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

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen tests for COVID19 compared to the viral genetic test in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the currently available and upcoming point-of-care rapid antigen tests (RATs) used in primary care settings relative to the viral genetic real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test as a reference for diagnosing COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 in adults.

INTRODUCTION

Accurate COVID-19 point-of-care diagnostic tests are required for real-time identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection in individuals. Real-time RT-PCR is the accepted gold standard for diagnostic testing, requiring technical expertise and expensive equipment that are unavailable in most primary care locations. RATs are immunoassays that detect the presence of a specific viral protein, which implies a current infection with SARS-CoV-2. RATs are qualitative or semi-quantitative diagnostics that lack thresholds that provide a result within a short time frame, typically within the hour following sample collection. In this systematic review, we synthesized the current evidence regarding the accuracy of RATs for detecting SARS-CoV-2 compared with RT-PCR.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Studies that included nonpregnant adults (18 years or older) with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of symptomology or disease severity, were included. The index test was any available SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care RAT. The reference test was any commercially distributed RT-PCR-based test that detects the RNA genome of SARS-CoV-2 and has been validated by an independent third party. Custom or in-house RT-PCR tests were also considered, with appropriate validation documentation. The diagnosis of interest was COVID-19 disease and SARS-CoV-2 infection. This review considered cross-sectional and cohort studies that examined the diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 infection where the participants had both index and reference tests performed.

METHODS

The keywords and index terms contained in relevant articles were used to develop a full search strategy for PubMed and adapted for Embase, Scopus, Qinsight, and the WHO COVID-19 databases . Studies published from November 2019 to July 12, 2022, were included, as SARS-CoV-2 emerged in late 2019 and is the cause of a continuing pandemic. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were critically appraised using QUADAS-2. Using a customized tool, data were extracted from included studies and were verified prior to analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive, and negative predictive values were calculated and presented with 95% CIs. When heterogeneity was observed, outlier analysis was conducted, and the results were generated by removing outliers.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis was performed on 91 studies of 581 full-text articles retrieved that provided true-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative values. RATs can identify individuals who have COVID-19 with high reliability (positive predictive value 97.7%; negative predictive value 95.2%) when considering overall performance. However, the lower level of sensitivity (67.1%) suggests that negative test results likely need to be retested through an additional method.

CONCLUSIONS

Most reported RAT brands had only a few studies comparing their performance with RT-PCR. Overall, a positive RAT result is an excellent predictor of a positive diagnosis of COVID-19. We recommend that Roche's SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test and Abbott's BinaxNOW tests be used in primary care settings, with the understanding that negative results need to be confirmed through RT-PCR. We recommend adherence to the STARD guidelines when reporting on diagnostic data.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020224250.

Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Screening Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Infection at Correctional Facilities in Korea: March - May 2022

BACKGROUND

The number of confirmed cases of individuals with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection increased rapidly due to the Omicron variant. Correctional facilities are vulnerable to infectious diseases, and they introduced rapid antigen tests (RATs) to allow for early detection and rapid response. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance and usefulness of SARS-CoV-2 RATs in newly incarcerated people.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study at correctional facilities in Korea from 9 March to 22 May 2022. The study population was newly incarcerated people who were divided into two groups. In one group, 799 paired SARS-CoV-2 RATs and real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) were conducted simultaneously in 522 individuals in March 2022. In the other group, 4,034 paired RATs and RT-PCR consecutively in 4,034 participants; only individuals with negative RATs results underwent RT-PCR from April to May 2022. We analyzed data using descriptive statistics and a logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Among the 799 specimens in March, RT-PCR was positive in 72 (9.0%), and among the 4,034 specimens in April - May 2022, RT-PCR was positive in 40 (1.0%). Overall, the RATs had a sensitivity of 58.3%, specificity of 100.0%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 100.0%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 96.0%. Asymptomatic individuals constituted 98.2% of the study group, and symptomatic individuals 1.8%. In asymptomatic cases, the sensitivity of RATs was 52.5%, specificity was 100.0%, PPV was 100.0%, and NPV was 96.3%. In symptomatic cases, the sensitivity of RATs was 84.6%, specificity was 100.0%, PPV was 100.0%, and NPV was 33.3%. Sensitivity (P = 0.034) and NPV (P = 0.004) differed significantly according to the presence and absence of symptoms, and the F1 score was the highest at 0.9 in symptomatic individuals in March. There was a positive linear trend in the proportion of false-negative RATs in newly incarcerated people following the weekly incidence of SARS-CoV-2 (P = 0.033). The best-associated predictors of RATs for SARS-CoV-2 infection involved symptoms, timing of sample collection, and repeat testing.

CONCLUSION

Sensitivity and NPV significantly depend on whether symptoms are present, and the percentage of false negatives is correlated with the incidence. Thus, using RATs should be adjusted according to the presence or absence of symptoms and the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community. RATs could be a useful screening tool as an effective first-line countermeasure because they can rapidly identify infectious patients and minimize SARS-CoV-2 transmission in correctional facilities.

Clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic test using SERS-based lateral flow immunoassay

Background

'ACROSIS COVID-19 Ag (NPS)' kit (SG Medical, Seoul, Korea) is a newly developed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen-detection rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) using surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS)-based lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA). We evaluated its clinical performance compared with STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag (SD Biosensor, Suwon, Korea), a previously approved Ag-RDT.

Methods

A total of 286 nasopharyngeal swab specimens were collected: 104 positive and 182 negative specimens in SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse-transcription polymerase-chain-reaction (rRT-PCR). SARS-CoV-2-positive specimens were divided according to the cycle threshold (Ct) value in rRT-PCR. The clinical performance of ACROSIS was compared with that of STANDARD Q.

Results

ACROSIS showed significantly higher sensitivity than STANDARD Q (92.3% vs. 85.6%, P = 0.02), especially in specimens with 25 ≤ Ct < 30 (78.6% vs. 42.9%). The Ct values of RdRp/S genes for 95% detection rates by ACROSIS and STANDARD Q were 25.8 and 23.0, respectively.

Conclusions

This is the first study that evaluated the performance of ACROSIS compared with STANDARD Q. The overall clinical performance of ACROSIS was superior to that of STANDARD Q, especially in specimens with 25 ≤ Ct < 30. ACROSIS could be useful for SARS-CoV-2 Ag detection even in relatively low viral load specimens.

Real-World Accuracy of a SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Diagnostic Tests in the Republic of Korea

Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) became the most important tool for the diagnosis of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), however there have been very few evaluations of the accuracy of the RDTs in actual use. In this study, we investigated the performance accuracy of the RDT, the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag (STANDARD Q), in the Republic of Korea. We collected a total of 5,792 results that underwent both RDT and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction simultaneously, and overall sensitivity and specificity of the STANDARD Q were 57.6% and 99.9%, respectively. With binomial logistic regression analysis, we estimated that about half of the COVID-19 patients with a cycle threshold value of 25 for E and RdRP were RDT-negative. These results suggest that the clinical sensitivity of RDTs against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is considerably low in a real-world setting, and we recommend that limitations of RDTs should be considered when setting up COVID-19 test strategies.