A prospective diagnostic evaluation of accuracy of self-taken and healthcare worker-taken swabs for rapid COVID-19 testing

Patient-led teledermatology for skin lesion triage: a service evaluation of the DyplensTM dermoscope

Despite the huge improvement in smartphone cameras, there has not been any real interest in the UK in pursuing patient-facing teledermatology within the sphere of skin lesion triage. High-specification dermoscopic images can be generated with smartphone attachments, but, to date, no formal clinical trial has been performed to establish the efficacy and feasibility of these consumer-level dermoscopes in skin lesion triage. The objectives of this study were to assess the ability of patients to capture dermoscopic images using a smartphone attachment, and to identify the safety and diagnostic accuracy of consumer-level dermoscopy in triaging out benign skin lesions from the 2-week-wait (2WW) cancer pathway. We recruited 78 patients already attending a face-to-face clinic at two locations. They were provided with instruction leaflets and asked to obtain dermoscopic and macroscopic images of their lesion(s) using their own smartphones. The images (and a brief history) were distributed to five experienced blinded assessors (consultants), who were asked to state their working diagnosis and outcome (reassurance, routine review or 2WW pathway), as they would in teledermatology. We compared their outcomes to the gold-standard in-person diagnosis and/or histological diagnosis, where available. The device achieved 100% sensitivity in diagnosing melanoma and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). The specificity for the diagnoses of melanoma (89%) and SCC (83%) was high. The overall diagnostic accuracy was 77% for both benign and malignant lesions, The diagnostic accuracy was high for seborrhoeic keratosis (91%) and simple naevi (81%). Patient-captured dermoscopic images using bespoke smartphone attachments could be the future in safely triaging out benign lesions.

Rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 by lateral flow assay: A field evaluation of self- and professional testing at UK community testing sites

BACKGROUND

The advent of lateral flow devices (LFDs) for SARS-CoV-2 detection enabled widespread use of rapid self-tests during the pandemic. While self-testing using LFDs is now common, whether self-testing provides comparable performance to professional testing was a key question that remained important for pandemic planning.

METHODS

Three prospective multi-centre studies were conducted to compare the performance of self- and professional testing using LFDs. Participants tested themselves or were tested by trained (professional) testers at community testing sites in the UK. Corresponding qRT-PCR test results served as reference standard. The performance of Innova, Orient Gene and SureScreen LFDs by users (self) and professional testers was assessed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and kit failure (void) rates. Impact of age, sex and symptom status was analysed using logistic regression modelling.

RESULTS

16,617 participants provided paired tests, of which 15,418 were included in the analysis. Self-testing with Innova, Orient Gene or SureScreen LFDs achieved sensitivities of 50 %, 53 % or 72 %, respectively, compared to qRT-PCR. Self and professional LFD testing showed no statistically different sensitivity with respect to corresponding qRT-PCR testing. Specificity was consistently equal to or higher than 99 %. Sex and age had no or only marginal impact on LFD performance while sensitivity was significantly higher for symptomatic individuals. Sensitivity of LFDs increased strongly to up to 90 % with higher levels of viral RNA measured by qRT-PCR.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support SARS-CoV-2 self-testing with LFDs, especially for the detection of individuals whose qRT-PCR tests showed high viral concentrations.

Self-administered versus clinician-performed BinaxNOW COVID rapid test: a comparison of accuracy

We conducted a single-center study at a free community testing site in Baltimore City to assess the accuracy of self-performed rapid antigen tests (RATs) for COVID-19. Self-administered BinaxNOW RATs were compared with clinician-performed RATs and against a reference lab molecular testing as the gold standard. Of the 953 participants, 14.9% were positive for SARS- CoV-2 as determined by RT-PCR. The sensitivity and specificity were similar for both self- and clinician-performed RATs (sensitivity: 83.9% vs 88.2%, P = 0.40; specificity: 99.8% vs 99.6%, P = 0.6). Subgroup comparisons based on age and race yielded similar results. Notably, 5.2% (95% CI: 1.5% to 9.5%) of positive results were potentially missed due to participant misinterpretation of the self-test card. However, the false-positive rate for RATs was reassuringly comparable in accuracy to clinician-administered tests. These findings hold significant implications for physicians prescribing treatment based on patient-reported, self-administered positive test results. Our study provides robust evidence supporting the reliability and utility of patient-performed RATs, underscoring their comparable accuracy to clinician-performed RATs, and endorsing their continued use in managing COVID-19. Further studies using other rapid antigen test brands are warranted.IMPORTANCEAccurate and accessible COVID-19 testing is crucial for effective disease control and management. A recent single-center study conducted in Baltimore City examined the reliability of self-performed rapid antigen tests (RATs) for COVID-19. The study found that self-administered RATs yielded similar sensitivity and specificity to clinician-performed tests, demonstrating their comparable accuracy. These findings hold significant implications for physicians relying on patient-reported positive test results for treatment decisions. The study provides robust evidence supporting the reliability and utility of patient-performed RATs, endorsing their continued use in managing COVID-19. Furthermore, the study highlights the need for further research using different rapid antigen test brands to enhance generalizability. Ensuring affordable and widespread access to self-tests is crucial, particularly in preparation for future respiratory virus seasons and potential waves of reinfection of SARS-CoV-2 variants such as the Omicron variant.

Evaluation of COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic tests for self-testing in Lesotho and Zambia

INTRODUCTION

The use of antigen rapid tests (Ag-RDTs) for self-testing is an important element of the COVID-19 control strategy and has been widely supported. However, scale-up of self-testing for COVID-19 in sub-Saharan Africa is still insufficient and there is limited evidence on the acceptability of self-testing and agreement between Ag-RDT self-testing and Ag-RDT testing by professional users. A joint collaboration (Botnar Research Centre for Child Health-European & Developing countries Clinical Trials Partnership)was established between Lesotho and Zambia to address these gaps in relation to Ag-RDT self-testing and contribute to increasing its use in the region.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted with qualitative and quantitative data analysis. Firstly, 14 in-depth cognitive interviews (5 in Zambia and 9 in Lesotho) were performed to assess the participants' understanding of the instructions for use (IFU) for self-testing. In a second step, evaluation of test agreement between Ag-RDT self-testing and Ag-RDT testing by professional user using SD Biosensor STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag-RDT was performed. In Zambia, usability and acceptability of self-testing were also assessed.

RESULTS

Cognitive interviews in Lesotho and Zambia showed overall good understanding of IFU. In Zambia, acceptability of self-testing was high, though some participants had difficulties in conducting certain steps in the IFU correctly. Agreement between Ag-RDT self-test and Ag-RDT by professional users in Lesotho (428 participants) and Zambia (1136 participants) was high, 97.3% (403/414, 95% CI: 95.3-98.7) and 99.8% (1116/1118, 95% CI: 99.4-100) respectively.

CONCLUSION

Findings from this study support the use of Ag-RDT self-testing within COVID-19 control strategies in sub-Saharan Africa, contributing to increase the testing capacity and access in hard-to reach settings.

Comparable performance of antigen-detecting rapid test by healthcare worker-collected and self-collected swabs for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Usage of self-screening tests has become increasingly relevant in public health perspective for early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the transitioning era of the COVID-19 pandemic into an endemic. This study was designed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of self-conducted and health professional-conducted SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests (Ag-RDTs) and whether the sample was taken from anterior nasal or nasal mid-turbinate. Eligible comparative Ag-RDTs accuracy studies were retrieved from electronic databases systematically, in accordance with PRISMA. Selected studies were assessed for risk of bias using QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C. In total, we selected five out of 1952 studies retrieved using the keywords. The overall sensitivity for the self-collected nasal swab method and healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal swab method was 79% (95% CI 68-87; I2  = 62%) and 83% (95% CI 75-89; I2  = 32%), respectively, which was not statistically different (p = 0.499). Nasal mid-turbinate swabs have a significantly higher sensitivity compared to anterior nasal swabs (p < 0.01). Both sampling methods represent high and comparable specificity values of 98% (95% CI 97-99; I2  = 0%) and 99% (95% CI 98-99; I2  = 0%). Positive predictive value (range 90%-99%) and negative predictive value (range 87%-98%) were equivalent for both methods. Our findings indicated the accuracy of self-collected Ag-RDT on nasal swabs was comparable to those performed by healthcare worker-collected on nasopharyngeal swabs. Self-collected Ag-RDT could be considered as a transmission prevention method in the transition of COVID-19 pandemic.

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 self-testing/self-sampling with molecular and professional-use tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Self-testing is an effective tool to bridge the testing gap for several infectious diseases; however, its performance in detecting SARS-CoV-2 using antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) has not been systematically reviewed. This study aimed to inform WHO guidelines by evaluating the accuracy of COVID-19 self-testing and self-sampling coupled with professional Ag-RDT conduct and interpretation. Articles on this topic were searched until November 7th, 2022. Concordance between self-testing/self-sampling and fully professional-use Ag-RDTs was assessed using Cohen's kappa. Bivariate meta-analysis yielded pooled performance estimates. Quality and certainty of evidence were evaluated using QUADAS-2 and GRADE tools. Among 43 studies included, twelve reported on self-testing, and 31 assessed self-sampling only. Around 49.6% showed low risk of bias. Overall concordance with professional-use Ag-RDTs was high (kappa 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88-0.94]). Comparing self-testing/self-sampling to molecular testing, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 70.5% (95% CI 64.3-76.0) and 99.4% (95% CI 99.1-99.6), respectively. Higher sensitivity (i.e., 93.6% [95% CI 90.4-96.8] for Ct < 25) was estimated in subgroups with higher viral loads using Ct values as a proxy. Despite high heterogeneity among studies, COVID-19 self-testing/self-sampling exhibits high concordance with professional-use Ag-RDTs. This suggests that self-testing/self-sampling can be offered as part of COVID-19 testing strategies.Trial registration: PROSPERO: CRD42021250706.

Clinical evaluation of anterior nasal cavity swab specimens by a rapid antigen test using a GLINE-2019-nCoV Ag Kit to diagnose COVID-19

The promising diagnostic performance of rapid antigen tests (RATs) using non-invasive anterior nasal (AN) swab specimens to diagnose COVID-19 has been reported. A large number of RATs are commercially available; however, the careful assessment of RATs is essential prior to their implementation in clinical practice. We evaluated the clinical performance of the GLINE-2019-nCoV Ag kit as a RAT using AN swabs in a prospective, blinded study. Adult patients who visited outpatient departments and received SARS-CoV-2 tests between August 16 and September 8, 2022, were eligible for this study. Patients who were aged under 18 years and patients without appropriate specimens were excluded. Two sets of AN and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs were collected from all patients. Each set of specimens was tested by the RAT and quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Of the 138 recruited patients, 84 were positive and 54 were negative by RT-qPCR using NP swabs. The positive agreement rate between RT-qPCR using NP swabs and RAT using AN swabs was 78.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68.3%-86.8%), the negative agreement rate was 98.1% (95% CI, 90.1%-99.9%), and the overall agreement rate was 86.2% (95% CI, 79.3%-91.5%), with a κ coefficient of 0.73. The positive agreement rate in the early phase (≤3 days from symptom onset) was >80%, but this fell to 50% in the late phase (≥4 days). This study demonstrates that the GLINE-2019-nCoV Ag Kit using AN swabs has good clinical performance and might be a reliable alternative method for diagnosing COVID-19.

Update of ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines: diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2

SCOPE

Since the onset of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), several assays have been deployed for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) published the first set of guidelines on SARS-CoV-2 in-vitro diagnosis in February 2022. Since the COVID-19 landscape is rapidly evolving, the relevant ESCMID guidelines panel releases an update of the previously published recommendations on diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. This update aims to delineate the best diagnostic approach for SARS-CoV-2 in different populations based on current evidence.

METHODS

An ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines task force was established by the ESCMID Executive Committee. A small group was established, half appointed by the chair, and the remaining selected with an open call. The panel met virtually once a week. For all decisions, a simple majority vote was used. A list of clinical questions using the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, and outcome) format was developed at the beginning of the process. For each PICO, two panel members performed a literature search focusing on systematic reviews with a third panellist involved in case of inconsistent results. The panel reassessed the PICOs previously defined as priority in the first set of guidelines and decided to address 49 PICO questions, as 6 of them were discarded as outdated/non-clinically relevant. The "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation(GRADE)-adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of recommendations (ADOLOPMENT)" evidence-to-decision framework was utilized to produce the guidelines.

QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY THE GUIDELINE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

After literature search, we updated 16 PICO questions; these PICOs address the use of antigen-based assays among symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with different ages, COVID-19 severity status or risk for severe COVID-19, time since onset of symptoms/contact with an infectious case, and finally, types of biomaterials used.

The Diagnostic Accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Nasal Rapid Antigen Self-Test: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a disease that quickly spread into a pandemic. As such, management of the COVID-19 pandemic is deemed necessary, and it can be achieved by using reliable diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2. The gold standard for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 is a molecular detection test using the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction technique (rt-PCR), which is characterized by various disadvantages in contrast with the self-taken nasal rapid antigen tests that produce results faster, have lower costs and do not require specialized personnel. Therefore, the usefulness of self-taken rapid antigen tests is indisputable in disease management, facilitating both the health system and the examinees. Our systematic review aims to access the diagnostic accuracy of the self-taken nasal rapid antigen tests.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. All the studies included in this systematic review were found after searching the two databases, Scopus and PubΜed. All but original articles were excluded from this systematic review, while all the studies concerning self-taken rapid antigen tests with a nasal sample and using rt-PCR as a reference test were included. Meta-analysis results and plots were obtained using RevMan software and the MetaDTA website.

RESULTS

All 22 studies included in this meta-analysis demonstrated a specificity of self-taken rapid antigen tests greater than 98%, which exceeds the minimum required yield for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, according to the WHO. Notwithstanding, the sensitivity varies (from 40% to 98.7%), which makes them in some cases unsuitable for the diagnosis of positive cases. In the majority of the studies, the minimum required performance set by the WHO was achieved, which is 80% compared with rt-PCR tests. The pooled sensitivity of self-taken nasal rapid antigen tests was calculated as 91.1% and the pooled specificity was 99.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, self-taken nasal rapid antigen tests have many advantages over rt-PCR tests, such as those related to the rapid reading of the results and their low cost. They also have considerable specificity and some self-taken rapid antigen test kits also have remarkable sensitivity. Consequently, self-taken rapid antigen tests have a wide range of utility but are not able to completely replace rt-PCR tests.

Multicenter Diagnostic Evaluation of a Novel Coronavirus Antigen Lateral Flow Test among Symptomatic Individuals in Brazil and the United Kingdom

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the commercialization of many antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs), requiring independent evaluations. This report describes the clinical evaluation of the Novel Coronavirus 2019-nCoV Antigen Test (Colloidal Gold) (Beijing Hotgen Biotech Co., Ltd.), at two sites within Brazil and one in the United Kingdom. The collected samples (446 nasal swabs from Brazil and 246 nasopharyngeal samples from the UK) were analyzed by the Ag-RDT and compared to reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR). Analytical evaluation of the Ag-RDT was performed using direct culture supernatants of SARS-CoV-2 strains from the wild-type (B.1), Alpha (B.1.1.7), Delta (B.1.617.2), Gamma (P.1), and Omicron (B.1.1.529) lineages. An overall sensitivity and specificity of 88.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 81.3 to 93.3) and 100.0% (95% CI, 99.1 to 100.0), respectively, were obtained for the Brazilian and UK cohorts. The analytical limit of detection was determined as 1.0 × 103 PFU/mL (Alpha), 2.5 × 102 PFU/mL (Delta), 2.5 × 103 PFU/mL (Gamma), and 1.0 × 103 PFU/mL (Omicron), giving a viral copy equivalent of approximately 2.1 × 104 copies/mL, 9.0 × 105 copies/mL, 1.7 × 106 copies/mL, and 1.8 × 105 copies/mL for the Ag-RDT, respectively. Overall, while a higher sensitivity was claimed by the manufacturers than that found in this study, this evaluation finds that the Ag-RDT meets the WHO minimum performance requirements for sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 Ag-RDTs. This study illustrates the comparative performance of the Hotgen Ag-RDT across two global settings and considers the different approaches in evaluation methods. IMPORTANCE Since the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we have witnessed growing numbers of antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) being brought to market. In the United Kingdom, this was somewhat controlled indirectly as the government offered free tests from a small number of companies. However, as this has now ceased, individuals are responsible for their own acquisition of test kits. Similarly in Brazil, as of January 2022, pharmacies and other health care retailers are permitted to sell Ag-RDTs directly to the community. Many of these Ag-RDTs have not been externally evaluated, and results are not readily available to the public. Thus, there is now a need for a transparent evaluation of Ag-RDTs with both analytical and clinical evaluation. We present an independent review of the Novel Coronavirus 2019-nCoV Antigen Test (Colloidal Gold) (Beijing Hotgen Biotech Co., Ltd.), at two sites within Brazil and one in the United Kingdom.

The Performance of Lateral Flow Tests in the Age of the Omicron: A Rapid Systematic Review

Prompt detection and isolation of COVID-19 cases is vital for preventing further viral transmission, and lateral flow or rapid antigen tests have been an important diagnostic tool in this pandemic. However, concerns have emerged regarding the sensitivity of these devices for the new BA.1, BA.2, and BA.4/5 omicron variants, which have greater transmissibility and extensive mutations in its spike (S) and nucleocapsid (N) proteins. N protein is an important target protein for existing lateral flow devices. This paper therefore aimed to provide a rapid review of available literature on the performance of the lateral flow tests for detecting the omicron coronavirus variant. A systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, OVID Medline, and Google Scholar found six published studies and four preprints investigating the performance of existing lateral flow devices for the omicron variant, as compared to the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant. Overall, it appears that the devices have poorer performance for the omicron variant and when testing samples with cycle threshold (Ct) values greater than 25 and in asymptomatic individuals. As most available data were preliminary and had small sample sizes, it is recommended that these data be further studied to better inform and adapt our public health responses.