Point-of-Care Antigen Test for SARS-CoV-2 in Asymptomatic College Students

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.

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.

Nasal swab is a good alternative sample for detecting SARS-CoV-2 with rapid antigen test: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We aim to determine if nasal samples have equivalent detection sensitivity to nasopharyngeal swabs for RAT and evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of nasal swabs with RAT.

METHODS

PubMed and Web of Science were searched for eligible studies published before August 23, 2022. A bivariate random effects model was used to perform the quantitative synthesis.

RESULTS

The pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and summary AUC on nasal swabs with RAT were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.77-0.85), 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99-1.00), 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95-0.98), 298.91 (95% CI, 144.71-617.42) and 0.19 (95% CI, 0.15-0.23), respectively. WHO required RAT kits to perform with a sensitivity of 0.80 and a specificity of 0.97, nasal swabs (0.81) achieved the required sensitivity while nasopharyngeal swabs (0.75) did not. The symptomatic population yielded higher pooled sensitivity than the asymptomatic population (0.86 versus 0.71), with a pooled sensitivity of 0.90 for five days of symptom onset.

CONCLUSION

Nasal sampling had a great performance and yielded a high sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2 using RAT, we believe that RAT performed with nasal swabs is a good alternative for detecting SARS-CoV-2, especially early in the onset of symptoms.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Antigen Testing

BACKGROUND

Immunoassays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens (Ag) are commonly used to diagnose COVID-19. The most widely used tests are lateral flow assays that generate results in approximately 15 minutes for diagnosis at the point-of-care. Higher throughput, laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 Ag assays have also been developed. The number of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 Ag detection tests has increased rapidly, as has the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 Ag testing. This guideline is an update to the third in a series of frequently updated COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines developed by the IDSA.

OBJECTIVE

The IDSA's goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations or suggestions that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, public health authorities, administrators and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests in both medical and non-medical settings.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests. A review of relevant, peer-reviewed published literature was conducted through April 1, 2022. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel made ten diagnostic recommendations. These recommendations address Ag testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals and assess single versus repeat testing strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) have high specificity and low to moderate sensitivity compared to nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). Ag test sensitivity is dependent on the presence or absence of symptoms, and in symptomatic patients, on timing of testing after symptom onset. In contrast, Ag tests have high specificity, and, in most cases, positive Ag results can be acted upon without confirmation. Results of point-of-care testing are comparable to those of laboratory-based testing, and observed or unobserved self-collection of specimens for testing yields similar results. Modeling suggests that repeat Ag testing increases sensitivity compared to testing once, but no empirical data were available to inform this question. Based on these observations, rapid RT-PCR or laboratory-based NAAT remains the testing method of choice for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, when timely molecular testing is not readily available or is logistically infeasible, Ag testing helps identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were insufficient to make a recommendation about the utility of Ag testing to guide release of patients with COVID-19 from isolation. The overall quality of available evidence supporting use of Ag testing was graded as very low to moderate.

SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests for screening of healthcare workers; experience with over 48,000 combined antigen tests and RT-PCR tests

BACKGROUND

To prevent spread to patients and co-workers, health care workers (HCWs) infected with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) should quickly be identified. Although real time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the gold standard, this test takes several hours, during which a HCW is unable to work. Antigen (Ag) tests may be an efficacious means of screening HCWs since they are easy to perform and provide fast results.

METHODS

In this study, 48,010 paired results of Ag-testing and RT-PCR, performed on HCWs between January 2021 and April 2022, were evaluated to determine the diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-tests in diagnosing potentially infectious individuals. This analysis was performed with cycling threshold values (Ct-values) ≤30 and ≤25 as cut-offs.

RESULTS

Respectively 3.1% (n = 1507) and 0.3% (n = 140) of Ag-tests were positive or indeterminate, and thus indicative for SARS-CoV-2 infection. In total, 2479 (5.2%) RT-PCRs were positive, of which 1529 (61.7%) had a Ct-value ≤25 and 402 (16.2%) a Ct-value between 26 and 30. At Ct-value ≤30 as a cut-off, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of Ag-tests were 79.0%, 99.8%, 93.8% and 99.1%, respectively. At Ct-value ≤25, sensitivity further improved to 92.0%, by which the NPV increased to 99.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

To prevent transmission from HCWs to patients and co-workers, while maintaining workforce capacity, Ag-tests are a valuable addition to RT-PCR tests, as they have a quick turnaround time and excellent sensitivity for identifying individuals with high potential for transmission.

Clinical Performance of Three Commercial SARS‐CoV‐2 Rapid Antigen Tests for Community-Dwelling Individuals in a Tropical Setting

During the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of Rapid Diagnosis Antigen Tests (RDAgTs) for SARS-CoV-2 detection has substantially increased as some of the brands available in the market were certified for clinical use by international regulatory agencies. RDAgTs are a fast and cheap tool for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance with great potential to improve testing capacities in middle- and low-income countries compared to the gold standard RT-qPCR. However, as the clinical performance of RDAgTs has been shown to vary greatly between the commercial brands available, evaluation studies are necessary. Moreover, the available evaluation has been done in high-income countries while SARS-CoV-2 transmission is also actively happening in developing countries, many of which are located in tropical latitudes where cross-reactivity with other infectious agents is highly prevalent, which could compromise RDAgT specificity. Moreover, unreported mutations and/or new SARS-CoV-2 variants may compromise RDAgT sensitivity as genomic surveillance is limited in these settings. Here we describe a multicenter and manufacturer‐independent evaluation of the clinical performance and analytical sensitivity of three different RDAgTs brands available in South America from three companies, Rapigen (South Korea), SD-Biosensor (South Korea), and Certest (Spain), compared to the gold standard RT-qPCR. A total number of 1,646 nasopharyngeal swabs from community-dwelling individuals were included in the study, and 379 of them were SARS-CoV-2 positive by RT-qPCR. The overall sensitivity for each RDAgT was 79% (IC95%: 72 - 86.2), 64.2% (IC95%: 56.7 - 71.6), and 45.8% (IC95%: 35.8 - 55.8) for SD-Biosensor, Certest, and Rapigen, respectively. The overall specificity for each RDAgT was 100%, 97.7% (IC95%: 96.8 - 98.6), and 100% for SD-Biosensor, Certest, and Rapigen, respectively. However, the limit of detection (LoD) to achieve a sensitivity over 90% was substantially lower for Certest RDAgT (10² copies/uL) compared to SD-Biosensor (10³ copies/uL) or Rapigen (10⁶ copies/uL) RDAgTs, considering that the gold standard RT-qPCR method used in this study has a high sensitivity of 97.7% and low LoD of 5 copies/uL. Additionally, the Certest RDAgT also showed an improved sensitivity up to 79.7% (IC95%: 70.2 – 89.2) for symptomatic individuals. Finally, the slight reduction in specificity for Certest RDAgTs was only associated with one of the laboratories performing this study, pointing out the need for locally assessed evaluation for RDAgTs like this one carried out in Ecuador. In conclusion, two of the three the RDAgTs tested in this study are a fast, cheap, and point of care tool for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance and reliable enough to detect SARS-CoV-2 infectious individuals.

Update of Guidelines for Laboratory Diagnosis of COVID-19 in Korea

Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine and the Korea Disease Prevention and Control Agency have announced guidelines for diagnosing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in clinical laboratories in Korea. With the ongoing pandemic, we propose an update of the previous guidelines based on new scientific data. This update includes recommendations for tests that were not included in the previous guidelines, including the rapid molecular test, antigen test, antibody test, and self-collected specimens, and a revision of the previous recommendations. This update will aid clinical laboratories in performing laboratory tests for diagnosing COVID-19.

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.

Detection of the omicron variant virus with the Abbott BinaxNow SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Assay

We assessed the ability of the BinaxNow rapid test to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antigen from 4 individuals with Omicron and Delta infections. We performed serial dilutions of nasal swab samples, and specimens with concentrations of ≥100 000 copies/swab were positive, demonstrating that the BinaxNow test is able to detect the Omicron variant.

Performance characteristics of the Abbott BinaxNOW SARS-CoV-2 antigen test in comparison to real-time RT-PCR and viral culture in community testing sites during November 2020

Point-of-care antigen tests are an important tool for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Antigen tests are less sensitive than real-time reverse-transcriptase PCR (rRT-PCR). Data on the performance of the BinaxNOW antigen test compared to rRT-PCR and viral culture by symptom and known exposure status, timing during disease or exposure period and demographic variables are limited. During November 3^rd-17^th, 2020, we collected paired upper respiratory swab specimens to test for SARS-CoV-2 by rRT-PCR and Abbott BinaxNOW (BinaxNOW) antigen test at two community testing sites in Pima County, Arizona. We administered a questionnaire to capture symptoms, known exposure status and previous SARS-CoV-2 test results. Specimens positive by either test were analyzed by viral culture. Previously we showed overall BinaxNOW sensitivity was 52.5%. Here we showed BinaxNOW sensitivity increased to 65.7% among currently symptomatic individuals reporting a known exposure. BinaxNOW sensitivity was lower among participants with a known exposure and previously symptomatic (32.4%) or never symptomatic (47.1%) within 14 days of testing. Sensitivity was 71.1% in participants within a week of symptom onset. In participants with a known exposure, sensitivity was highest 8-10 days post-exposure (75%). The positive predictive value for recovery of virus in cell culture was 56.7% for BinaxNOW-positive and 35.4% for rRT-PCR-positive specimens. Result reporting time was 2.5 hours for BinaxNOW and 26 hours for rRT-PCR. Point-of-care antigen tests have a shorter turn-around time compared to laboratory-based nucleic acid amplification tests, which allows for more rapid identification of infected individuals. Antigen test sensitivity limitations are important to consider when developing a testing program.