral load substantially contributed to human-to-human transmission, with higher viral load posing a greater risk for onward transmission. Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern have further complicated the picture of virus shedding. As underlying immunity in the population through previous infection, vaccination or a combination of both has rapidly increased on a global scale after almost 3 years of the pandemic, viral shedding patterns have become more distinct from those of ancestral SARS-CoV-2. Understanding the factors and mechanisms that influence infectious virus shedding and the period during which individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 are contagious is crucial to guide public health measures and limit transmission. Furthermore, diagnostic tools to demonstrate the presence of infectious virus from routine diagnostic specimens are needed.

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis by rapid antigen detection kit with RT-qPCR in a tertiary care setup in North Eastern India

PURPOSE

Real time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is still considered a gold standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19. However, due to several limitations, use of RT-qPCR is limited in a resource poor setting like North East India. Rapid antigen detection testing kit has revolutionized the diagnosis and management of COVID-19 in India. However, conflicting reports exist regarding the efficacy of the kits for diagnosis of COVID-19. This study aims to highlight the performance of Standard Q COVID-19® Antigen detection kit (SD Biosensor) compared with RT-qPCR in the setup of North East India.

METHODS

Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab samples were collected from consenting patients attending the flu clinic in the period from 1st July to December 31, 2020. Samples were transferred to Viral Research and Diagnostic Laboratory (VRDL) for RT-qPCR test. Antigen detection from the patient samples were undertaken using Standard Q ® COVID-19 antigen detection kit (SD Biosensor, Republic of Korea). Data were then analyzed for comparison between RT-qPCR and antigen kit results.

RESULTS

During the study period, 189 samples were collected, out of which 119 were positive by RT-qPCR. Out of 119 positive samples, calculated sensitivity and specificity of the rapid antigen kit was 63% and 100% respectively. Sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy increases in symptomatic patients as compared to asymptomatic patients. Cohen's Kappa coefficient showed a moderate association (0.6) between the kit and RT-qPCR test. The kit performed optimally at a CT value of ≤32.5 for N gene with a predicted sensitivity of 77.3% and specificity of 93.3%.

CONCLUSION

The study shows an overall acceptable sensitivity and specificity of the testing kit, with a better performance in symptomatic patients. The association of the kit result is moderate with the results obtained in RT-qPCR. In this study, the rapid antigen test kit performed optimally at N gene qRT PCR cut off value of ≤32.5.

Evaluation of the Rapid Antigen Detection Test for Diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Experience from a Centralized Isolation Site in Shanghai, China

Rapid and reliable diagnosis is important for the management of individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The rapid antigen detection test (RADT) is a rapid, inexpensive, and easy method. Several studies have reported that RADTs performed well in many countries; however, very few studies have been reported in China. In this study, we assessed the performance of the RADT (Ediagnosis COVID-19 antigen test kit). This study was conducted in a centralized isolation site in Shanghai and enrolled 716 patients with COVID-19 and 203 noninfected participants. Nasopharyngeal swabs from all participants were collected on the same day and tested using the RADT and real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR). The performance of the RADT was evaluated in different scenarios, such as threshold cycle (C_T) values, symptomatic phase, and symptoms on the day of testing. The results demonstrated that the sensitivity for patients with C_T values lower than 20 was 96.55% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.05 to 99.4). The sensitivities were 78.4% (95% CI, 69.96 to 85.05) for participants within 5 days after the first RT-PCR-positive result and 90.77% (95% CI, 80.34 to 96.19) within 5 days after symptom onset. Moreover, the sensitivity of the RADT was more than 80% for patients with symptoms on the day of testing, including fever (89.29%), cough (86.84%), stuffy nose (92.59%), runny nose (92%), sore throat (81.25%), and muscle pain (80.77%), especially for those with upper respiratory tract symptoms. The specificity of the RADT was good in all scenarios. During the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, Ediagnosis performed excellently in individuals with a higher viral load (evidenced by lower C_T values), individuals in the early symptomatic phase, and especially those with upper respiratory tract symptoms. IMPORTANCE RADTs have demonstrated excellent performance in many counties for screening SARS-CoV-2 infection, but very few studies have been conducted in China. The performance of RADTs is largely related to different real-life scenarios. In our study, the performance of the RADT was evaluated in different scenarios, such as C_T values, symptomatic phase, and symptoms on the day of testing. The results demonstrated that Ediagnosis (an RADT made in China) performed excellently for individuals with a higher viral load (evidenced by lower C_T values), individuals in the early symptomatic phase, and especially those with upper respiratory tract symptoms.

Performance characteristics of the boson rapid SARS-cov-2 antigen test card vs RT-PCR: Cross-reactivity and emerging variants

Background

SARS-CoV-2 virus has undergone several mutations on its genome, since the onset of the pandemic. Multiple variants of concern (VOC) have emerged including Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta with the more recent one being the Omicron (B.1.1.529). Specific rapid antigen tests (RADs) have been used for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. However, since the emergence of new VOCs, the performance characteristics of these RADs needs to be re-evaluated.

Objectives

The main purposes of this clinical study were to determine the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the BOSON Rapid Antigen Test compared to the gold standard real time RT-PCR and to determine the ability of the RAD to accurately depict different VOC. Additionally, the cross reactivity to other viruses and pathogen, as well as, the possible interference of non Covid-19 hospitalized patients for various causes, were investigated.

Results

A total of 623 individuals (symptomatic) were tested. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the BOSON RAD was 95.27%, 100% and 98.45% (n = 448), meeting the WHO recommended standards. Additionally, the Delta (83.33%, Ct < 34) and Omicron (100%, Ct < 26) VOC were determined with high sensitivity. Also, there was no interference from hospitalized, non-Covid 19 patients, and no cross-reactivity was detected.

Conclusions

The study showed that this RAD could rapidly identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2, including those with the new dominant Omicron VOC, with no cross reactivity from other pathogens.

Conventional and Novel Diagnostic Tools for the Diagnosis of Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants

Accurate identification at an early stage of infection is critical for effective care of any infectious disease. The "coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)" outbreak, caused by the virus "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)", corresponds to the current and global pandemic, characterized by several developing variants, many of which are classified as variants of concern (VOCs) by the "World Health Organization (WHO, Geneva, Switzerland)". The primary diagnosis of infection is made using either the molecular technique of RT-PCR, which detects parts of the viral genome's RNA, or immunodiagnostic procedures, which identify viral proteins or antibodies generated by the host. As the demand for the RT-PCR test grew fast, several inexperienced producers joined the market with innovative kits, and an increasing number of laboratories joined the diagnostic field, rendering the test results increasingly prone to mistakes. It is difficult to determine how the outcomes of one unnoticed result could influence decisions about patient quarantine and social isolation, particularly when the patients themselves are health care providers. The development of point-of-care testing helps in the rapid in-field diagnosis of the disease, and such testing can also be used as a bedside monitor for mapping the progression of the disease in critical patients. In this review, we have provided the readers with available molecular diagnostic techniques and their pitfalls in detecting emerging VOCs of SARS-CoV-2, and lastly, we have discussed AI-ML- and nanotechnology-based smart diagnostic techniques for SARS-CoV-2 detection.

The sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 rapid anti-gene test in comparison to RT-PCR test as a gold standard test

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a modern infectious disease, first identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. The etiology is via severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), in a pandemic manner. The study aimed to compare between RT-PCR and rapid anti-gene tests for COVID-19 with regard to sensitivity and specificity.

METHODS

This is a cohort hospital-based study done during the period of July to September 2020. Both rapid anti-gene test kit (SARS-CoV-2) and RT-qPCR were used for the detection of COVID-19 in suspected cases.

RESULTS

A total of 148 cases were tested using both the RT-qPCR and rapid test. Twenty-nine (19.6%) of these cases had positive results for RT-qPCR and 119 (80.4%) were negative, whereas 52 (35.1%) patients were positive to rapid anti-gene test and 96 (64.9%) of them negative. The sensitivity of the rapid test was 37.9%, the specificity was 65.5% and the accuracy was 64.44%. Rapid IgG test was positive in 47 (31.8) of cases. Although, rapid IgM test was positive in 18 (12.2%). The rapid IgG test was more sensitive than rapid IgM (Sensitivity 34.48% vs. 3.45%), but it was less specific than rapid IgM test (Specificity 68.91% vs. 85.71%).

CONCLUSION

We cannot consider rapid anti-gene test alone as a diagnostic method for COVID-19. We should also conduct RT-PCR test and other investigations like imaging CT scan of chest to confirm the diagnosis. The rapid IgG test is more sensitive than rapid IgM, but it was less specific.

Analysis of diagnostic performance and factors causing nonspecific reactions in SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen detection tests

INTRODUCTION

Early diagnosis and appropriate infection control are important to prevent the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In this study, we aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen detection (RAD) tests and the factors that cause nonspecific reactions.

METHODS

Nasopharyngeal swab specimens (n = 100), sputum specimens (n = 10), and lithium-heparin plasma samples (n = 100) were collected. We evaluated Espline®SARS-CoV-2 (Espline) and SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test that also known as STANDARD Q® (STANDARD Q), with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and Lumipulse® Presto SARS-CoV-2 Ag as reference tests. In addition, we investigated the effects of inadequate pretreatment methods and five potential causes of nonspecific reactions.

RESULTS

The sensitivities of Espline and STANDARD Q were 60% and 57%, respectively, and their specificity was 100%. It was confirmed that the judgment line for the positive insufficiently mixed specimens was faint. A false-positive result was observed with STANDARD Q when sputum was used as a specimen to investigate judgment the effect of viscosity.

CONCLUSIONS

Espline and STANDARD Q show good sensitivity for specimens with Ct values less than 25, but specimens collected within 9 days of symptom onset may still give false negatives. The test should be performed carefully, and the results should be judged comprehensively, taking into account clinical symptoms and patient background.

Diagnostic accuracy of the Panbio COVID-19 antigen rapid test device for SARS-CoV-2 detection in Kenya, 2021: A field evaluation

BACKGROUND

Accurate and timely diagnosis is essential in limiting the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The reference standard, rRT-PCR, requires specialized laboratories, costly reagents, and a long turnaround time. Antigen RDTs provide a feasible alternative to rRT-PCR since they are quick, relatively inexpensive, and do not require a laboratory. The WHO requires that Ag RDTs have a sensitivity ≥80% and specificity ≥97%.

METHODS

This evaluation was conducted at 11 health facilities in Kenya between March and July 2021. We enrolled persons of any age with respiratory symptoms and asymptomatic contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases. We collected demographic and clinical information and two nasopharyngeal specimens from each participant for Ag RDT testing and rRT-PCR. We calculated the diagnostic performance of the Panbio™ Ag RDT against the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) rRT-PCR test.

RESULTS

We evaluated the Ag RDT in 2,245 individuals where 551 (24.5%, 95% CI: 22.8-26.3%) tested positive by rRT-PCR. Overall sensitivity of the Ag RDT was 46.6% (95% CI: 42.4-50.9%), specificity 98.5% (95% CI: 97.8-99.0%), PPV 90.8% (95% CI: 86.8-93.9%) and NPV 85.0% (95% CI: 83.4-86.6%). Among symptomatic individuals, sensitivity was 60.6% (95% CI: 54.3-66.7%) and specificity was 98.1% (95% CI: 96.7-99.0%). Among asymptomatic individuals, sensitivity was 34.7% (95% CI 29.3-40.4%) and specificity was 98.7% (95% CI: 97.8-99.3%). In persons with onset of symptoms <5 days (594/876, 67.8%), sensitivity was 67.1% (95% CI: 59.2-74.3%), and 53.3% (95% CI: 40.0-66.3%) among those with onset of symptoms >7 days (157/876, 17.9%). The highest sensitivity was 87.0% (95% CI: 80.9-91.8%) in symptomatic individuals with cycle threshold (Ct) values ≤30.

CONCLUSION

The overall sensitivity and NPV of the Panbio™ Ag RDT were much lower than expected. The specificity of the Ag RDT was high and satisfactory; therefore, a positive result may not require confirmation by rRT-PCR. The kit may be useful as a rapid screening tool only for symptomatic patients in high-risk settings with limited access to rRT-PCR. A negative result should be interpreted based on clinical and epidemiological information and may require retesting by rRT-PCR.

Direct Nasal Swab for Rapid Test and Saliva as an Alternative Biological Sample for RT-PCR in COVID-19 Diagnosis

Accurate and early diagnoses are prerequisites for prompt treatment. For coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), it is even more crucial. Currently, choice of methods include rapid diagnostic tests and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) using samples mostly of respiratory origin and sometimes saliva. We evaluated two rapid diagnostic tests with three specimen types using viral transport medium (VTM) containing naso-oropharyngeal (NOP) swabs, direct nasal and direct nasopharyngeal (NP) samples from 428 prospective patients. We also performed RT-PCR for 428 NOP VTM and 316 saliva samples to compare results. The sensitivity of the SD Biosensor Standard Q COVID-19 antigen (Ag) test kit drastically raised from an average of 65.55% (NOP VTM) to 85.25% (direct nasal samples), while RT-PCR was the gold standard. For the CareStart kit, the sensitivity was almost similar for direct NP swabs; the average was 84.57%. The specificities were ≥95% for both SD Biosensor Standard Q and CareStart COVID-19 Ag tests in all platforms. The kits were also able to detect patients with different variants as well. Alternatively, RT-PCR results from saliva and NOP VTM samples showed high sensitivities of 96.45% and 95.48% with respect to each other as standard. The overall results demonstrated high performance of the rapid tests, indicating the suitability for regular surveillance at clinical facilities when using direct nasal or direct NP samples rather than NOP VTM. Additionally, the analysis also signifies not showed that RT-PCR of saliva can be used as an choice of method to RT-PCR of NOP VTM, providing an easier, non-invasive sample collection method. IMPORTANCE There are several methods for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and the choice of methods depends mostly on the resources and level of sensitivity required by the user and health care providers. Still, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has been chosen as the best method using direct naso-oropharyngeal swabs. There are also other methods of fast detection, such as rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), which offer result within 15 to 20 min and have become quite popular for self-testing and in the clinical setting. The major drawback of the currently used RT-PCR method is compliance, as it may cause irritation, and patients often refuse to test in such a way. RDTs, although inexpensive, suffer from low sensitivity due to technical issues. In this article, we propose saliva as a noninvasive source for RT-PCR samples and evaluate various specimen types at different times after infection for the best possible output from COVID-19 rapid tests.

Low mortality in vaccinated immunocompromised haematology patients infected with SARS‐CoV ‐2

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection in patients with haematological neoplasms has been associated with increased mortality; however, many studies in this patient group were reported early in the pandemic. The authors evaluated outcomes of COVID-19 infection in patients with haematological conditions following widespread vaccination, newer viral variants and increasingly effective antiviral therapies. A 4% mortality rate was found and contemporary risk factors for hospitalisation including older age, nonvaccination or partial COVID-19 vaccination status and infection with non-Omicron strain were identified.

The Implementation and Role of Antigen Rapid Test for COVID-19 in Hemodialysis Units

As we move into the third year with COVID-19, many countries have attempted to manage the disease as an endemic. However, this is limited by the disease's morbidity and mortality, the emergence of new strains, and the effectiveness of the vaccine. This brief report describes, evaluates, and discusses the implementation of regular antigen rapid tests (ARTs) for COVID-19 in hemodialysis units. We introduced ARTs during the surge in our hemodialysis units. As compliance with the test was mandatory by regulatory requirements, we surveyed patients and caregivers to measure their acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the ART's implementation. Acceptability measured confidence and level of comfort when performing ART tests, while appropriateness measured the perception of the necessity of ARTs, safety in the dialysis unit with the implementation of ARTs, and understanding using a Likert scale. Feasibility measured the perception of the timely start of dialysis treatment and the convenience of the test. Our survey found that ARTs were acceptable to 98% of patients and caregivers, with the majority reporting no discomfort. The majority of the patients agreed that ARTs were appropriate and feasible. We reported successful ART implementation in a healthcare setting with no false-positive or transmission within the unit during this period. Nevertheless, the long-term implementation outcome will require further evaluation.

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.

Laboratory and field evaluation of the STANDARD Q and Panbio™ SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid test in Namibia using nasopharyngeal samples

BACKGROUND

As new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern emerge, there is a need to scale up testing to minimize transmission of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Many countries especially those in the developing world continue to struggle with scaling up reverse transcriptase polymerase reaction (RT-PCR) to detect SARS-CoV-2 due to scarcity of resources. Alternatives such as antigen rapid diagnostics tests (Ag-RDTs) may provide a solution to enable countries scale up testing.

METHODS

In this study, we evaluated the Panbio™ and STANDARD Q Ag-RDTs in the laboratory using 80 COVID-19 RT-PCR confirmed and 80 negative nasopharyngeal swabs. The STANDARD Q was further evaluated in the field on 112 symptomatic and 61 asymptomatic participants.

RESULTS

For the laboratory evaluation, both tests had a sensitivity above 80% (Panbio™ = 86% vs STANDARD Q = 88%). The specificity of the Panbio™ was 100%, while that of the STANDARD Q was 99%. When evaluated in the field, the STANDARD Q maintained a high specificity of 99%, however the sensitivity was reduced to 56%.

CONCLUSION

Using Ag-RDTs in low resource settings will be helpful in scaling-up SARS-CoV-2 testing, however, negative results should be confirmed by RT-PCR where possible to rule out COVID-19 infection.

The Agreement Between Reverse Transcriptase-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) and Rapid Antigen Test (RAT) in Diagnosing COVID-19

Background

False-negative results derived from RT-PCR tests for diagnosing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have raised questions about whether to consider them the gold standard for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Using an imperfect gold standard to assess other diagnostic tests would never let the other tests show better diagnostic performance. The best strategy in such cases is to do an agreement analysis, and this study aims to estimate the agreement between real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and rapid antigen test (RAT) for COVID-19 detection.

Methods

A retrospective study was done using paired data of individuals tested for COVID-19, both by RT-PCR and RAT, obtained from the virology laboratory of Government Bundelkhand Medical College, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, India. A sample size of 93 was calculated, and the data were abstracted in a data abstraction sheet. Variables included were results of RT-PCR and RAT, age, gender, presence of symptoms, test kit used, and the time duration between sampling for RT-PCR and RAT. Apart from descriptive statistics, keeping in mind the binary outcome of RT-PCR and RAT, Cohen’s kappa was calculated for agreement analysis. A p-value of <0.05 was considered significant.

Results

The data on 100 participants suspected to be infected with COVID-19 (58 male and 42 female) with a mean age of 39.8 (±19.0) years were analysed. The number of discordant pairs was eight. Cohen’s kappa showed substantial agreement between RT-PCR and RAT, κ=0.646, (95% CI 0.420 to 0.871), p<0.001.

Conclusion

Considering the ease of conducting RAT with quick results and substantial agreement with RT-PCR, RAT could be a better choice in detecting SARS-CoV-2 and, hence, COVID-19 disease on a large scale.

Analytical Sensitivity of Eight Different SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-Detecting Rapid Tests for Omicron-BA.1 Variant

The emergence of each novel SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern (VOC) requires investigation of its potential impact on the performance of diagnostic tests in use, including antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs). Although anecdotal reports have been circulating that the newly emerged Omicron-BA.1 variant is in principle detectable by Ag-RDTs, few data on sensitivity are available. We have performed (i) analytical sensitivity testing with cultured virus in eight Ag-RDTs and (ii) retrospective testing in duplicates with clinical samples from vaccinated individuals with Omicron-BA.1 (n = 59) or Delta (n = 54) breakthrough infection on seven Ag-RDTs. Overall, in our analytical study we have found heterogenicity between Ag-RDTs for detecting Omicron-BA.1. When using cultured virus, we observed a trend toward lower endpoint sensitivity for Omicron-BA.1 detection than for earlier circulating SARS-CoV-2 and the other VOCs. In our retrospective study, the detection of Delta and Omicron-BA.1 was assessed in a comparable set of stored clinical samples using seven Ag-RDTs. Four hundred ninety-seven of all 826 tests (60.17%) performed on Omicron-BA.1 samples were positive, compared to 489/756 (64.68%) for Delta samples. In the analytical study, the sensitivity for both Omicron-BA.1 and Delta between the Ag-RDTs was variable. All seven Ag-RDTs showed comparable sensitivities to detect Omicron-BA.1 and Delta in the retrospective study. IMPORTANCE Sensitivity for detecting Omicron-BA.1 shows high heterogenicity between Ag-RDTs, necessitating a careful consideration when using these tests to guide infection prevention measures. Analytical and retrospective testing is a proxy and timely solution to generate rapid performance data, but it is not a replacement for clinical evaluations, which are urgently needed. Biological and technical reasons for detection failure by some Ag-RDTs need to be further investigated.

Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of a Rapid Antigen Test with Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Among Patients Diagnosed with COVID-19 at Selected Hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Background

When faced with a public health problem such as the COVID-19 pandemic, devising a test with an accurate and rapid diagnostic capacity is critical to contain the disease. We compared the diagnostic performance of a rapid antigen test in comparison with a reference method, namely a real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay.

Methods

We enrolled patients with confirmed COVID-19 from two selected hospital in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, between January and November 2021. We assessed the performance of the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag Kit (SD Biosensor, Republic of Korea) in 200 nasopharyngeal and nasal swab samples.

Results

Out of the 200 samples utilized for the diagnostic performance evaluation, equal proportion of the samples were confirmed positive and negative for SARS-CoV-2 based on RT-PCR. Of the 100 confirmed positive cases, 95 showed positive results with the rapid antigen test, yielding a sensitivity of 95% (95% confidence interval [CI] 88.7-98.4%). Of the 100 confirmed negative cases, there were three false-positive results, yielding a specificity of 97% (95% CI 91.5-99.4%). The sensitivity of the rapid antigen test was higher for samples with an RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value ≤25 compared with samples with a higher Ct value.

Conclusion

The finding demonstrated that the detection capacity of the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag Test meets the requirements set by the Ministry of Health Ethiopia. The high sensitivity and specificity of the test device indicate the possibility of using it for diagnostic and clinical purposes in resource-constrained settings such as Ethiopia.

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.

Evaluation of the Boson Rapid Ag Test vs RT–PCR for use as a self–testing platform

The gold standard test available for detecting COVID–19 patients is Real Time RT–PCR. However, this method is expensive, needing special equipment and skilled laboratory staff. Recently, less expensive antigen tests have become available, that could easily and rapidly identify new COVID–19 cases. Our objective was to evaluate the Boson Rapid Antigen Test Card versus the RT–rtPCR, using samples taken both by laymen (self–testing) and professionals. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy rates were, 98.18%, 100.00%, and 99.28%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 100.00% and 98.82%, respectively. The detection rate for asymptomatic patients was 90.48%, and detection rate for Ct values ≥30 was 91.67%. Our results indicate a high coincidence rate between the Boson and the referencing RT–rtPCR method, meeting the performance standards recommended by the WHO. Therefore, this test could facilitate a fast self–testing screening method, for the detection of infected individuals.

Evaluation of Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection as a Single Diagnostic Test and When Combined with C-Reactive Protein Level or Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio in Suspected COVID-19 Subjects

Background Rapid antigen detection tests of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) play a crucial role in the control of the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Data about the real diagnostic performance of such tests is still insufficient and hence their evaluation is of high priority.

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of BIOCREDIT COVID-19 antigen test alone and in combination with either C-reactive protein (CRP) or neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in comparison to real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Additionally, we investigated the selection criteria of the suspect for best performance of the antigen test.

Materials and Methods Paired nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs were collected from 200 suspected COVID-19 subjects for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by RT-qPCR and for antigen detection by BIOCREDIT test. Simultaneously, for all suspect, clinical presentations were recorded as well as CRP level and NLR were determined.

Results Among 200 tested NP swabs, 125 (62.5%) were RT-PCR positive. Overall sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of BIOCREDIT test were 34.4, 98.7, and 58.5%, respectively. Sensitivity of the BIOCREDIT test was higher in COVID-19 suspect, with high viral load (100%), severely ill (56.2%), with fever alone (40%), elevated CRP (41.1%), and high NLR (36.2%). In combination with NLR or CRP, sensitivity of BIOCREDIT test increased to 89.4 and 81.6%, respectively, while its specificity decreased to 67 and 59%, respectively.

Conclusion The overall low sensitivity of BIOCREDIT/COVID-19 antigen test does not permit its use as a single diagnostic test for COVID-19. However, its use should be restricted only if it is combined with either CRP or NLR in suspect with certain criteria.

Performance of Antigen Detection Tests for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) initiated global health care challenges such as the necessity for new diagnostic tests. Diagnosis by real-time PCR remains the gold-standard method, yet economical and technical issues prohibit its use in points of care (POC) or for repetitive tests in populations. A lot of effort has been exerted in developing, using, and validating antigen-based tests (ATs). Since individual studies focus on few methodological aspects of ATs, a comparison of different tests is needed. Herein, we perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from articles in PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv. The bivariate method for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests pooling sensitivities and specificities was used. Most of the AT types for SARS-CoV-2 were lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA), fluorescence immunoassays (FIA), and chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassays (CLEIA). We identified 235 articles containing data from 220,049 individuals. All ATs using nasopharyngeal samples show better performance than those with throat saliva (72% compared to 40%). Moreover, the rapid methods LFIA and FIA show about 10% lower sensitivity compared to the laboratory-based CLEIA method (72% compared to 82%). In addition, rapid ATs show higher sensitivity in symptomatic patients compared to asymptomatic patients, suggesting that viral load is a crucial parameter for ATs performed in POCs. Finally, all methods perform with very high specificity, reaching around 99%. LFIA tests, though with moderate sensitivity, appear as the most attractive method for use in POCs and for performing seroprevalence studies.

Screening for SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Students at the Medical University of Warsaw, Poland Between November 15 and December 10, 2021 Using a Single Lateral Flow Test, the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test

BACKGROUND Education was significantly affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Online learning affects the quality of learning as well as the mental health status of students. Regular screening for COVID-19 may be crucial to provide practical classes during the pandemic. The present study aimed to analyze the usefulness of rapid antigen tests for on-campus COVID-19 screening in real-life conditions at a medical university in Poland. MATERIAL AND METHODS This screening study was carried out among students attending practical classes at the Medical University of Warsaw, Poland between November 15 and December 10, 2021, during which a series of rapid antigen tests (Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device, nasal) were performed by healthcare professionals (nurses). Out of 104 student groups selected for the study (n=1847 students), 423 individuals from 63 student groups were tested at least once (22.9% response rate). A total of 2295 samples were collected. RESULTS Among the participants, 3.4% (n=15) had positive test results. Out of 15 COVID-19 cases, 14 were vaccinated. At least 1 positive COVID-19 case was detected in 8 student groups. In 3 student groups, we observed ≥2 infections that occurred at intervals, which may suggest student-to-student SARS-CoV-2 transmission. CONCLUSIONS This study produced real-world data from a COVID-19 screening study and confirmed the usefulness of the rapid antigen test (Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device nasal) for on-campus COVID-19 screening prior to practical classes. Maintaining a high percentage of participants is crucial to ensuring the effectiveness of on-campus COVID-19 screening.

Rapid antigen testing by community health workers for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Dhaka, Bangladesh: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic performance and feasibility of rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 detection in low-income communities.

DESIGN

We conducted a cross-sectional community-based diagnostic accuracy study. Community health workers, who were trained and supervised by medical technicians, performed rapid antigen tests on symptomatic individuals, and up to two additional household members in their households and diagnostic results were calibrated against the gold standard RT-PCR.

SETTING

Low-income communities in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

PARTICIPANTS

Between 19 May 2021 and 11 July 2021, 1240 nasal and saliva samples were collected from symptomatic individuals and 993 samples from additional household members (up to two from one household).

RESULTS

The sensitivity of rapid antigen tests was 0.68 on nasal samples (95% CI 0.62 to 0.73) and 0.41 on saliva (95% CI 0.35 to 0.46), with specificity also higher on nasal samples (0.98, 95% CI 0.97 to 0.99) than saliva (0.87, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.90). Testing up to two additional household members increased sensitivity to 0.71 on nasal samples (95% CI 0.65 to 0.76), but reduced specificity (0.96, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.97). Sensitivity on saliva rose to 0.48 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.54) with two additional household members tested but remained lower than sensitivity on nasal samples. During the study period, testing in these low-income communities increased fourfold through the mobilisation of community health workers for sample collection.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid antigen testing on nasal swabs can be effectively performed by community health workers yielding equivalent sensitivity and specificity to the literature. Household testing by community health workers in low-resource settings is an inexpensive approach that can increase testing capacity, accessibility and the effectiveness of control measures through immediately actionable results.

Positivity of Rapid Antigen Testing for SARS-CoV-2 With Serial Followed-up Nasopharyngeal Swabs in Hospitalized Patients due to COVID-19

Despite the accuracy of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs), rapid antigen tests (RATs) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 are widely used as point-of-care tests. A total of 282 pairs of reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction and Standard Q COVID-19 Ag tests were serially conducted for 68 patients every 3-4 days until their discharge. Through a field evaluation of RATs using direct nasopharyngeal swabs, the sensitivities were 84.6% and 87.3% for E and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) genes, respectively, for specimens with cycle thresholds (Cts) < 25. The Ct values of E and RdRp genes for 95% detection rates by RATs were 16.9 and 18.1, respectively. The sensitivity of RAT was 48.4% after the onset of symptoms, which was not sufficient. RAT positivity gradually decreased with increased time after symptom onset and had continuously lower sensitivity than NAATs.

Diagnostic Performance of Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests, Chest Computed Tomography, and Lung Point-of-Care-Ultrasonography for SARS-CoV-2 Compared with RT-PCR Testing: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: The comparative performance of various diagnostic methods for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the comparison of the 3 index test performances of rapid antigen diagnostic tests (RDTs), chest computed tomography (CT), and lung point-of-care-ultrasonography (US) with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), the reference standard, to provide more evidence-based data on the appropriate use of these index tests. (2) Methods: We retrieved data from electronic literature searches of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE from 1 January 2020, to 1 April 2021. Diagnostic performance was examined using bivariate random-effects diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) models. (3) Results: Of the 3992 studies identified in our search, 118 including 69,445 participants met our selection criteria. Among these, 69 RDT, 38 CT, and 15 US studies in the pairwise meta-analysis were included for DTA with NMA. CT and US had high sensitivity of 0.852 (95% credible interval (CrI), 0.791-0.914) and 0.879 (95% CrI, 0.784-0.973), respectively. RDT had high specificity, 0.978 (95% CrI, 0.960-0.996). In accuracy assessment, RDT and CT had a relatively higher than US. However, there was no significant difference in accuracy between the 3 index tests. (4) Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that, compared with the reference standard RT-PCR, the 3 index tests (RDTs, chest CT, and lung US) had similar and complementary performances for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. To manage and control COVID-19 effectively, future large-scale prospective studies could be used to obtain an optimal timely diagnostic process that identifies the condition of the patient accurately.

Accuracy of rapid point-of-care antigen-based diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression analyzing influencing factors

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive information about the accuracy of antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is essential to guide public health decision makers in choosing the best tests and testing policies. In August 2021, we published a systematic review and meta-analysis about the accuracy of Ag-RDTs. We now update this work and analyze the factors influencing test sensitivity in further detail.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched preprint and peer-reviewed databases for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 until August 31, 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing as a reference. To evaluate factors influencing test sensitivity, we performed 3 different analyses using multivariable mixed-effects meta-regression models. We included 194 studies with 221,878 Ag-RDTs performed. Overall, the pooled estimates of Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 72.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.8 to 74.2) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6 to 99.1). When manufacturer instructions were followed, sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.7 to 78.7). Sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values (97.9% [95% CI 96.9 to 98.9] and 90.6% [95% CI 88.3 to 93.0] for Ct-values <20 and <25, compared to 54.4% [95% CI 47.3 to 61.5] and 18.7% [95% CI 13.9 to 23.4] for Ct-values ≥25 and ≥30) and was estimated to increase by 2.9 percentage points (95% CI 1.7 to 4.0) for every unit decrease in mean Ct-value when adjusting for testing procedure and patients' symptom status. Concordantly, we found the mean Ct-value to be lower for true positive (22.2 [95% CI 21.5 to 22.8]) compared to false negative (30.4 [95% CI 29.7 to 31.1]) results. Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (81.9% [95% CI 77.7 to 85.5]) compared to testing after 1 week (51.8%, 95% CI 41.5 to 61.9). Similarly, sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (76.2% [95% CI 73.3 to 78.9]) compared to asymptomatic (56.8% [95% CI 50.9 to 62.4]) persons. However, both effects were mainly driven by the Ct-value of the sample. With regards to sample type, highest sensitivity was found for nasopharyngeal (NP) and combined NP/oropharyngeal samples (70.8% [95% CI 68.3 to 73.2]), as well as in anterior nasal/mid-turbinate samples (77.3% [95% CI 73.0 to 81.0]). Our analysis was limited by the included studies' heterogeneity in viral load assessment and sample origination.

CONCLUSIONS

Ag-RDTs detect most of the individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2, and almost all (>90%) when high viral loads are present. With viral load, as estimated by Ct-value, being the most influential factor on their sensitivity, they are especially useful to detect persons with high viral load who are most likely to transmit the virus. To further quantify the effects of other factors influencing test sensitivity, standardization of clinical accuracy studies and access to patient level Ct-values and duration of symptoms are needed.

Digital Workout Versus Team Training: The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Athletes

The aim of the study was to assess the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on sport practice and to identify measures adopted by individuals and sports organizations to allow a safe return to community sports. An electronic survey was launched worldwide in June 2020 in the German and English languages. The questionnaire collected anonymous data on sporting activity before, during, and after pandemic-induced confinement. Participants classified themselves as either recreational, competitive, or professional sports level athletes. A total of 1336 adults (30.5±11.7 years; 54.0% women) participated in the survey; 68.5% were active athletes, 10.1% coaches, 2.1% officials and 4.3% related medical staff, 3.6% had another function, and 11.4% indicated no regular sports activity. Most participants practiced their sport in Europe (93.8%); the majority (61.0%) was amateur athletes. During confinement, 15.7% could perform their main sport unrestricted, 43.5% stated a reduced amount of time spent on sporting activities, 46.4% a reduced intensity level. Most participants (77.5%) were neither aware of screening measures nor of guidelines for dealing with infected athletes (80.0%) or for return to sports after a coronavirus infection (88.6%). Preventive measures mentioned included basic hygiene, measures to reduce personal contacts or virus transmission, or to improve traceability of infections. During confinement, a higher age (p=0.004) and training in a club setting (p<0.001) were associated with reduced sporting activity, while the availability of online training (p=0.030 ) was linked to both increased extent and intensity levels. A lower age (p=0.001) and recreational sports level (p=0.005) were associated with decreased activity after confinement. Although isolation can be necessary to protect public health, it alters the amount and intensity of physical activity.

Measuring the Possibility of Middle Ear Discharge for COVID-19 Test Material

The COVID-19 pandemic is still ongoing, and new variants continue to emerge. Various examination methods and sampling specimens are continuously being developed and published. The standard for sampling is in the nasopharynx. However, in children, this is often uncomfortable and at risk of eliciting complications. Therefore, it is necessary to look for other alternative sampling sites such as fluid from the middle ear. Scientific evidence shows that the middle ear can be a place for the attachment and growth of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Currently, to the best of the author's knowledge, there have been no publications on middle ear discharge as a sample for the determination of the diagnosis of COVID-19. Based on this, the authors would like to explore the possibility of middle ear discharge for COVID-19 test material. A narrative review on the use of middle ear discharge as a potential diagnostic specimen for COVID-19 was conducted. The searches were conducted in the PubMed and ProQuest databases.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19 Detection: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

Introduction

Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to detect SARS-CoV-2 is time-consuming and sometimes not feasible in developing nations. Rapid antigen test (RAT) could decrease the load of diagnosis. However, the efficacy of RAT is yet to be investigated comprehensively. Thus, the current systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of RAT against RT-PCR methods as the reference standard.

Methods

We searched the MEDLINE/Pubmed and Embase databases for the relevant records. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. Diagnostic accuracy measures [i.e., sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratios (PLR), negative likelihood ratios (NLR), and the area under the curve (AUC)] were pooled with a random-effects model. All statistical analyses were performed with Meta-DiSc (Version 1.4, Cochrane Colloquium, Barcelona, Spain).

Results

After reviewing retrieved records, we identified 60 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the rapid antigen tests against the reference test (the real-time PCR) were 69% (95% CI: 68–70) and 99% (95% CI: 99–99). The PLR, NLR, DOR and the AUC estimates were found to be 72 (95% CI: 44–119), 0.30 (95% CI: 0.26–0.36), 316 (95% CI: 167–590) and 97%, respectively.

Conclusion

The present study indicated that using RAT kits is primarily recommended for the early detection of patients suspected of having COVID-19, particularly in countries with limited resources and laboratory equipment. However, the negative RAT samples may need to be confirmed using molecular tests, mainly when the symptoms of COVID-19 are present.

Fluorescent bioassay for SARS-CoV-2 detection using polypyrene-g-poly(ε-caprolactone) prepared by simultaneous photoinduced step-growth and ring-opening polymerizations

The construction of a rapid and easy immunofluorescence bioassay for SARS-CoV-2 detection is described. We report for the first time a novel one-pot synthetic approach for simultaneous photoinduced step-growth polymerization of pyrene (Py) and ring-opening polymerization of ε-caprolactone (PCL) to produce a graft fluorescent copolymer PPy-g-PCL that was conjugated to SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies using EDC/NHS chemistry. The synthesis steps and conjugation products were fully characterized using standard spectral analysis. Next, the PPy-g-PCL was used for the construction of a dot-blot assay which was calibrated for applications to human nasopharyngeal samples. The analytical features of the proposed sensor showed a detection range of 6.03–8.7 LOG viral copy mL⁻¹ (Ct Scores: 8–25), the limit of detection (LOD), and quantification (LOQ) of 1.84 and 6.16 LOG viral copy mL⁻¹, respectively. The repeatability and reproducibility of the platform had a coefficient of variation (CV) ranging between 1.2 and 5.9%. The fluorescence-based dot-blot assay was tested with human samples. Significant differences were observed between the fluorescence intensity of the negative and positive samples, with an overall correct response of 93.33%. The assay demonstrated a high correlation with RT-PCR data. This strategy opens new insights into simplified synthesis procedures of the reporter molecules and their high potential sensing and diagnosis applications.

Rapid comparative evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care antigen tests

Purpose

The objective of this study was to develop a scalable approach for direct comparison of the analytical sensitivities of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antigen point-of-care tests (AgPOCTs) to rapidly identify poor-performing products.

Methods

We present a methodology for quick assessment of the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 AgPOCTs suitable for quality evaluation of many different products. We established reference samples with high, medium, and low SARS-CoV-2 viral loads along with a SARS-CoV-2 negative control sample. Test samples were used to semi-quantitatively assess the analytical sensitivities of 32 different commercial AgPOCTs in a head-to-head comparison.

Results

Among 32 SARS-CoV-2 AgPOCTs tested, we observe sensitivity differences across a broad range of viral loads (9.8 × 10⁸ to 1.8 × 10⁵ SARS-CoV-2 genome copies per ml). 23 AgPOCTs detected the Ct25 test sample (1.6 × 10⁶ copies/ml), while only five tests detected the Ct28 test sample (1.8 × 10⁵ copies/ml). In the low-range of analytical sensitivity, we found three saliva spit tests only delivering positive results for the Ct21 sample (2.7 × 10⁷ copies/ml). Comparison with published data supports our AgPOCT ranking. Importantly, we identified an AgPOCT widely offered, which did not reliably recognize the sample with the highest viral load (Ct16 test sample with 9.8 × 10⁸ copies/ml) leading to serious doubts about its usefulness in SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics.

Conclusion

The results show that the rapid sensitivity assessment procedure presented here provides useful estimations on the analytical sensitivities of 32 AgPOCTs and identified a widely-spread AgPOCT with concerningly low sensitivity.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s15010-022-01810-1.

Large-Scale SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Testing With Real-World Specimens

Real-world data are needed to establish SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing (RAT) as an effective and reliable approach for SARS-CoV-2 screening. This study included 1,952,931 individuals who provided upper respiratory specimens during SARS-CoV-2 screening at CityMD urgent care locations in the New York metropolitan area from October 2020 to March 2021. Positive and negative results, as determined by the BD Veritor™ System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Veritor), were obtained for all individuals, with reflex reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing performed on a case-by-case basis, per standard of care. Using verification bias adjustment, two alternative model assumptions were utilized for RAT results with missing reflex RT-PCR results. The worst antigen diagnostic performance estimates asserted that missing RT-PCR results would show a distribution similar to those RT-PCR results actually obtained, based on symptom category. The best antigen diagnostic performance estimates asserted that individuals without RT-PCR results had a clinical presentation consistent with RAT results, and, therefore, missing RT-PCR results would agree with RAT results. For patients with symptoms or high-risk exposure, 25.3% (n = 86,811/343,253) of RAT results were positive; vs. 3.4% (n = 53,046/1,559,733) positive for asymptomatic individuals without high-risk exposure. Reflex RT-PCR results were obtained from 46.3% (n = 158,836/343,253) and 13.8% (n = 215,708/1,559,733) of symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, respectively. RT-PCR confirmed 94.4% (4,265/4,518) of positive and 90.6% (139,759/154,318) of negative RAT results in symptomatic individuals; and confirmed 83.4% (6,693/8,024) of positive and 95.3% (197,955/207,684) of negative RAT results in asymptomatic individuals. Applied assumptions for missing reflex RT-PCR results led to worst performance sensitivity estimates of 77.2 and 38.5% in the symptomatic and asymptomatic populations, respectively; assumptions for best performance estimates led to sensitivity values of 85.6 and 84.2%, respectively. Specificity values, regardless of assumptions or symptom category, ranged from 97.9-99.9%. At 10% SARS-CoV-2 prevalence, RAT positive predictive value was 86.9 and 99.0% for worst and best performance estimates across the total population, respectively; negative predictive values were >95% regardless of the applied assumption. Veritor test performance was consistent with that listed in the manufacturer instructions for use for symptomatic individuals. Real-world evidence should be gathered on RATs to support their efficacy as SARS-CoV-2 persists.

Rapid screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection: Good performance of nasopharyngeal and Nasal Mid-Turbinate swab for antigen detection among symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals

Although the nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of the SARS-CoV-2 infection, the Nasal Mid-Turbinate swab (NMTS) is often used due to its higher tolerance among patients. We compared the diagnostic performance of the NPS and the NMTS for the Panbio™ COVID-19 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT). Two hundred and forty-three individuals were swabbed three times by healthcare professionals: a NMTS and a NPS specimen for the Ag-RDT and an oropharyngeal swab for real time RT-PCR. Forty-nine participants were RNA-SARS-CoV-2 positive by real time RT-PCR: 45 and 40 were positive by the Ag-RDT with NPS and NMTS, respectively. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 91.8% (95% CI: 83.2–100.0) and 99.5% (95% CI: 98.2–100.0) for Ag-RDT with NPS, and 81.6% (95% CI: 69.8–93.5) and 100.0% (95% CI: 99.7–100.0) for the Ag-RDT with NMTS. The Cohen’s kappa index was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.85–0.98). Among asymptomatic individuals, the Ag-RDT with both sampling techniques showed a high sensitivity [100.0% (95% CI: 95.5–100.0) with NPS; 90.9% (95% CI: 69.4–100.0) with NMTS], while the performance of the test decreased in samples with Ct≥ 30 and in patients tested after the first 7 days from symptom onset. Although the NMTS yielded a lower sensitivity compared to NPS, it might be considered a reliable alternative, as it presents greater adherence among patients, enabling scaling of antigen testing strategies, particularly in countries with under-resourced health systems.

SERS-based dual-mode DNA aptasensors for rapid classification of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/H1N1 infection

We developed a dual-mode surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS)-based aptasensor that can accurately diagnose and distinguish severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and influenza A/H1N1 at the same time. Herein, DNA aptamers that selectively bind to SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/H1N1 were immobilized together on Au nanopopcorn substrate. Raman reporters (Cy3 and RRX), attached to the terminal of DNA aptamers, could generate strong SERS signals in the nanogap of the Au nanopopcorn substrate. Additionally, the internal standard Raman reporter (4-MBA) was immobilized on the Au nanopopcorn substrate along with aptamer DNAs to reduce errors caused by changes in the measurement environment. When SARS-CoV-2 or influenza A virus approaches the Au nanopopcorn substrate, the corresponding DNA aptamer selectively detaches from the substrate due to the significant binding affinity between the corresponding DNA aptamer and the virus. As a result, the related SERS intensity decreases with increasing target virus concentration. Thus, it is possible to determine whether a suspected patient is infected with SARS-CoV-2 or influenza A using this SERS-based DNA aptasensor. Furthermore, this sensor enables a quantitative evaluation of the target virus concentration with high sensitivity without being affected by cross-reactivity. Therefore, this SERS-based diagnostic platform is considered a conceptually new diagnostic tool that rapidly discriminates against these two respiratory diseases to prevent their spread.

Rapid electrochemical immunodetection of SARS-CoV-2 using a pseudo-typed vesicular stomatitis virus model

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for reliable and accurate diagnostic tools that provide quantitative results at the point of care. Real-time RT-PCR requires large laboratories, a skilled workforce, complex and costly equipment, and labor-intensive sample processing. Despite tremendous efforts, scaling up RT-PCR tests is seemingly unattainable. To date, hundreds of millions of COVID-19 tests have been performed globally, but the demand for timely, accurate testing continues to outstrip supply. Antigen-based rapid diagnostic testing is emerging as an alternative to RT-PCR. However, the performance of these tests, namely their sensitivity, is still inadequate. To overcome the limitations of currently employed diagnostic tests, new tools that are both sensitive and scalable are urgently needed. We have developed a miniaturized electrochemical biosensor based on the integration of specific monoclonal antibodies with a biochip and a measurement platform, and applied it in the detection of Spike S1 protein, the binding protein of SARS-CoV-2. Using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy, quantitative detection of sub-nanomolar concentrations of Spike S1 was demonstrated, exhibiting a broad detection range. To demonstrate the applicability of the biosensor, we have further developed a SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus based on Spike protein-pseudo-typed VSV platform. Specific detection of different concentrations of pseudovirus particles was feasible in <30 min. This new tool may largely contribute to the fight against COVID-19 by enabling intensive testing to be performed and alleviating most of the hurdles that plague current diagnostics.

Development, Analytical, and Clinical Evaluation of Rapid Immunochromatographic Antigen Test for SARS-CoV-2 Variants Detection

The antigen rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) is a useful diagnostic tool for the detection and management of COVID-19 spread. Global SARS-CoV-2 variant outbreaks have highlighted the need for a test capable of detecting SARS-CoV-2 variants with high sensitivity and a low limit of detection. This study aimed to develop and evaluate, both analytically and clinically, an antigen rapid diagnostic test (the KestrelTM COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test) for professional use. A lateral flow immunoassay-based diagnostic test kit was developed, and various aspects of its analytical performance were evaluated. This test kit was clinically evaluated by two independent laboratories and showed closely related results of 96.49% and 98.33% of sensitivity, 100% and 100% of specificity, and 99.01% and 99.44% of accuracy, respectively. A limit of detection was observed at values as low as 0.156 ng/mL for recombinant SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein. Moreover, the test kit successfully detected the recombinant SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (NP) of wild-type, Alpha-, Beta-, Gamma-, Delta-, Epsilon-, Kappa-, and Omicron-variants as positive results. Therefore, the KestrelTM COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test may have potential use for effective COVID-19 screening, surveillance, and infection control in a variety of global SARS-CoV-2 variant outbreaks.

Flu@home: The comparative accuracy of an at-home influenza rapid diagnostic test, using a pre-positioned test kit, mobile app, mail-in reference sample, and symptom-based testing trigger

At-home testing with rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for respiratory viruses could facilitate early diagnosis, guide patient care, and prevent transmission. Such RDTs are best used near the onset of illness when viral load is highest and clinical action will be most impactful, which may be achieved by at-home testing. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the QuickVue Influenza A + B RDT in an at-home setting. A convenience sample of 5,229 individuals who were engaged with an on-line health research platform were prospectively recruited throughout the United States. "flu@home" test kits containing a QuickVue RDT and reference sample collection and shipping materials were pre-positioned with participants at the beginning of the study. Participants responded to daily symptom surveys. If they reported experiencing cough along with aches, fever, chills, and/or sweats, they used their flu@home kit following instructions on a mobile app and indicated what lines they saw on the RDT. Of the 976 participants who met criteria to use their self-collection kit and completed study procedures, 202 (20.7%) were positive for influenza by qPCR. The RDT had a sensitivity of 28% (95% CI: 21-36) and specificity of 99% (98-99) for influenza A, and 32% (95% CI: 20-46) and 99% (95% CI: 98-99), for influenza B. Our results support the concept of app-supported, pre-positioned at-home RDT kits using symptom-based triggers, although it cannot be recommended with the RDT used in this study. Further research is needed to determine ways to improve the accuracy and utility of home-based testing for influenza.

Examining the role of COVID-19 testing availability on intention to isolate: A Randomized hypothetical scenario

BACKGROUND

Little information exists on how COVID-19 testing influences intentions to engage in risky behavior. Understanding the behavioral effects of diagnostic testing may highlight the role of adequate testing on controlling viral transmission. In order to evaluate these effects, simulated scenarios were conducted evaluating participant intentions to self-isolate based on COVID-19 diagnostic testing availability and results.

METHODS

Participants from the United States were recruited through an online survey platform (Amazon Mechanical Turk) and randomized to one of three hypothetical scenarios. Each scenario asked participants to imagine having symptoms consistent with COVID-19 along with a clinical diagnosis from their physician. However, scenarios differed in either testing availability (testing available v. unavailable) or testing result (positive v. negative test). The primary outcome was intention to engage in high-risk COVID-19 behaviors, measured using an 11-item mean score (range 1-7) that was pre-registered prior to data collection. Multi-variable linear regression was used to compare the mean composite scores between conditions. The randomized survey was conducted between July 23rd to July 29th, 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 1400 participants were recruited through a national, online, opt-in survey. Out of 1194 respondents (41.6% male, 58.4% female) with a median age of 38.5 years, participants who had no testing available in their clinical scenario showed significantly greater intentions to engage in behavior facilitating COVID-19 transmission compared to those who received a positive confirmatory test result scenario (mean absolute difference (SE): 0.14 (0.06), P = 0.016), equating to an 11.1% increase in mean score risky behavior intentions. Intention to engage in behaviors that can spread COVID-19 were also positively associated with male gender, poor health status, and Republican party affiliation.

CONCLUSION

Testing availability appears to play an independent role in influencing behaviors facilitating COVID-19 transmission. Such findings shed light on the possible negative externalities of testing unavailability.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Effect of Availability of COVID-19 Testing on Choice to Isolate and Socially Distance, NCT04459520, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04459520.

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.

Development and evaluation of a low cost IgG ELISA test based in RBD protein for COVID-19

Serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 have proven to be important tools to fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. These serological tests can be used in low-income and remote areas for patient contact tracing, epidemiologic studies and vaccine efficacy evaluations. In this study, we used a semi-stable mammalian episomal expression system to produce high quantities of the receptor-binding domain-RBD of SARS-CoV-2 in a simple and very economical way. The recombinant antigen was tested in an in-house IgG ELISA for COVID-19 with a panel of human sera. A performance comparison of this serology test with a commercial test based on the full-length spike protein showed 100% of concordance between tests. Thus, this serological test can be an attractive and inexpensive option in scenarios of limited resources to face the COVID-19 pandemic.