Evaluation of Analytical Performance of Seven Rapid Antigen Detection Kits for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Virus

Rapid and specific detection of single nanoparticles and viruses in microfluidic laminar flow via confocal fluorescence microscopy

Mainstream virus detection relies on the specific amplification of nucleic acids via polymerase chain reaction, a process that is slow and requires extensive laboratory expertise and equipment. Other modalities, such as antigen-based tests, allow much faster virus detection but have reduced sensitivity. In this study, we report the development of a flow virometer for the specific and rapid detection of single nanoparticles based on confocal microscopy. The combination of laminar flow and multiple dyes enable the detection of correlated fluorescence signals, providing information on nanoparticle volumes and specific chemical composition properties, such as viral envelope proteins. We evaluated and validated the assay using fluorescent beads and viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, we demonstrate how hydrodynamic focusing enhances the assay sensitivity for detecting clinically-relevant virus loads. Based on our results, we envision the use of this technology for clinically relevant bio-nanoparticles, supported by the implementation of the assay in a portable and user-friendly setup.

Results of German external quality assessment schemes for SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection

The COVID-19 pandemic illustrated the important role of diagnostic tests, including lateral flow tests (LFTs), in identifying patients and their contacts to slow the spread of infections. INSTAND performed external quality assessments (EQA) for SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection with lyophilized and chemically inactivated cell culture supernatant of SARS-CoV-2 infected Vero cells. A pre-study demonstrated the suitability of the material. Participants reported qualitative and/or quantitative antigen results using either LFTs or automated immunoassays for five EQA samples per survey. 711 data sets were reported for LFT detection in three surveys in 2021. This evaluation focused on the analytical sensitivity of different LFTs and automated immunoassays. The inter-laboratory results showed at least 94% correct results for non-variant of concern (VOC) SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection for viral loads of ≥ 4.75 × 106 copies/mL and SARS-CoV-2 negative samples. Up to 85% had success for a non-VOC viral load of ~ 1.60 × 106 copies/mL. A viral load of ~ 1.42 × 107 copies/mL of the Delta VOC was reported positive in > 96% of results. A high specificity was found with almost 100% negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen results for HCoV 229E and HCoV NL63 positive samples. Quantitative results correlated with increasing SARS-CoV-2 viral load but showed a broad scatter. This study shows promising SARS-CoV-2 antigen test performance of the participating laboratories, but further investigations with the now predominant Omicron VOC are needed.

Sensitivity of rapid antigen tests for Omicron subvariants of SARS-CoV-2

Diagnosis by rapid antigen tests (RATs) is useful for early initiation of antiviral treatment. Because RATs are easy to use, they can be adapted for self-testing. Several kinds of RATs approved for such use by the Japanese regulatory authority are available from drug stores and websites. Most RATs for COVID-19 are based on antibody detection of the SARS-CoV-2 N protein. Since Omicron and its subvariants have accumulated several amino acid substitutions in the N protein, such amino acid changes might affect the sensitivity of RATs. Here, we investigated the sensitivity of seven RATs available in Japan, six of which are approved for public use and one of which is approved for clinical use, for the detection of BA.5, BA.2.75, BF.7, XBB.1, and BQ.1.1, as well as the delta variant (B.1.627.2). All tested RATs detected the delta variant with a detection level between 7500 and 75 000 pfu per test, and all tested RATs showed similar sensitivity to the Omicron variant and its subvariants (BA.5, BA.2.75, BF.7, XBB.1, and BQ.1.1). Human saliva did not reduce the sensitivity of the RATs tested. Espline SARS-CoV-2 N showed the highest sensitivity followed by Inspecter KOWA SARS-CoV-2 and V Trust SARS-CoV-2 Ag. Since the RATs failed to detect low levels of infectious virus, individuals whose specimens contained less infectious virus than the detection limit would be considered negative. Therefore, it is important to note that RATs may miss individuals shedding low levels of infectious virus.

Rapid Point-of-Care Assay by SERS Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Virus and Its Variants

Addressing the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has highlighted the need for rapid, accurate, and low-cost diagnostic methods that detect specific antigens for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Tests for COVID-19 are based on reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR), which requires laboratory services and is time-consuming. Here, by targeting the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, we present a point-of-care SERS detection platform that specifically detects SARS-CoV-2 antigen in one step by captureing substrates and detection probes based on aptamer-specific recognition. Using the pseudovirus, without any pretreatment, the SARS-CoV-2 virus and its variants were detected by a handheld Raman spectrometer within 5 min. The limit of detection (LoD) for the pseudovirus was 124 TU μL-1 (18 fM spike protein), with a linear range of 250-10,000 TU μL-1. Moreover, this assay can specifically recognize the SARS-CoV-2 antigen without cross reacting with specific antigens of other coronaviruses or influenza A. Therefore, the platform has great potential for application in rapid point-of-care diagnostic assays for SARS-CoV-2.

Production of a Monoclonal Antibody to the Nucleocapsid Protein of SARS-CoV-2 and Its Application to ELISA-Based Detection Methods with Broad Specificity by Combined Use of Detector Antibodies

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, elicited by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is ongoing. Currently accessible antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests are limited by their low sensitivity and detection efficacy due to evolution of SARS-CoV-2 variants. Here, we produced and characterized an anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) protein-specific monoclonal antibody (mAb), 2A7H9. Monoclonal antibody 2A7H9 and a previously developed mAb, 1G10C4, have different specificities. The 2A7H9 mAb detected the N protein of S clade, delta, iota, and mu but not omicron, whereas the 1G10C4 antibody recognized the N protein of all variants under study. In a sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, recombinant N protein bound to the 1G10C4 mAb could be detected by both 1G10C4 and 2A7H9 mAbs. Similarly, N protein bound to the 2A7H9 mAb was detected by both mAbs, confirming the existence of dimeric N protein. While the 1G10C4 mAb detected omicron and mu with higher efficiency than S clade, delta, and iota, the 2A7H9 mAb efficiently detected all the strains except omicron, with higher affinity to S clade and mu than others. Combined use of 1G10C4 and 2A7H9 mAb resulted in the detection of all the strains with considerable sensitivity, suggesting that antibody combinations can improve the simultaneous detection of virus variants. Therefore, our findings provide insights into the development and improvement of diagnostic tools with broader specificity and higher sensitivity to detect rapidly evolving SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Development of a rapid, simple, and sensitive point-of-care technology platform utilizing ternary NanoLuc

Point-of-care tests are highly valuable in providing fast results for medical decisions for greater flexibility in patient care. Many diagnostic tests, such as ELISAs, that are commonly used within clinical laboratory settings require trained technicians, laborious workflows, and complex instrumentation hindering their translation into point-of-care applications. Herein, we demonstrate the use of a homogeneous, bioluminescent-based, split reporter platform that enables a simple, sensitive, and rapid method for analyte detection in clinical samples. We developed this point-of-care application using an optimized ternary, split-NanoLuc luciferase reporter system that consists of two small reporter peptides added as appendages to analyte-specific affinity reagents. A bright, stable bioluminescent signal is generated as the affinity reagents bind to the analyte, allowing for proximity-induced complementation between the two reporter peptides and the polypeptide protein, in addition to the furimazine substrate. Through lyophilization of the stabilized reporter system with the formulated substrate, we demonstrate a shelf-stable, all-in-one, add-and-read analyte-detection system for use in complex sample matrices at the point-of-care. We highlight the modularity of this platform using two distinct SARS-CoV-2 model systems: SARS-CoV-2 N-antigen detection for active infections and anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies for immunity status detection using chemically conjugated or genetically fused affinity reagents, respectively. This technology provides a simple and standardized method to develop rapid, robust, and sensitive analyte-detection assays with flexible assay formatting making this an ideal platform for research, clinical laboratory, as well as point-of-care applications utilizing a simple handheld luminometer.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection

BACKGROUND

Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection would be a useful tool to help manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Testing strategies that use rapid antigen tests to detect current infection have the potential to increase access to testing, speed detection of infection, and inform clinical and public health management decisions to reduce transmission. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included setting and indication for testing, assay format, sample site, viral load, age, timing of test, and study design.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) on 08 March 2021. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies of people with either suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, known SARS-CoV-2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen tests. We included evaluations of single applications of a test (one test result reported per person) and evaluations of serial testing (repeated antigen testing over time). Reference standards for presence or absence of infection were any laboratory-based molecular test (primarily reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)) or pre-pandemic respiratory sample.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard screening procedures with three people. Two people independently carried out quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and extracted study results. Other study characteristics were extracted by one review author and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test, and pooled data using the bivariate model. We investigated heterogeneity by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 155 study cohorts (described in 166 study reports, with 24 as preprints). The main results relate to 152 evaluations of single test applications including 100,462 unique samples (16,822 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly conducted in Europe (101/152, 66%), and evaluated 49 different commercial antigen assays. Only 23 studies compared two or more brands of test. Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (40, 26%); interpretation of the index test (6, 4%); weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection (119, 78%); and participant flow and timing 41 (27%). Characteristics of participants (45, 30%) and index test delivery (47, 31%) differed from the way in which and in whom the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (91%) used a single RT-PCR result to define presence or absence of infection. The 152 studies of single test applications reported 228 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies, with consistently high specificities. Average sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (73.0%, 95% CI 69.3% to 76.4%; 109 evaluations; 50,574 samples, 11,662 cases) compared to asymptomatic participants (54.7%, 95% CI 47.7% to 61.6%; 50 evaluations; 40,956 samples, 2641 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (80.9%, 95% CI 76.9% to 84.4%; 30 evaluations, 2408 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (53.8%, 95% CI 48.0% to 59.6%; 40 evaluations, 1119 cases). For those who were asymptomatic at the time of testing, sensitivity was higher when an epidemiological exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was suspected (64.3%, 95% CI 54.6% to 73.0%; 16 evaluations; 7677 samples, 703 cases) compared to where COVID-19 testing was reported to be widely available to anyone on presentation for testing (49.6%, 95% CI 42.1% to 57.1%; 26 evaluations; 31,904 samples, 1758 cases). Average specificity was similarly high for symptomatic (99.1%) or asymptomatic (99.7%) participants. We observed a steady decline in summary sensitivities as measures of sample viral load decreased. Sensitivity varied between brands. When tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, average sensitivities by brand ranged from 34.3% to 91.3% in symptomatic participants (20 assays with eligible data) and from 28.6% to 77.8% for asymptomatic participants (12 assays). For symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities for seven assays were 80% or more (meeting acceptable criteria set by the World Health Organization (WHO)). The WHO acceptable performance criterion of 97% specificity was met by 17 of 20 assays when tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, 12 of which demonstrated specificities above 99%. For asymptomatic participants the sensitivities of only two assays approached but did not meet WHO acceptable performance standards in one study each; specificities for asymptomatic participants were in a similar range to those observed for symptomatic people. At 5% prevalence using summary data in symptomatic people during the first week after symptom onset, the positive predictive value (PPV) of 89% means that 1 in 10 positive results will be a false positive, and around 1 in 5 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence using summary data for asymptomatic people, where testing was widely available and where epidemiological exposure to COVID-19 was suspected, resulting PPVs would be 38% to 52%, meaning that between 2 in 5 and 1 in 2 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. Assays that meet appropriate performance standards, such as those set by WHO, could replace laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. However, they are more suitable for use as triage to RT-PCR testing. The variable sensitivity of antigen tests means that people who test negative may still be infected. Many commercially available rapid antigen tests have not been evaluated in independent validation studies. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts has increased, however sensitivity is lower and there is a paucity of evidence for testing in different settings. Questions remain about the use of antigen test-based repeat testing strategies. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of screening programmes at reducing transmission of infection, whether mass screening or targeted approaches including schools, healthcare setting and traveller screening.

A Biosensor Platform for Point-of-Care SARS-CoV-2 Screening

The COVID-19 pandemic remains a constant threat to human health, the economy, and social relations. Scientists around the world are constantly looking for new technological tools to deal with the pandemic. Such tools are the rapid virus detection tests, which are constantly evolving and optimizing. This paper presents a biosensor platform for the rapid detection of spike protein both in laboratory conditions and in swab samples from hospitalized patients. It is a continuation and improvement of our previous work and consists of a microcontroller-based readout circuit, which measures the capacitance change generated in an interdigitated electrode transducer by the presence either of sole spike protein or the presence of SARS-CoV-2 particles in swab samples. The circuit efficiency is calibrated by its correlation with the capacitance measurement of an LCR (inductance (L), capacitance (C), and resistance (R)) meter. The test result is made available in less than 2 min through the microcontroller’s LCD (liquid-crystal display) screen, whereas at the same time, the collected data are sent wirelessly to a mobile application interface. The novelty of this research lies in the potential it offers for continuous and effective screening of SARS-CoV-2 patients, which is facilitated and enhanced, providing big data statistics of COVID-19 in terms of space and time. This device can be used by individuals for SARS-CoV-2 testing at home, by health professionals for patient monitoring, and by public health agencies for monitoring the spatio-temporal spread of the virus.

Rapid Antigen Test Sensitivity for Asymptomatic COVID-19 Screening

INTRODUCTION

Operating in-person instruction, residential living, and other activities at institutions of higher education (IHEs) in the context of the pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov2) have posed a multitude of challenges. Identification of asymptomatic cases at IHEs is crucial, as a large reservoir of virus can potentially develop among students. Unfortunately, despite the advantages, rapid antigen tests (RATs) have variously been shown to perform poorly when used with asymptomatic individuals.

METHODS

In order to address the appropriateness of RAT use in screening asymptomatic populations like those at IHEs, we conducted a rapid review of published evaluations of RATs available in the United States, where sensitivity and specificity were reported specifically from asymptomatic populations. We extracted sensitivity and specificity for asymptomatic populations reported in each article, along with location and important notes. The data are presented narratively.

RESULTS

A total of 11 articles were included for evaluation and presentation, representing tests from four manufacturers. Sensitivity ranged from 35.8% to a high of about 71%, with caveats to the higher number about exposure. Both the low and high sensitivity rates were observed in Abbott BinaxNOW RATs. Due to heterogeneity and publishing differences, a meta-analysis was not feasible, but RAT tests in asymptomatic populations tended to identify roughly half of those identified as infected via reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. Specificity ranged from 97.8% to 100%.

CONCLUSION

The results of this rapid review indicate serious issues in misidentifying asymptomatic individuals as COVID-19 negative, when in fact they are infected and carrying the SARS-Cov2 virus.

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.

A lyophilized colorimetric RT-LAMP test kit for rapid, low-cost, at-home molecular testing of SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens

Access to fast and reliable nucleic acid testing continues to play a key role in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in the context of increased vaccine break-through risks due to new variants. We report a rapid, low-cost (~ 2 USD), simple-to-use nucleic acid test kit for self-administered at-home testing without lab instrumentation. The entire sample-to-answer workflow takes < 60 min, including noninvasive sample collection, one-step RNA preparation, reverse-transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) in a thermos, and direct visual inspection of a colorimetric test result. To facilitate long-term storage without cold-chain, a fast one-pot lyophilization protocol was developed to preserve all required biochemical reagents of the colorimetric RT-LAMP test in a single microtube. Notably, the lyophilized RT-LAMP assay demonstrated reduced false positives as well as enhanced tolerance to a wider range of incubation temperatures compared to solution-based RT-LAMP reactions. We validated our RT-LAMP assay using simulated infected samples, and detected a panel of SARS-CoV-2 variants with successful detection of all variants that were available to us at the time. With a simple change of the primer set, our lyophilized RT-LAMP home test can be easily adapted as a low-cost surveillance platform for other pathogens and infectious diseases of global public health importance.

Diagnostic utility of antigen detection rapid diagnostic tests for Covid-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The early detection of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection to improve disease management becomes the greatest challenge. Despite the high sensitivity of RT-PCR, not only it was reported that 20-67% of infected patients had false-negative results. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are widely used as a point-of-care test for SARS-CoV-2 detection in pharyngeal and blood specimens. It's more appealing since it's less time-consuming, doesn't seem to be as expensive, and doesn't need any specific training, but the poor sensitivity is the major limitation. Several reports indicated the rapid test of blood and pharyngeal samples has the same sensitivity as the RT-PCR, but some reports have lower sensitivity, especially in asymptomatic patients.

METHODS

In the present survey, we investigate the eligible studies for the sensitivity and specificity of rapid tests and explore the factors that influence the result to help better diagnose COVID-19 infection. 20 studies met the inclusion criteria which imposed 33 different tests.

RESULTS

Our findings showed the type of sample, the type of assay, the time of sampling, and the load of virus influence on the sensitivity of RDTs.

CONCLUSION

This research extends our knowledge of how to improve the sensitivity of RDTs to better diagnose the infected patients to address the controlling COVID-19 pandemic.

A method comparison study of the high throughput automated HISCL® SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay using nasopharyngeal swab samples from symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects against conventional RT-PCR

Our study aim was to evaluate the performance of the automated Sysmex HISCL® severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) antigen assay against reverse‐transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR). We tested 277 remnant frozen nasopharyngeal swab samples, stored in universal transport medium (UTM), yielding a sensitivity of 94.9% against historical RT‐PCR results with cycle threshold (C_t) < 30, and a sensitivity of 76.7% for C_t < 35, and specificity of 100% (all C_t values) confirming compatibility of UTM‐diluted samples with the assay system. Thereafter, we prospectively collected 141 nasopharyngeal swab samples in UTM from healthcare workers and 1369 paired swabs (400 UTM; 969 dry) from individuals at a public health testing center, with the first swab (UTM) reserved for RT‐PCR, yielding a positivity rate of 4.6%. HISCL assay performance using UTM swabs was superior to dry swabs, with a sensitivity of 100% (95% confidence interval [CI] 71.5%–100%) at C_t < 30 versus 92.3% (95%CI 81.5%–97.9%), and a specificity of 99.3% (95% CI 98.1–99.89) against 83.3% (95%CI 80.7%–85.6%). We conclude that this antigen assay is suitable for high throughput facilities where the primary indication for testing is to rule out infection with low RT‐PCR C_t values (proxy for high viral loads) to curb viral spread.

Performance of a rapid antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 in Kenya

Testing for SARS-CoV-2 in resource-poor settings remains a considerable challenge. Gold standard nucleic acid tests are expensive and depend on availability of expensive equipment and highly trained laboratory staff. More affordable and easier rapid antigen tests are an attractive alternative. This study assessed field performance of such a test in western Kenya. We conducted a prospective multi-facility field evaluation study of NowCheck COVID-19 Ag-RDT compared to gold standard PCR. Two pairs of oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected for comparative analysis. With 997 enrolled participants the Ag-RDT had a sensitivity 71.5% (63.2-78.6) and specificity of 97.5% (96.2-98.5) at cycle threshold value <40. Highest sensitivity of 87.7% (77.2-94.5) was observed in samples with cycle threshold values ≤30. NowCheck COVID-19 Ag-RDT performed well at multiple healthcare facilities in an African field setting. Operational specificity and sensitivity were close to WHO-recommended thresholds.

An international, interlaboratory ring trial confirms the feasibility of an extraction-less "direct" RT-qPCR method for reliable detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in clinical samples

Reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is used worldwide to test and trace the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). "Extraction-less" or "direct" real time-reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is a transparent and accessible qualitative method for SARS-CoV-2 detection from nasopharyngeal or oral pharyngeal samples with the potential to generate actionable data more quickly, at a lower cost, and with fewer experimental resources than full RT-qPCR. This study engaged 10 global testing sites, including laboratories currently experiencing testing limitations due to reagent or equipment shortages, in an international interlaboratory ring trial. Participating laboratories were provided a common protocol, common reagents, aliquots of identical pooled clinical samples, and purified nucleic acids and used their existing in-house equipment. We observed 100% concordance across laboratories in the correct identification of all positive and negative samples, with highly similar cycle threshold values. The test also performed well when applied to locally collected patient nasopharyngeal samples, provided the viral transport media did not contain charcoal or guanidine, both of which appeared to potently inhibit the RT-PCR reaction. Our results suggest that direct RT-PCR assay methods can be clearly translated across sites utilizing readily available equipment and expertise and are thus a feasible option for more efficient COVID-19 coronavirus disease testing as demanded by the continuing pandemic.

Comparative Sensitivity of Rapid Antigen Tests for the Delta Variant (B.1.617.2) of SARS-CoV-2

Rapid antigen tests (RATs) for COVID-19 based on lateral flow immunoassays are useful for rapid diagnosis in a variety of settings. Although many kinds of RATs are available, their respective sensitivity has not been compared. Here, we examined the sensitivity of 27 RATs available in Japan for the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant. All of the RATs tested detected the delta variant albeit with different sensitivities. Nine RATs (ESPLINE SARS-CoV-2, ALSONIC COVID-19 Ag, COVID-19 and Influenza A+B Antigen Combo Rapid Test, ImmunoArrow SARS-CoV-2, Fuji Dri-chem immuno AG cartridge COVID-19 Ag, 2019-nCoV Ag rapid detection kit, Saliva SARS-CoV-2(2019-nCoV) Antigen Test Kit, and Rabliss SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection kit COVID19 AG) showed superior sensitivity to the isolated delta variant. Although actual clinical specimens were not examined, the detection level of most of the RATs was 7500 pfu, indicating that individuals whose test samples contained less virus than that would be considered negative. Therefore, it is important to bear in mind that RATs may miss individuals shedding low levels of infectious virus.

Performance Evaluation of the MatMaCorp COVID-19 2SF Assay for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from Nasopharyngeal Swabs

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has taken an unprecedented toll on clinical diagnostic testing, and the need for PCR-based testing remains to be met. Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) is the recommended method for the diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) due to the inherent advantages in sensitivity and specificity. In this study, we evaluated the performance of the MatMaCorp COVID-19 2SF test, a reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) assay for the qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 from nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs, run on the Solas 8 instrument (MatMaCorp, Lincoln, NE). The Solas 8 device is portable, and the kit is a lab-in-a-box design which provides reagents in a shelf-stable lyophilized powder format. A total of 78 remnant clinical specimens were used to evaluate the COVID-19 2SF test. Sixty-two clinical specimens originally tested by the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay (Cepheid, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) were used to evaluate the clinical accuracy of the COVID-19 2SF test. The negative percent agreement (NPA) was 100% (95% confidence interval [CI], 83.9% to 100%), and the positive percent agreement (PPA) was 85.4% (95% CI, 70.8% to 94.4%). Sixteen remnant specimens positive for other common respiratory pathogens (FilmArray respiratory panel 2.0; BioFire, Salt Lake City, UT) were assayed on the Solas 8 device to evaluate specificity. No cross-reactivity with other respiratory pathogens was identified. The unique lab-in-a-box design and shelf-stable reagents of the MatMaCorp COVID-19 2SF test offer laboratories a rapid option for a diagnostic NAAT for SARS-CoV-2 that can help meet diagnostic needs. IMPORTANCE The demand for molecular testing for COVID-19 remains to be met. This study of the MatMaCorp Solas 8 device and COVID-19 test provides the first evaluation of this platform.

Performance Evaluation of the MatMaCorp COVID-19 2SF Assay for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from Nasopharyngeal Swabs

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has taken an unprecedented toll on clinical diagnostic testing, and the need for PCR-based testing remains to be met. Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) is the recommended method for the diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) due to the inherent advantages in sensitivity and specificity. In this study, we evaluated the performance of the MatMaCorp COVID-19 2SF test, a reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) assay for the qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 from nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs, run on the Solas 8 instrument (MatMaCorp, Lincoln, NE). The Solas 8 device is portable, and the kit is a lab-in-a-box design which provides reagents in a shelf-stable lyophilized powder format. A total of 78 remnant clinical specimens were used to evaluate the COVID-19 2SF test. Sixty-two clinical specimens originally tested by the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay (Cepheid, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) were used to evaluate the clinical accuracy of the COVID-19 2SF test. The negative percent agreement (NPA) was 100% (95% confidence interval [CI], 83.9% to 100%), and the positive percent agreement (PPA) was 85.4% (95% CI, 70.8% to 94.4%). Sixteen remnant specimens positive for other common respiratory pathogens (FilmArray respiratory panel 2.0; BioFire, Salt Lake City, UT) were assayed on the Solas 8 device to evaluate specificity. No cross-reactivity with other respiratory pathogens was identified. The unique lab-in-a-box design and shelf-stable reagents of the MatMaCorp COVID-19 2SF test offer laboratories a rapid option for a diagnostic NAAT for SARS-CoV-2 that can help meet diagnostic needs. IMPORTANCE The demand for molecular testing for COVID-19 remains to be met. This study of the MatMaCorp Solas 8 device and COVID-19 test provides the first evaluation of this platform.

Applications of laboratory findings in the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of COVID-19

The worldwide pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presents us with a serious public health crisis. To combat the virus and slow its spread, wider testing is essential. There is a need for more sensitive, specific, and convenient detection methods of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Advanced detection can greatly improve the ability and accuracy of the clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, which is conducive to the early suitable treatment and supports precise prophylaxis. In this article, we combine and present the latest laboratory diagnostic technologies and methods for SARS-CoV-2 to identify the technical characteristics, considerations, biosafety requirements, common problems with testing and interpretation of results, and coping strategies of commonly used testing methods. We highlight the gaps in current diagnostic capacity and propose potential solutions to provide cutting-edge technical support to achieve a more precise diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of COVID-19 and to overcome the difficulties with the normalization of epidemic prevention and control.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS AND FINDINGS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 with Antigen Testing, Transcription-Mediated Amplification and Real-Time PCR

This study was performed as a head-to-head comparison of the performance characteristics of (1) two SARS-CoV-2-specific rapid antigen assays with real-time PCR as gold standard as well as (2) a fully automated high-throughput transcription-mediated amplification (TMA) assay and real-time PCR in a latent class analysis-based test comparison without a gold standard with several hundred samples in a low prevalence "real world" setting. Recorded sensitivity and specificity of the NADAL and the LumiraDx antigen assays and the Hologic Aptima SARS-CoV-2 TMA assay were 0.1429 (0.0194, 0.5835), 0.7644 (0.7016, 0.8174), and 0.7157 (0, 1) as well as 0.4545 (0.2022, 0.7326), 0.9954 (0.9817, 0.9988), and 0.9997 (not estimable), respectively. Agreement kappa between the positive results of the two antigen-based assays was 0.060 (0.002, 0.167) and 0.659 (0.492, 0.825) for TMA and real-time PCR. Samples with low viral load as indicated by cycle threshold (Ct) values > 30 were generally missed by both antigen assays, while 1:10 pooling suggested higher sensitivity of TMA compared to real-time PCR. In conclusion, both sensitivity and specificity speak in favor of the use of the LumiraDx rather than the NADAL antigen assay, while TMA results are comparably as accurate as PCR, when applied in a low prevalence setting.

Unveiling the Potential Role of Nanozymes in Combating the COVID-19 Outbreak

The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is considered as one of the biggest public health challenges and medical emergencies of the century. A global health emergency demands an urgent development of rapid diagnostic tools and advanced therapeutics for the mitigation of COVID-19. To cope with the current crisis, nanotechnology offers a number of approaches based on abundance and versatile functioning. Despite major developments in early diagnostics and control of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), there is still a need to find effective nanomaterials with low cost, high stability and easy use. Nanozymes are nanomaterials with innate enzyme-like characteristics and exhibit great potential for various biomedical applications such as disease diagnosis and anti-viral agents. Overall the potential and contribution of nanozymes in the fight against SARS-CoV-2 infection i.e., rapid detection, inhibition of the virus at various stages, and effective vaccine development strategies, is not fully explored. This paper discusses the utility and potential of nanozymes from the perspective of COVID-19. Moreover, future research directions and potential applications of nanozymes are highlighted to overcome the challenges related to early diagnosis and therapeutics development for the SARS-CoV-2. We anticipate the current perspective will play an effective role in the existing response to the COVID-19 crisis.

COVID-19 Endothelial Dysfunction Can Cause Erectile Dysfunction: Histopathological, Immunohistochemical, and Ultrastructural Study of the Human Penis

Purpose

A pilot study to describe histopathological features of penile tissue of patients who recovered from symptomatic COVID-19 infection and subsequently developed severe erectile dysfunction (ED).

Materials and Methods

Penile tissue was collected from patients undergoing surgery for penile prosthesis for severe ED. Specimens were obtained from two men with a history of COVID-19 infection and two men with no history of infection. Specimens were imaged with TEM and H&E staining. RT-PCR was performed from corpus cavernosum biopsies. The tissues collected were analyzed for endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase (eNOS, a marker of endothelial function) and COVID-19 spike-protein expression. Endothelial progenitor cell (EPC) function was assessed from blood samples collected from COVID-19 (+) and COVID-19 (−) men.

Results

TEM showed extracellular viral particles ~100 nm in diameter with peplomers (spikes) near penile vascular endothelial cells of the COVID-19 (+) patients and absence of viral particles in controls. PCR showed presence of viral RNA in COVID-19 (+) specimens. eNOS expression in the corpus cavernosum of COVID-19 (+) men was decreased compared to COVID-19 (−) men. Mean EPC levels from the COVID-19 (+) patients were substantially lower compared to mean EPCs from men with severe ED and no history of COVID-19.

Conclusions

Our study is the first to demonstrate the presence of the COVID-19 virus in the penis long after the initial infection in humans. Our results also suggest that widespread endothelial cell dysfunction from COVID-19 infection can contribute to ED. Future studies will evaluate novel molecular mechanisms of how COVID-19 infection leads to ED.

Development and Clinical Evaluation of an Immunochromatography-Based Rapid Antigen Test (GenBody™ COVAG025) for COVID-19 Diagnosis

Antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis are simpler and faster than their molecular counterparts. Clinical validation of such tests is a prerequisite before their field applications. We developed and clinically evaluated an immunochromatographic immunoassay, GenBody™ COVAG025, for the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (NP) antigen in two different clinical studies. Retrospectively, 130 residual nasopharyngeal swabs transferred in viral transport medium (VTM), pre-examined for COVID-19 through emergency use authorization (EUA)-approved real-time RT-PCR assay and tested with GenBody™ COVAG025, revealed a sensitivity and specificity of 90.00% (27/30; 95% CI: 73.47% to 97.89%) and 98.00% (98/100; 95% CI: 92.96% to 99.76%), respectively, fulfilling WHO guidelines. Subsequently, the prospective examination of 200 symptomatic and asymptomatic nasopharyngeal swabs, collected on site and tested with GenBody™ COVAG025 and EUA-approved real-time RT-PCR assay simultaneously, revealed a significantly higher sensitivity and specificity of 94.00% (94/100; 95% CI: 87.40% to 97.77%) and 100.00% (100/100; 95% CI: 96.38% to 100.00%), respectively. Clinical sensitivity and specificity were significantly high for samples with Ct values ≤ 30 as well as within 3 days of symptom onset, justifying its dependency on the viral load. Thus, it is assumed this can help with the accurate diagnosis and timely isolation and treatment of patients with COVID-19, contributing to better control of the global pandemic.

An international, interlaboratory ring trial confirms the feasibility of an open-source, extraction-less "direct" RT-qPCR method for reliable detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in clinical samples

Reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is used worldwide to test and trace the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). "Extraction-less" or "direct" real time-reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is an open-access qualitative method for SARS-CoV-2 detection from nasopharyngeal or oral pharyngeal samples with the potential to generate actionable data more quickly, at a lower cost, and with fewer experimental resources than full RT-qPCR. This study engaged 10 global testing sites, including laboratories currently experiencing testing limitations due to reagent or equipment shortages, in an international interlaboratory ring trial. Participating laboratories were provided a common protocol, common reagents, aliquots of identical pooled clinical samples, and purified nucleic acids and used their existing in-house equipment. We observed 100% concordance across laboratories in the correct identification of all positive and negative samples, with highly similar cycle threshold values. The test also performed well when applied to locally collected patient nasopharyngeal samples, provided the viral transport media did not contain charcoal or guanidine, both of which appeared to potently inhibit the RT-PCR reaction. Our results suggest that open-access, direct RT-PCR assays are a feasible option for more efficient COVID-19 coronavirus disease testing as demanded by the continuing pandemic.