COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test as Screening Strategy at Points of Entry: Experience in Lazio Region, Central Italy, August-October 2020

Comparative evaluation of RT-PCR and antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 detection: performance, variant specificity, and clinical implications

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the critical need for accurate and efficient diagnostic tools for detecting severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. This study presents a comparison of two diagnostic tests: RT-PCR and antigen detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs). This study focused on their performance, variant specificity, and their clinical implications. A simultaneous testing of 268 samples was carried out for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR and Ag-RDTs [flourescence immunoassay (FIA) and lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA)]. Viral load was quantified, and variant identification was performed using a PCR-based assay. The prevalence was found to be 30.2% using reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR), 26.5% using FIA, and 25% using LFIA. When comparing the FIA and LFIA, the overall diagnostic performance was found to be 80.25% vs 76.54%, 96.79% vs 97.33%, 91.55% vs 90.51%, and 91.88% vs 92.56% for sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV), respectively. Both Ag-RDTs showed a strong agreement with RT-PCR (κ = 0.78-0.80). The overall accuracies of the FIA and LFIA were 92.41% and 92.13%, respectively. The FIA showed higher sensitivity (73.68%) and PPV (92.08%) than the LFIA (65.79% and 90.56%, respectively) in asymptomatic patients. At low Ct values (<25), both Ag-RDTs had 100% sensitivity, but the sensitivity reduced to 31.82% for FIA and 27.27% for LFIA at Ct values > 30. The diagnostic sensitivity of FIA compared to LFIA for detecting the Alpha variant was 78.85% vs. 69.23% and 72.22% vs. 83.33% for the Delta variant. Both Ag-RDTs had 100% sensitivity for detecting Omicron. Both Ag-RDTs performed well in patients with high viral loads and Omicron variant infections compared to those infected with Alpha and Delta variants. This study confirms the comparable performance of RT-PCR and Ag-RDTs, specifically FIA and LFIA, for SARS-CoV-2 detection. The FIA showed higher sensitivity and PPV in asymptomatic cases, while both Ag-RDTs exhibited strong agreement with RT-PCR results. Notably, Ag-RDTs, particularly FIA, proved effective in detecting the Omicron variant and cases with high viral loads, highlighting their potential clinical utility in managing the COVID-19 pandemic.IMPORTANCEThis study is of utmost importance in providing effective responses to manage the COVID-19 pandemic. It rigorously compares the diagnostic accuracy, variant specificity, and practical considerations of reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) and antigen detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), answering critical questions. The results of this study will help healthcare professionals choose the appropriate testing methods, allocate resources effectively, and enhance public health strategies. Given the evolution of the virus, understanding the performance of these diagnostic tools is crucial to adapting to emerging variants. Additionally, the study provides insights into logistical challenges and accessibility issues, which will contribute to refining testing workflows, particularly in resource-limited settings. Ultimately, the study's impact extends to global healthcare, providing valuable information for policymakers, clinicians, and public health officials as they work together for mitigating the impact of the pandemic.

Effectiveness of Point of Entry Health Screening Measures among Travelers in the Detection and Containment of the International Spread of COVID-19: A Review of the Evidence

COVID-19 remains a communicable disease with the capacity to cause substantial damage to health and health systems. Enhanced health screening at points of entry (POEs) is a public health measure implemented to support early detection, prevention and response to communicable diseases, such as COVID-19. The purpose of this study was to review the available evidence on the effectiveness of POE health screening in the detection and containment of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study was registered under PROSPERO and followed PRISMA guidelines in which the literature between 2019 and 2022 was retrieved from Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, Global Health, CINAHL, Embase, Google Scholar and international organizations. A total of 33,744 articles were screened for eligibility, from which 43 met the inclusion criteria. The modeling studies predicted POE screening able to detect COVID-19 in a range of 8.8% to 99.6%, while observational studies indicated a detection rate of 2% to 77.9%, including variants of concern depending on the screening method employed. The literature also indicated these measures can delay onset of the epidemic by 7 to 32 days. Based on our review findings, if POE screening measures are implemented in combination with other public health interventions such as rapid tests, they may help detect and reduce the spread of COVID-19.

A comparative study of eight COVID-19 protective measures and their impact on Swiss tourists' travel intentions

A comparative vignette-based experimental survey design incorporating various socio-psychological factors, linked to the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), the Health Belief Model (HBM) and the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking scale (DOSPERT) was carried out to test variations in eight travel-related COVID-19 protective measures on Swiss tourists' travel intentions. Among the tested measures, vaccination passports, surgical masks and quarantining are those that stand out the most, with surgical masks having the greatest acceptance and willingness to adopt while traveling. Quarantining, on the other hand, appears to have a deterrent influence on travel intentions, and vaccination passports have the lowest perceived barriers during travel, but the highest perceived benefits in mitigating the spread of the infection. The discussion of individual differences has specific implications for tourism management against the background of our empirical findings.

MTSS-AAE: Multi-task semi-supervised adversarial autoencoding for COVID-19 detection based on chest X-ray images

Efficient diagnosis of COVID-19 plays an important role in preventing the spread of the disease. There are three major modalities to diagnose COVID-19 which include polymerase chain reaction tests, computed tomography scans, and chest X-rays (CXRs). Among these, diagnosis using CXRs is the most economical approach; however, it requires extensive human expertise to diagnose COVID-19 in CXRs, which may deprive it of cost-effectiveness. The computer-aided diagnosis with deep learning has the potential to perform accurate detection of COVID-19 in CXRs without human intervention while preserving its cost-effectiveness. Many efforts have been made to develop a highly accurate and robust solution. However, due to the limited amount of labeled data, existing solutions are evaluated on a small set of test dataset. In this work, we proposed a solution to this problem by using a multi-task semi-supervised learning (MTSSL) framework that utilized auxiliary tasks for which adequate data is publicly available. Specifically, we utilized Pneumonia, Lung Opacity, and Pleural Effusion as additional tasks using the ChesXpert dataset. We illustrated that the primary task of COVID-19 detection, for which only limited labeled data is available, can be improved by using this additional data. We further employed an adversarial autoencoder (AAE), which has a strong capability to learn powerful and discriminative features, within our MTSSL framework to maximize the benefit of multi-task learning. In addition, the supervised classification networks in combination with the unsupervised AAE empower semi-supervised learning, which includes a discriminative part in the unsupervised AAE training pipeline. The generalization of our framework is improved due to this semi-supervised learning and thus it leads to enhancement in COVID-19 detection performance. The proposed model is rigorously evaluated on the largest publicly available COVID-19 dataset and experimental results show that the proposed model attained state-of-the-art performance.

Sniffer dogs performance is stable over time in detecting COVID-19 positive samples and agrees with the rapid antigen test in the field

Rapid antigen diagnostic (RAD) tests have been developed for the identification of the SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, they require nasopharyngeal or nasal swab, which is invasive, uncomfortable, and aerosolising. The use of saliva test was also proposed but has not yet been validated. Trained dogs may efficiently smell the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in biological samples of infected people, but further validation is needed both in laboratory and in field. The present study aimed to (1) assess and validate the stability over a specific time period of COVID-19 detection in humans' armpit sweat by trained dogs thanks to a double-blind laboratory test-retest design, and (2) assess this ability when sniffing people directly. Dogs were not trained to discriminate against other infections. For all dogs (n. 3), the laboratory test on 360 samples yielded 93% sensitivity and 99% specificity, an 88% agreement with the Rt-PCR, and a moderate to strong test-retest correlation. When sniffing people directly (n. 97), dogs' (n. 5) overall sensitivity (89%) and specificity (95%) were significantly above chance level. An almost perfect agreement with RAD results was found (kappa 0.83, SE 0.05, p = 0.001). Therefore, sniffer dogs met appropriate criteria (e.g., repeatability) and WHO's target product profiles for COVID-19 diagnostics and produced very promising results in laboratory and field settings, respectively. These findings support the idea that biodetection dogs could help reduce the spread of the virus in high-risk environments, including airports, schools, and public transport.

Comparison of Nasopharyngeal and Saliva Swab Nucleic Acid Amplification and Rapid Antigen Testing To Detect Omicron SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern: a Prospective Clinical Trial (OMICRON)

In November 2021, the World Health Organization declared the Omicron variant (B.1.1.519) a variant of concern. Since then, worries have been expressed regarding the ability of usual diagnostic tests to detect the Omicron variant. In addition, some recently published data suggested that the salivary reverse transcription (RT)-PCR might perform better than the current gold standard, nasopharyngeal (NP) RT-PCR. In this study, we aimed to compare the sensitivities of nasopharyngeal and saliva RT-PCR and assess the diagnostic performances of rapid antigen testing (RAT) in nasopharyngeal and saliva samples. We conducted a prospective clinical study among symptomatic health care professionals consulting the occupational health service of our hospital for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) screening and hospitalized patients in internal medicine/intensive care wards screened for SARS-CoV-2 with COVID-19-compatible symptoms. A composite outcome considering NP PCR and/or saliva PCR was used as a reference standard to define COVID-19 cases. A total of 475 paired NP/saliva specimens have been collected with a positivity rate of 40% (n = 192). NP and salivary RT-PCR exhibited sensitivities of 98% (95% CI, 94 to 99%) and 87% (95% CI, 81 to 91%), respectively, for outpatients (n = 453) and 94% (95% CI, 72 to 99%) and 69% (95% CI, 44 to 86%), respectively, for hospitalized patients (n = 22). Nasopharyngeal rapid antigen testing exhibited much lower diagnostic performances (sensitivity of 66% and 31% for outpatients and inpatients, respectively), while saliva RAT showed a sensitivity of less than 5% in both groups. Nasopharyngeal RT-PCR testing remains the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant screening. Salivary RT-PCR can be used as an alternative in case of contraindication to perform NP sampling. The use of RAT should be limited to settings where access to molecular diagnostic methods is lacking. IMPORTANCE The Omicron variant of concern spread rapidly since it was first reported in November 2021 and currently accounts for the vast majority of new infections worldwide. Recent reports suggest that saliva sampling might outweigh nasopharyngeal sampling for the diagnosis of the Omicron variant. Nevertheless, data investigating the best diagnostic strategy specifically for the Omicron variant of concern remain scarce. This study fills this gap in current knowledge and elucidates the question of which strategy to use in which patient. It provides a new basis for further improving COVID-19 screening programs and managing patients suspected to have COVID-19.

COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Tests: Bibliometric Analysis of the Scientific Literature

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to disrupt health systems worldwide, conducting Rapid Antigen Testing (RAT) at specified intervals has become an essential part of many people's lives around the world. We identified and analyzed the academic literature on COVID-19 RAT. The Web of Science electronic database was queried on 6 July 2022 to find relevant publications. Publication and citation data were retrieved directly from the database. VOSviewer, a bibliometric software, was then used to relate these data to the semantic content from the titles, abstracts, and keywords. The analysis was based on data from 1000 publications. The most productive authors were from Japan and the United States, led by Dr. Koji Nakamura from Japan (n = 10, 1.0%). The most academically productive countries were in the North America, Europe and Asia, led by the United States of America (n = 266, 26.6%). Sensitivity (n = 32, 3.2%) and specificity (n = 23, 2.3%) were among the most frequently recurring author keywords. Regarding sampling methods, "saliva" (n = 54, 5.4%) was mentioned more frequently than "nasal swab" (n = 32, 3.2%) and "nasopharyngeal swab" (n = 22, 2.2%). Recurring scenarios that required RAT were identified: emergency department, healthcare worker, mass screening, airport, traveler, and workplace. Our bibliometric analysis revealed that COVID-19 RAT has been utilized in a range of studies. RAT results were cross-checked with RT-PCR tests for sensitivity and specificity. These results are consistent with comparable exchanges of methods, results or discussions among laboratorians, authors, institutions and publishers in the involved countries of the world.

Clinical Accuracy of Instrument-Read SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests (Ag-IRRDTs)

This systematic review (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021282476) aims to collect and analyse current evidence on real-world performance based on clinical accuracy of instrument-read rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-IRRDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 identification. We used PRISMA Checklist and searched databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-IRRDTs as of 30 September 2021, and included 40 independent clinical studies resulting in 48 Ag-IRRDT datasets with 137,770 samples. Across all datasets, pooled Ag-IRRDT sensitivity was 67.1% (95% CI: 65.9%-68.3%) and specificity was 99.4% with a tight CI. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-IRRDTs did not demonstrate a significant superiority over SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests which do not require a reader instrument, even in the case where surveillance and screening datasets were excluded from the analysis. Nevertheless, they provide connectivity advantages and remove operator interface (in results-reading) issues. The lower sensitivity of certain brands of Ag-IRRDTs can be overcome in high prevalence areas with high frequency of testing. New SARS-CoV-2 variants are major concern for current and future diagnostic performance of these tests.

Evaluation of the rapid antigen detection test STANDARD F COVID-19 Ag FIA for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2: Experience from an Emergency Department

The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical performance of STANDARD F COVID-19 Ag FIA (SD Biosensor Inc., Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea), a rapid antigen detection test (RADT) for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2, in patients attended at the Emergency Department with signs or symptoms compatible with COVID-19 that had started in the last 5 days. The clinical performance of the antigen test was compared with RT-PCR, the reference standard. We included 663 specimens from non-repetitive patients. Clinical sensitivity and specificity were 84.0% (95% CI 76.1−89.7) and 99.6% (95% CI 98.5−99.9), respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 98.1% (95% CI 92.7−99.7) and 96.4% (95% CI 94.4−97.7), respectively. The kappa index agreement between RT-PCR and the RADT was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84−0.93). We concluded that STANDARD F COVID-19 Ag FIA is an excellent first-line RADT method to diagnose symptomatic patients in the emergency department.

The Performance of Two Rapid Antigen Tests During Population-Level Screening for SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Background: SARS-CoV-2 antigen assays offer a rapid mean to diagnose and isolate infected individuals. However, their utility in population-level screening is unknown.

Objectives: The performance of two antigen tests in detecting SARS-CoV-2 was assessed among individuals randomly selected in the community.

Study Design: A prospective study that performed head-to-head comparison of two SARS-CoV-2 antigen assays. Individuals were recruited during community SARS-CoV-2 screening over 10 working days. Demographic and clinical data were collected. Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test, a point-of-care chromatographic assay, was conducted immediately, and then the sample was transported to the virology laboratory to perform PCR and the LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 Ag chemiluminesence immunoassay.

Results: respiratory samples from 991 individuals were collected, and 62 were positive by PCR. Inconclusive PCR results were observed in 19 samples and were excluded. The median age of participants was 40.2 years (IQR 32.3–47.8), and 932 (94%) were males. Most (77.4%) of infections were asymptomatic. The sensitivity and the specificity of the LIAISON assay were 43.3% (95%CI 30.6–56.8) and 99.9% (95%CI 99.3–100). The Standard Q assay had lower sensitivity (30.6%, 95%CI 19.6–43.7) but similar specificity (98.8%, 95%CI, 97.8–99.4). Similarly, the LIAISON assay had higher positive predictive value (96.3%, 95%CI 81–99.9% vs. 63.3%, 95%CI, 43.9–80.1%). Both assays performed better in symptomatic patients and among samples with a low-cycle threshold (Ct < 25).

Conclusion: In our setting of random community surveillance, rapid antigen testing of nasopharyngeal swabs by either LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 Ag (DiaSorin) or Standard Q COVID-19 Ag (SD Biosensor) was less sensitive to detecting SARS-CoV-2 than the TaqPath COVID-19 RT-PCR.

xViTCOS: Explainable Vision Transformer Based COVID-19 Screening Using Radiography

Objective: Since its outbreak, the rapid spread of COrona VIrus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) across the globe has pushed the health care system in many countries to the verge of collapse. Therefore, it is imperative to correctly identify COVID-19 positive patients and isolate them as soon as possible to contain the spread of the disease and reduce the ongoing burden on the healthcare system. The primary COVID-19 screening test, RT-PCR although accurate and reliable, has a long turn-around time. In the recent past, several researchers have demonstrated the use of Deep Learning (DL) methods on chest radiography (such as X-ray and CT) for COVID-19 detection. However, existing CNN based DL methods fail to capture the global context due to their inherent image-specific inductive bias. Methods: Motivated by this, in this work, we propose the use of vision transformers (instead of convolutional networks) for COVID-19 screening using the X-ray and CT images. We employ a multi-stage transfer learning technique to address the issue of data scarcity. Furthermore, we show that the features learned by our transformer networks are explainable. Results: We demonstrate that our method not only quantitatively outperforms the recent benchmarks but also focuses on meaningful regions in the images for detection (as confirmed by Radiologists), aiding not only in accurate diagnosis of COVID-19 but also in localization of the infected area. The code for our implementation can be found here - https://github.com/arnabkmondal/xViTCOS. Conclusion: The proposed method will help in timely identification of COVID-19 and efficient utilization of limited resources.

Rapid, Cheap, and Effective COVID-19 Diagnostics for Africa

BACKGROUND

Although comprehensive public health measures such as mass quarantine have been taken internationally, this has generally been ineffective, leading to a high infection and mortality rate. Despite the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic has been downgraded to epidemic status in many countries, the real number of infections is unknown, particularly in low-income countries. However, precision shielding is used in COVID-19 management, and requires estimates of mass infection in key groups. As a result, rapid tests for the virus could be a useful screening tool for asymptomatic virus shedders who are about to come into contact with sensitive groups. In Africa and other low- and middle-income countries there is high rate of COVID-19 under-diagnosis, due to the high cost of molecular assays. Exploring alternate assays to the reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for COVID-19 diagnosis is highly warranted.

AIM

This review explored the feasibility of using alternate molecular, rapid antigen, and serological diagnostic assays to accurately and precisely diagnose COVID-19 in African populations, and to mitigate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RT-PCR diagnostic challenges in Africa.

METHOD

We reviewed publications from internet sources and searched for appropriate documents available in English. This included Medline, Google Scholar, and Ajol. We included primary literature and some review articles that presented knowledge on the current trends on SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics in Africa and globally.

RESULTS

Based on our analysis, we highlight the utility of four different alternatives to RT-PCR. These include two isothermal nucleic acid amplification assays (loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) and recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA)), rapid antigen testing, and antibody testing for tackling difficulties posed by SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing in Africa.

CONCLUSION

The economic burden associated COVID-19 mass testing by RT-PCR will be difficult for low-income nations to meet. We provide evidence for the utility and deployment of these alternate testing methods in Africa and other LMICs.

Feasibility and Effectiveness Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Antigenic Tests in Mass Screening of a Pediatric Population and Correlation with the Kinetics of Viral Loads

The gold standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection has been nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT). However, rapid antigen detection kits (Ag-RDTs), may offer advantages over NAAT in mass screening, generating results in minutes, both as laboratory-based test or point-of-care (POC) use for clinicians, at a lower cost. We assessed two different POC Ag-RDTs in mass screening versus NAAT for SARS-CoV-2 in a cohort of pediatric patients admitted to the Pediatric Emergency Unit of IRCCS-Polyclinic of Sant'Orsola, Bologna (from November 2020 to April 2021). All patients were screened with nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-RNA and for antigen tests. Results were obtained from 1146 patients. The COVID-19 Ag FIA kit showed a baseline sensitivity of 53.8% (CI 35.4-71.4%), baseline specificity 99.7% (CI 98.4-100%) and overall accuracy of 80% (95% CI 0.68-0.91); the AFIAS COVID-19 Ag kit, baseline sensitivity of 86.4% (CI 75.0-93.9%), baseline specificity 98.3% (CI 97.1-99.1%) and overall accuracy of 95.3% (95% CI 0.92-0.99). In both tests, some samples showed very low viral load and negative Ag-RDT. This disagreement may reflect the positive inability of Ag-RDTs of detecting antigen in late phase of infection. Among all cases with positive molecular test and negative antigen test, none showed viral loads > 10⁶ copies/mL. Finally, we found one false Ag-RDTs negative result (low cycle thresholds; 9 × 10⁵ copies/mL). Our results suggest that both Ag-RDTs showed good performances in detection of high viral load samples, making it a feasible and effective tool for mass screening in actively infected children.

Factors that Influence the Reported Sensitivity of Rapid Antigen Testing for SARS-CoV-2

Tests that detect the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen in clinical specimens from the upper respiratory tract can provide a rapid means of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis and help identify individuals who may be infectious and should isolate to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission. This systematic review assesses the diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection in COVID-19 symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals compared to quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and summarizes antigen test sensitivity using meta-regression. In total, 83 studies were included that compared SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen-based lateral flow testing (RALFT) to RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2. Generally, the quality of the evaluated studies was inconsistent; nevertheless, the overall sensitivity for RALFT was determined to be 75.0% (95% confidence interval: 71.0-78.0). Additionally, RALFT sensitivity was found to be higher for symptomatic vs. asymptomatic individuals and was higher for a symptomatic population within 7 days from symptom onset compared to a population with extended days of symptoms. Viral load was found to be the most important factor for determining SARS-CoV-2 antigen test sensitivity. Other design factors, such as specimen storage and anatomical collection type, also affect the performance of RALFT. RALFT and RT-qPCR testing both achieve high sensitivity when compared to SARS-CoV-2 viral culture.

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.

Rapid COVID-19 Antigen Testing in Croatia: Risk Perception Plays an Important Role in the Epidemic Control

Aim: To explore the clinical presentation and epidemiological history of the subjects who underwent SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing. Methods: We included 1,000 consecutive subjects who presented themselves at the diagnostic clinic in Croatia and analyzed their symptoms and epidemiological history. All subjects were classified into three groups, according to their reason of arrival; symptomatic, contacts of confirmed patients, and those who were tested due to administrative reasons. Results: On average, there were 24% of positive antigen results; the positivity rate was 51% among symptomatic, 16% in contacts, and 5% of administrative patients. The commonest symptoms of the disease included febrility and anosmia. We developed a clinical score to predict SARS-CoV-2 positivity, which had an area under the curve of 79.3 [95% confidence intervals (CI) 75.8-82.8]. Contact with the isolated person [odds ratio 0.54 (95% CI 0.31-0.94)] and international travel had a protective effect [0.20 (0.09-0.43)], suggesting that risk perception and mandatory pretravel measures had a key role in the determination of the infection risk. Conclusions: A combination of clinical symptoms can have reasonable predictive power for an antigen-positive test result. Risk perception seems to have a role in the epidemic spread, probably via stricter adherence to personal preventative measures.

Clinical Application of the Novel Cell-Based Biosensor for the Ultra-Rapid Detection of the SARS-CoV-2 S1 Spike Protein Antigen: A Practical Approach

The availability of antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 represents a major step for the mass surveillance of the incidence of infection, especially regarding COVID-19 asymptomatic and/or early-stage patients. Recently, we reported the development of a Bioelectric Recognition Assay-based biosensor able to detect the SARS-CoV-2 S1 spike protein expressed on the surface of the virus in just three minutes, with high sensitivity and selectivity. The working principle was established by measuring the change of the electric potential of membrane-engineered mammalian cells bearing the human chimeric spike S1 antibody after attachment of the respective viral protein. In the present study, we applied the novel biosensor to patient-derived nasopharyngeal samples in a clinical set-up, with absolutely no sample pretreatment. More importantly, membrane-engineered cells were pre-immobilized in a proprietary biomatrix, thus enabling their long-term preservation prior to use as well as significantly increasing their ease-of-handle as test consumables. The plug-and-apply novel biosensor was able to detect the virus in positive samples with a 92.8% success rate compared to RT-PCR. No false negative results were recorded. These findings demonstrate the potential applicability of the biosensor for the early, routine mass screening of SARS-CoV-2 on a scale not yet realized.