Clinical performance of the Abbott Panbio with nasopharyngeal, throat, and saliva swabs among symptomatic individuals with COVID-19

Severe Covid-19 in pregnant and postpartum women admitted to an intensive care unit: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with worse maternal and fetal outcomes. This study aims to describe the characteristics of pregnant and postpartum women with severe Covid-19 admitted to ICU.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

It's a retrospective cohort study evaluating pregnant and postpartum women referenced to a specialized ICU between May 2020 and June 2022. Covid-19 was confirmed with RT-PCR or rapid antigen test on a nasopharyngeal swab. Variables were described by median and IQR when numerical, and by frequency and percentage when categorical. OR with 95% CI were calculated for the evaluation of factors related to death. P-values were calculated using Pearson's ꭓ2-test, Fisher's exact test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, and Kruskall-Wallis test, and statistical significance was established as < 0·05. Missing data were excluded. All statistical analysis were performed using R software version 4.2.2. Of the 101 admissions, 85 (84·2%) were of pregnant women. Obesity (23·0%) and systemic arterial hypertension (13·0%) were the most prevalent medical conditions. Sixty-six (65·3%) were admitted using some type of oxygen support. Forty-seven (46·5%) evolved to mechanical ventilation. There were 61 events considered obstetric complications, with 8 stillbirths/fetal losses. The overall lethality was 15·8%. Pregnancy interruption, need for non-invasive mechanical ventilation, level of oxygen support at admission, prone maneuver, hemodialysis, and healthcare-related infections were factors associated with death. Evaluating the WHO 7-category ordinary scale, there was a trend of increase in the risk of death with higher punctuation, with a statistically significant difference of women with 5 (OR = 7·27; 95% IC = 1·17-194; p = 0·031) or 6 points (OR = 12·0; 95% IC = 1·15-391; p = 0·038) when compared to the ones with 3 points, i.e., of women admitted with a high-flow non-rebreathing mask or invasive mechanical ventilation, compared with the ones admitted at room air, respectively. The main limitations of this study are the relatively small number of participants, and the use of data derived of medical records-which are susceptible to misclassification and variable amounts of missing data.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant and postpartum women with severe Covid-19 have high lethality and a high incidence of clinical and obstetric complications. These findings support that this population should be prioritized in public health strategies that address Covid-19.

Diagnostic evaluation of Panbio™ antigen rapid diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the reference diagnostic method for the confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infected cases. However, various antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) have been developed. The purpose of this meta-analysis study was to assess the diagnostic performance of Panbio™ Ag-RDT (Abbott Point of Care) in identifying the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

METHODS

We systematically searched eight databases from March 2020 until March 2023 to look for potentially eligible articles. Diagnostic meta-analysis of Panbio™ Ag-RDT used diverse evaluation indicators, including sensitivity, specificity, Diagnostic Odds Ratio (DOR), and the area under the curve (AUC) value.

RESULTS

Of the 794 articles identified, 49 studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled estimates of Panbio™ Ag-RDT for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 were 0,65 (95% CI: 0,64-0,66), 0,99 (95% CI: 0,99-1,00), 578,03 (95% CI: 333,37-1002,26) for sensitivity, specificity, and DOR, respectively. Moreover, the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve revealed an AUC value of 0,942 (95% CI: 0,941-0,943), suggesting an outstanding diagnostic accuracy. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses showed that continent, study period, age, study population and cycle threshold (Ct) values constituted a source of heterogeneity. Furthermore, we demonstrated proof of publication bias for DOR values analyzed using Deek's test (p = 0,001) and funnel plot.

CONCLUSION

Panbio™ Ag-RDT presented an outstanding diagnostic accuracy in the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in both adults and children with or without symptoms.

Saliva sampling and its direct lysis is an excellent option for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis in paediatric patients: comparison with the PanBio COVID-19 antigen rapid test in symptomatic and asymptomatic children

Introduction. Lateral flow test (LFTs) have been used as an alternative to reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) in point-of-care testing. Despite their benefits, the sensitivity of LFTs may be low and is affected by several factors. We have previously reported the feasibility of using direct lysis of individual or pools of saliva samples from symptomatic and asymptomatic patients as a source of viral genomes for detection by RT-qPCR.Hypothesis. Direct lysed saliva is more sensitive than antigen tests to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in samples from children.Aim. Our goals here were to valuate the specificity and sensitivity of the PanBio COVID-19 antigen rapid test device (Ag-RTD) compared with RT-qPCR of direct lysed saliva.Methodology. We evaluated the performance of the PanBio COVID-19 Ag-RTD in comparison to RT-qPCR direct lysed saliva from paired samples of 256 symptomatic and 242 asymptomatic paediatric patients.Results. Overall, although there were no differences in the specificity (96.6%), we found a lower sensitivity (64.3%) of the PanBio Ag-test RTD compared to saliva in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. In addition, the sensitivity of PanBio was not correlated with the viral load present in the samples.Conclusion. Our data highlight the benefits of using RT-qPCR and saliva samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection, particularly in paediatric patients.

Association Between Rapid Antigen Detection Tests and Real-Time Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

Objectives: We aimed to assess the association between rapid antigen detection tests and real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction assay for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and the Web of Science from their inception to 31 May 2023. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate false positives in the RADTs group, relative to those in the RT-PCR group, and subgroup analyses were conducted based on the different Ct value cut-offs (<40 or ≥40). We performed this study in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Results: Fifty-one studies were included and considered to be of moderate quality. We found a satisfactory overall false positive rate (0.01, 95% CI: 0.00-0.01) for the RADTs compared to RT-PCR. In the stratified analysis, we also found that the false positive rates of the RADTs did not increase when Ct values of RT-PCR (Ct < 40, 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00-0.01; Ct ≥ 40, 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00-0.01). Conclusion: In conclusion, the best available evidence supports an association between RADTs and RT-PCR. When Ct-values were analyzed using cut-off <40 or ≥40, this resulted in an estimated false positive rate of only 1%.

Direct comparison of clinical diagnostic sensitivity of saliva from buccal swabs versus combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 Omicron

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

While current guidelines recommend the use of respiratory tract specimens for the direct detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, saliva has recently been suggested as preferred sample type for the sensitive detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron). By comparing saliva collected using buccal swabs and oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs from patients hospitalized due to COVID-19, we aimed at identifying potential differences in virus detection sensitivity between these sample types.

METHODS

We compare the clinical diagnostic sensitivity of paired buccal swabs and combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs from hospitalized, symptomatic COVID-19 patients collected at median six days after symptom onset by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and antigen test.

RESULTS

Of the tested SARS-CoV-2 positive sample pairs, 55.8% were identified as SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and 44.2% as Omicron BA.2. Real-time PCR from buccal swabs generated significantly higher quantification cycle (Cq) values compared to those from matched combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs and resulted in an increased number of false-negative PCR results. Reduced diagnostic sensitivity of buccal swabs by real-time PCR was observed already at day one after symptom onset. Similarly, antigen test detection rates were reduced in buccal swabs compared to combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest reduced clinical diagnostic sensitivity of saliva collected using buccal swabs when compared to combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron in symptomatic individuals.

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.

Feasibility of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen self-testing in school and summer camp attendees

Background

SARS-CoV-2 screening is one of the pillars of non-pharmaceutical preventive strategies to early identify and isolate infected individuals and therefore decrease community incidence.

Methods

We assessed the feasibility of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 self-testing with antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests in attendees of educational settings.

Results

A total of 305 students (88.15%) and 41 staff (11.85%) from 9 to 56 years old participated in the self-testing procedure and answered the survey at the end of the study. 91.3% (n = 313) did not need help, 96.1% of participants reported the same outcome as the healthcare workers. 94.5% strongly or slightly agree with the statement "I would repeat the experience".

Conclusion

The study demonstrates that self-testing is acceptable and usable in children, adolescents and adults when the epidemiological situation may require a systematic screening of these populations, although supervision by health care or previously trained personnel is recommended for younger age groups.

Utilization of rapid antigen tests for screening SARS-CoV-2 prior to dental treatment

Potential aerosols containing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral particles can be generated during dental treatment. Hence, patient triage is essential to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in dental clinical settings. The present study described the use of rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 screening prior to dental treatment in an academic dental clinical setting in Thailand during the pandemic. The opinions of dental personnel toward the use of rapid antigen test screening prior to dental treatment were also assessed. From August 25 to October 3, 2021, dental patients who were expected to receive aerosols generating dental procedures were requested to screen for SARS-CoV-2 using a rapid antigen test before their treatment. A total of 7,618 cases completed the screening process. The average was 212 cases per day. Only five patients (0.07%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the rapid antigen screening tests. All positive cases exhibited mild symptoms. For the questionnaire study, experienced dental personnel frequently and consistently agreed with the use of the rapid antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 screening, which made them feel safer during their patient treatment. However, implementing rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 may increase the total time spent on a dental appointment. In conclusion, a rapid antigen test could detect the infected individual prior to dental treatment. However, the specificity of rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 must be taken into account for consideration as a screening process before dental treatment. The enhanced infection control protocols in dental treatment must be consistently implemented.

Accuracy of point-of-care Panbio™ SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection test in a socioeconomically vulnerable population in Brazil

Background

Development and validation of point-of-care (POC) diagnostic tests with high accuracy is critical for underrepresented populations, allowing for wider access to diagnosis. Here, we evaluate the performance of the Panbio™ antigen-rapid test device (Ag-RTD) for SARS-CoV-2, our index test, having RT-qPCR as the reference standard.

Methods

This phase III validation study was conducted concomitantly with a primary health care center routine tending to a low-income Brazilian population. Eligibility criteria were residing at Cidade Estrutural and presenting flu-like/respiratory symptoms for 3-10 days.

Results

Among the 505 participants, 45.15% (228/505) tested positive for RT-qPCR and 54.85% (277/505) for the Ag-RTD. Overall sensitivity was 76.32% (CI95% 70.39-81.37) and specificity was 98.92% (96.02-99.82).

Conclusions

Our results show that the Panbio™ Ag-RTD does not meet the minimum performance requirements established by the World Health Organization (≥ 80% sensitivity and ≥ 97% specificity compared to a reference test in suspected COVID-19 cases). Thus, we do not recommend the implementation of Panbio™Ag-RTD as a single diagnostic tool in underrepresented and disadvantaged populations. Finally, we discuss a possible setting for the use of Panbio™Ag-RTD under combined sensitivity.

Point of care molecular and antigen detection tests for COVID-19: current status and future prospects

INTRODUCTION

Detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been critical to support and management of the COVID-19 pandemic. Point of care testing (POCT) for SARS-CoV-2 has been a widely used tool for detection of SARS-CoV-2.

AREAS COVERED

POCT nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) and rapid antigen tests (RATs) have been the most readily used POCT for SARS-CoV-2. Here, current knowledge on the utility of POCT NAATs and RATs for SARS-CoV-2 are reviewed and discussed alongside aspects of quality assurance factors that must be considered for successful and safe implementation of POCT.

EXPERT OPINION

Use cases for implementation of POCT must be evidence based, regardless of the test used. A quality assurance framework must be in place to ensure accuracy and safety of POCT.

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.

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.

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

SCOPE

The objective of these guidelines is to identify the most appropriate diagnostic test and/or diagnostic approach for SARS-CoV-2. The recommendations are intended to provide guidance to clinicians, clinical microbiologists, other health care personnel, and decision makers.

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. Each 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, 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. Quality of evidence assessment was based on the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation - adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of recommendations) approach.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A total of 43 PICO questions were selected that involve the following types of populations: (a) patients with signs and symptoms of COVID-19; (b) travellers, healthcare workers, and other individuals at risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2; (c) asymptomatic individuals, and (d) close contacts of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. The type of diagnostic test (commercial rapid nucleic acid amplification tests and rapid antigen detection), biomaterial, time since onset of symptoms/contact with an infectious case, age, disease severity, and risk of developing severe disease are also taken into consideration.

Diagnostic Performance of Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests, Chest Computed Tomography, and Lung Point-of-Care-Ultrasonography for SARS-CoV-2 Compared with RT-PCR Testing: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: The comparative performance of various diagnostic methods for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the comparison of the 3 index test performances of rapid antigen diagnostic tests (RDTs), chest computed tomography (CT), and lung point-of-care-ultrasonography (US) with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), the reference standard, to provide more evidence-based data on the appropriate use of these index tests. (2) Methods: We retrieved data from electronic literature searches of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE from 1 January 2020, to 1 April 2021. Diagnostic performance was examined using bivariate random-effects diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) models. (3) Results: Of the 3992 studies identified in our search, 118 including 69,445 participants met our selection criteria. Among these, 69 RDT, 38 CT, and 15 US studies in the pairwise meta-analysis were included for DTA with NMA. CT and US had high sensitivity of 0.852 (95% credible interval (CrI), 0.791–0.914) and 0.879 (95% CrI, 0.784–0.973), respectively. RDT had high specificity, 0.978 (95% CrI, 0.960–0.996). In accuracy assessment, RDT and CT had a relatively higher than US. However, there was no significant difference in accuracy between the 3 index tests. (4) Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that, compared with the reference standard RT-PCR, the 3 index tests (RDTs, chest CT, and lung US) had similar and complementary performances for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. To manage and control COVID-19 effectively, future large-scale prospective studies could be used to obtain an optimal timely diagnostic process that identifies the condition of the patient accurately.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 Spatial Care Path: Home, Community, and Emergency Diagnostic Portals

This research uses mathematically derived visual logistics to interpret COVID-19 molecular and rapid antigen test (RAgT) performance, determine prevalence boundaries where risk exceeds expectations, and evaluate benefits of recursive testing along home, community, and emergency spatial care paths. Mathematica and open access software helped graph relationships, compare performance patterns, and perform recursive computations. Tiered sensitivity/specificity comprise: (T1) 90%/95%; (T2) 95%/97.5%; and (T3) 100%/≥99%, respectively. In emergency medicine, median RAgT performance peaks at 13.2% prevalence, then falls below T1, generating risky prevalence boundaries. RAgTs in pediatric ERs/EDs parallel this pattern with asymptomatic worse than symptomatic performance. In communities, RAgTs display large uncertainty with median prevalence boundary of 14.8% for 1/20 missed diagnoses, and at prevalence > 33.3−36.9% risk 10% false omissions for symptomatic subjects. Recursive testing improves home RAgT performance. Home molecular tests elevate performance above T1 but lack adequate validation. Widespread RAgT availability encourages self-testing. Asymptomatic RAgT and PCR-based saliva testing present the highest chance of missed diagnoses. Home testing twice, once just before mingling, and molecular-based self-testing, help avoid false omissions. Community and ER/ED RAgTs can identify contagiousness in low prevalence. Real-world trials of performance, cost-effectiveness, and public health impact could identify home molecular diagnostics as an optimal diagnostic portal.

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.

False-positivity results in rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2: an umbrella review of meta-analyses and systematic reviews

INTRODUCTION

The rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) for SARS-CoV-2 infection could contribute to the clinical and public health strategies for managing COVID-19. This umbrella review aimed to explore the accuracy and sensitivity of RADTs for SARS-CoV-2 by assessing the incidence of false positivity associated with them.

AREAS COVERED

Meta-analyses and systematic reviews on the sensitivity and specificity of commercially available RADTs with data on false-positive results were identified by searching the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from inception to March 31, 2022. All meta-analyses and systematic reviews on the sensitivity and specificity of rapid antigen tests were included. Data on the author and year, included studies, index tests, sample size, false negatives, false positives, and study quality based on AMSTAR 2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) rating were extracted from the included meta-analyses and systematic reviews.

EXPERT OPINION

We identified 12 meta-analyses and systematic review that presented data on the false-positive results in RADTs. The false positivity rates in the included studies ranged from 0.0% - 4.0%. This study summarizes the available evidence on the incidence of false positivity in RADTs and shows it is less than 4.0%. Therefore, our findings imply that RADTs can be an appropriate, economic, and rapid detection method for mass screening of COVID-19.

Saliva as a diagnostic specimen for SARS-CoV-2 detection: a scoping review

Objectives

This scoping review aims to summarize the diagnostic value of saliva assessed from current studies that (1) compare its performance in reverse transcriptase‐polymerase chain reaction testing to nasopharyngeal swabs, (2) evaluate its performance in rapid and point‐of‐care COVID‐19 diagnostic tests, and (3) explore its use as a specimen for detecting anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies.

Materials and Methods

A systematic search was performed on the following databases: Medline and Embase (Ovid), World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Global Health (Ovid) from January 2019 to September 2021. Of the 657 publications identified from the searches, n = 146 articles were included in the final scoping review.

Results

Our findings showcase that salivary samples exceed nasopharyngeal swabs in detecting SARS‐CoV‐2 using reverse transcriptase‐polymerase chain reaction testing in several studies. A select number of rapid antigen and point‐of‐care tests from the literature were also identified capable of high detection rates using saliva. Moreover, anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies have been shown to be detectable in saliva through biochemical assays.

Conclusion

We highlight the potential of saliva as an all‐rounded specimen in detecting SARS‐CoV‐2. However, future large‐scale clinical studies will be needed to support its widespread use as a non‐invasive clinical specimen for COVID‐19 testing.

Aptamers for SARS-CoV-2: Isolation, Characterization, and Diagnostic and Therapeutic Developments

The SARS‐CoV‐2 virus and COVID‐19 pandemic continue to demand effective diagnostic and therapeutic solutions. Finding these solutions requires highly functional molecular recognition elements. Nucleic acid aptamers represent a possible solution. Characterized by their high affinity and specificity, aptamers can be rapidly identified from random‐sequence nucleic acid libraries. Over the past two years, many labs around the world have rushed to create diverse aptamers that target two important structural proteins of SARS‐CoV‐2: the spike (S) protein and nucleocapsid (N) protein. These have led to the identification of many aptamers that show real promise for the development of diagnostic tests and therapeutic agents for SARS‐CoV‐2. Herein we review all these developments, with a special focus on the development of diverse aptasensors for detecting SARS‐CoV‐2. These include electrochemical and optical sensors, lateral flow devices, and aptamer‐linked immobilized sorbent assays.

Rapid comparative evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care antigen tests

Purpose

The objective of this study was to develop a scalable approach for direct comparison of the analytical sensitivities of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antigen point-of-care tests (AgPOCTs) to rapidly identify poor-performing products.

Methods

We present a methodology for quick assessment of the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 AgPOCTs suitable for quality evaluation of many different products. We established reference samples with high, medium, and low SARS-CoV-2 viral loads along with a SARS-CoV-2 negative control sample. Test samples were used to semi-quantitatively assess the analytical sensitivities of 32 different commercial AgPOCTs in a head-to-head comparison.

Results

Among 32 SARS-CoV-2 AgPOCTs tested, we observe sensitivity differences across a broad range of viral loads (9.8 × 10⁸ to 1.8 × 10⁵ SARS-CoV-2 genome copies per ml). 23 AgPOCTs detected the Ct25 test sample (1.6 × 10⁶ copies/ml), while only five tests detected the Ct28 test sample (1.8 × 10⁵ copies/ml). In the low-range of analytical sensitivity, we found three saliva spit tests only delivering positive results for the Ct21 sample (2.7 × 10⁷ copies/ml). Comparison with published data supports our AgPOCT ranking. Importantly, we identified an AgPOCT widely offered, which did not reliably recognize the sample with the highest viral load (Ct16 test sample with 9.8 × 10⁸ copies/ml) leading to serious doubts about its usefulness in SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics.

Conclusion

The results show that the rapid sensitivity assessment procedure presented here provides useful estimations on the analytical sensitivities of 32 AgPOCTs and identified a widely-spread AgPOCT with concerningly low sensitivity.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s15010-022-01810-1.

Performance Evaluation of the STANDARDTM Q COVID-19 and PanbioTM COVID-19 Antigen Tests in Detecting SARS-CoV-2 during High Transmission Period in Mozambique

(1) Background: Laboratory-based molecular assays are the gold standard to detect SARS-CoV-2. In resource-limited settings, the implementation of these assays has been hampered by operational challenges and long turnaround times. Rapid antigen detection tests are an attractive alternative. Our aim is to evaluate the clinical performance of two SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests during a high transmission period. (2) Methods: A total of 1277 patients seeking SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis were enrolled at four health facilities. Nasopharyngeal swabs for rapid antigen and real time PCR testing were collected for each patient. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, misclassification rate, and agreement were determined. (3) Results: The overall sensitivity of Panbio COVID-19 was 41.3% (95% CI: 34.6-48.4%) and the specificity was 98.2% (95% CI: 96.2-99.3%). The Standard Q had an overall sensitivity and specificity of 45.0% (95% CI: 39.9-50.2%) and 97.6% (95% CI: 95.3-99.0%), respectively. The positive predictive value of a positive test was 93.3% and 95.4% for the Panbio and Standard Q Ag-RDTs, respectively. A higher sensitivity of 43.2% and 49.4% was observed in symptomatic cases for the Panbio and Standard Q Ag-RDTs, respectively. (4) Conclusions: Despite the overall low sensitivity, the two evaluated rapid tests are useful to improve the diagnosis of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections during high transmission periods.

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

Point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests have great potential to help combat the COVID-19 pandemic. In the performance of a rapid, antigen-based SARS-CoV-2 test (RAT), our study had 3 main objectives: to determine the accuracy of nasal swabs, the accuracy of using nasopharyngeal swabs for nasal collection (nasalNP), and the effectiveness of using residual extraction buffer for real-time reverse-transcriptase PCR (RT–PCR) confirmation of positive RAT (rPan).

Methods

Symptomatic adults recently diagnosed with COVID-19 in the community were recruited into the study. Nasal samples were collected using either a nasalNP or nasal swab and tested immediately with the RAT in the individual’s home by a health care provider. 500 µL of universal transport media was added to the residual extraction buffer after testing and sent to the laboratory for SARS-CoV-2 testing using RT–PCR. Parallel throat swabs tested with RT–PCR were used as the reference comparators.

Results

One hundred and fifty-five individuals were included in the study (99 nasal swabs, 56 nasalNP). Sensitivities of nasal samples tested on the RAT using either nasal or nasalNP were 89.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 80.7%–94.6%] and 90.2% (95% CI 78.6%–96.7%), respectively. rPan positivity agreement compared to throat RT–PCR was 96.2%.

Conclusions

RAT reliably detect SARS-CoV-2 from symptomatic adults in the community presenting within 7 days of symptom onset using nasal swabs or nasalNP. High agreement with rPan can avoid the need for collecting a second swab for RT–PCR confirmation or testing of variants of concern from positive RAT in this population.

High-Affinity Dimeric Aptamers Enable the Rapid Electrochemical Detection of Wild-Type and B.1.1.7 SARS-CoV-2 in Unprocessed Saliva

We report a simple and rapid saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen test that utilizes a newly developed dimeric DNA aptamer, denoted as DSA1N5, that specifically recognizes the spike proteins of the wildtype virus and its Alpha and Delta variants with dissociation constants of 120, 290 and 480 pM, respectively, and binds pseudotyped lentiviruses expressing the wildtype and alpha trimeric spike proteins with affinity constants of 2.1 pM and 2.3 pM, respectively. To develop a highly sensitive test, DSA1N5 was immobilized onto gold electrodes to produce an electrochemical impedance sensor, which was capable of detecting 1000 viral particles per mL in 1:1 diluted saliva in under 10 min without any further sample processing. Evaluation of 36 positive and 37 negative patient saliva samples produced a clinical sensitivity of 80.5 % and specificity of 100 % and the sensor could detect the wildtype virus as well as the Alpha and Delta variants in the patient samples, which is the first reported rapid test that can detect any emerging variant of SARS-CoV-2.

Generation of False-Positive SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Results with Testing Conditions outside Manufacturer Recommendations: A Scientific Approach to Pandemic Misinformation

Antigen-based rapid diagnostics tests (Ag-RDTs) are useful tools for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection. However, misleading demonstrations of the Abbott Panbio coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Ag-RDT on social media claimed that SARS-CoV-2 antigen could be detected in municipal water and food products. To offer a scientific rebuttal to pandemic misinformation and disinformation, this study explored the impact of using the Panbio SARS-CoV-2 assay with conditions falling outside manufacturer recommendations. Using Panbio, various water and food products, laboratory buffers, and SARS-CoV-2-negative clinical specimens were tested with and without manufacturer buffer. Additional experiments were conducted to assess the role of each Panbio buffer component (tricine, NaCl, pH, and Tween 20) as well as the impact of temperature (4°C, 20°C, and 45°C) and humidity (90%) on assay performance. Direct sample testing (without the kit buffer) resulted in false-positive signals resembling those obtained with SARS-CoV-2 positive controls tested under proper conditions. The likely explanation of these artifacts is nonspecific interactions between the SARS-CoV-2-specific conjugated and capture antibodies, as proteinase K treatment abrogated this phenomenon, and thermal shift assays showed pH-induced conformational changes under conditions promoting artifact formation. Omitting, altering, and reverse engineering the kit buffer all supported the importance of maintaining buffering capacity, ionic strength, and pH for accurate kit function. Interestingly, the Panbio assay could tolerate some extremes of temperature and humidity outside manufacturer claims. Our data support strict adherence to manufacturer instructions to avoid false-positive SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT reactions, otherwise resulting in anxiety, overuse of public health resources, and dissemination of misinformation. IMPORTANCE With the Panbio severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen test being deployed in over 120 countries worldwide, understanding conditions required for its ideal performance is critical. Recently on social media, this kit was shown to generate false positives when manufacturer recommendations were not followed. While erroneous results from improper use of a test may not be surprising to some health care professionals, understanding why false positives occur can help reduce the propagation of misinformation and provide a scientific rebuttal for these aberrant findings. This study demonstrated that the kit buffer's pH, ionic strength, and buffering capacity were critical components to ensure proper kit function and avoid generation of false-positive results. Typically, false positives arise from cross-reacting or interfering substances; however, this study demonstrated a mechanism where false positives were generated under conditions favoring nonspecific interactions between the two antibodies designed for SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection. Following the manufacturer instructions is critical for accurate test results.

Diagnostic Accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Tests for Community Transmission Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused the global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Rapid identification and isolation of infectious patients are critical methods to block COVID-19 transmission. Antigen tests can contribute to prompt identification of infectious individuals. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2. We conducted a literature search in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Biomed Central databases. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 in community participants were included. Only English-language articles were reviewed. We included eligible studies that provided available data to construct a 2 × 2 table on a per-patient basis. Overall sensitivity and specificity for antigen tests were generated using a bivariate random-effects model. Eighteen studies with 34,865 participants were retrieved. The meta-analysis for SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests generated a pooled sensitivity of 0.82 and a pooled specificity of 1.00. A subgroup analysis of ten studies that reported outcomes for 5629 symptomatic participants generated a pooled sensitivity of 0.87 and a pooled specificity of 1.00. Antigen tests might have higher sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic patients in the community and may be an effective tool to identify patients to be quarantined to prevent further SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

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.

Analytical Performance Evaluation of Three Commercial Rapid Nucleic Acid Assays for SARS-CoV-2

Purpose

To cope with the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, several rapid nucleic acid assays have been approved for use, but the analytical performance has not been well evaluated. In this report, two key performance parameters, analytical sensitivity (limit of detection) and reproducibility, of three approved rapid nucleic acid assays were assessed using heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2 culture supernatants quantified by digital PCR.

Methods

The LOD (limit of detection) and reproducibility of three approved rapid nucleic acid assays using their own instruments were assessed, while the LOD and reproducibility of two assays on a 7500 Real-Time instrument were assessed at the same time.

Results

Using their own instruments, 100% of samples with 1150 copies/mL viral RNA could be detected by the Da An and Coyote assays, while 90% of samples could be detected by the Ustar assay; yet, for 525 copies/mL and 287.5 copies/mL viral RNA, the detection rate of the Ustar assay was higher than that of either the Da An or Coyote assays. However, the three assays did not produce statistically significant results with the three different concentrations of viral RNA (P=0.46, 0.46 and 0.46). Using a 7500 Real-Time instrument, Da An and Coyote assays did not produce statistically significant results with the 1150, 525 and 287.5 copies/mL viral RNA (P>0.99, >0.99 and >0.99). The positive and negative detection rates of the three assays in the intra- and inter-assay stages were 100% on both their own instruments and the 7500 real-time PCR instrument.

Conclusion

Positive or strongly positive samples can be detected by the rapid nucleic acid assay, but the analytical performance should be optimized, and comprehensive evaluations are also required.

IFCC interim guidelines on rapid point-of-care antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 detection in asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals

With an almost unremittent progression of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections all around the world, there is a compelling need to introduce rapid, reliable, and high-throughput testing to allow appropriate clinical management and/or timely isolation of infected individuals. Although nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) remains the gold standard for detecting and theoretically quantifying SARS-CoV-2 mRNA in various specimen types, antigen assays may be considered a suitable alternative, under specific circumstances. Rapid antigen tests are meant to detect viral antigen proteins in biological specimens (e.g. nasal, nasopharyngeal, saliva), to indicate current SARS-CoV-2 infection. The available assay methodology includes rapid chromatographic immunoassays, used at the point-of-care, which carries some advantages and drawbacks compared to more conventional, instrumentation-based, laboratory immunoassays. Therefore, this document by the International Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Taskforce on COVID-19 aims to summarize available data on the performance of currently available SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid detection tests (Ag-RDTs), providing interim guidance on clinical indications and target populations, assay selection, and evaluation, test interpretation and limitations, as well as on pre-analytical considerations. This document is hence mainly aimed to assist laboratory and regulated health professionals in selecting, validating, and implementing regulatory approved Ag-RDTs.

Reduced Relative Sensitivity of the Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay in Saliva Compared to Nasopharyngeal Swabs

Early identification and isolation of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals is central to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) serve as a specimen for detection by RT-PCR and rapid antigen screening tests. Saliva has been confirmed as a reliable alternative specimen for RT-PCR and has been shown to be valuable for diagnosing children and in repetitive mass testing due to its non-invasive collection. Combining the advantages of saliva with those of antigen tests would be highly attractive to further increase test capacities. Here, we evaluated the performance of the Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen assay (Roche) in RT-PCR-positive paired NPS and saliva samples (N = 87) and unpaired NPS (N = 100) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 IVD test). We observed a high positive percent agreement (PPA) of the antigen assay with RT-PCR in NPS, reaching 87.2% across the entire cohort, whereas the overall PPA for saliva was insufficient (40.2%). At Ct values ≤ 28, PPA were 100% and 91.2% for NPS and saliva, respectively. At lower viral loads, the sensitivity loss of the antigen assay in saliva was striking. At Ct values ≤ 35, the PPA for NPS remained satisfactory (91.5%), whereas the PPA for saliva dropped to 46.6%. In conclusion, saliva cannot be recommended as a reliable alternative to NPS for testing with the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antigen assay. As saliva is successfully used broadly in combination with RT-PCR testing, it is critical to create awareness that suitability for RT-PCR cannot be translated to implementation in antigen assays without thorough evaluation of each individual test system.

Diverse high-affinity DNA aptamers for wild-type and B.1.1.7 SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins from a pre-structured DNA library

We performed in vitro selection experiments to identify DNA aptamers for the S1 subunit of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S1 protein). Using a pool of pre-structured random DNA sequences, we obtained over 100 candidate aptamers after 13 cycles of enrichment under progressively more stringent selection pressure. The top 10 sequences all exhibited strong binding to the S1 protein. Two aptamers, named MSA1 (K_d = 1.8 nM) and MSA5 (K_d = 2.7 nM), were assessed for binding to the heat-treated S1 protein, untreated S1 protein spiked into 50% human saliva and the trimeric spike protein of both the wildtype and the B.1.1.7 variant, demonstrating comparable affinities in all cases. MSA1 and MSA5 also recognized the pseudotyped lentivirus of SARS-CoV-2 with respective K_d values of 22.7 pM and 11.8 pM. Secondary structure prediction and sequence truncation experiments revealed that both MSA1 and MSA5 adopted a hairpin structure, which was the motif pre-designed into the original library. A colorimetric sandwich assay was developed using MSA1 as both the recognition element and detection element, which was capable of detecting the pseudotyped lentivirus in 50% saliva with a limit of detection of 400 fM, confirming the potential of these aptamers as diagnostic tools for COVID-19 detection.

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.