Accuracy of COVID-19 rapid antigenic tests compared to RT-PCR in a student population: The StudyCov study

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.

Extraction-Free Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Viral RNA Using LumiraDx's RNA Star Complete Assay from Clinical Nasal Swabs Stored in a Novel Collection and Transport Medium

Background: The rapid detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is vital for patient care. The LumiraDx™ SARS-CoV-2 RNA Star Complete (RSC) is an Emergency Use Authorization-recognized molecular test using nasal/nasopharyngeal swabs immersed in a viral/universal transport medium (VTM/UTM). However, there is a critical need for an alternative medium for point-of-care testing (POCT). This study aimed to investigate Xtract-Free (XF), a novel collection medium for transport and direct (extraction-free) use with nucleic acid tests. Methods: Using serially diluted SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA (vRNA) in a routine UTM and XF, a limit of detection (LOD) was established via an RSC test and a quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR). Additionally, the results obtained from a panel of 108 clinical "car-side" nasal swabs collected in XF during the coronavirus pandemic and assessed using the "gold-standard" RT-qPCR assay were compared to Lumira's RSC assay. Results: The average replicate RT-qPCR cycle threshold (CT) values for vRNA in XF and UTM were observed to be equivalent. An LOD for which five out of five replicates were detected using XF or VTM was approximately 2000 copies/mL. The nasal swabs collected in XF exhibited 93.9% positive percent agreement (sensitivity) and 100% negative percent agreement (specificity) compared to the RT-qPCR. Three specimens tested positive via an RT-qPCR were negative when tested via RSC; however, all three samples had CT values ≥ 36.4. Conclusions: XF is equivalent to VTM/UTM and is compatible for use with the RSC test. Furthermore, XF can be used directly with RT-qPCRs and rapid antigen testing without the requirement for separate nucleic acid extraction (an extraction-free process), making it ideal for cost-effective high-throughput and decentralized respiratory testing. Impact Statement: This study is the first to evaluate LumiraDx's SARS-CoV-2 RNA Star Complete assay in concert with Xtract-Free (XF), a novel collection medium containing a proprietary RNase-inactivating technology for the rapid, "extraction-free" detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA from clinical nasal swabs. Specimens collected in XF combined with rapid LumiraDx detection provide a safe and sensitive alternative to VTM/UTM, and Molecular Transport medium (MTM) for high throughput, "extraction-free" molecular detection.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy Tests of COVID-19

In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis that aims to evaluate the reliability of coronavirus disease diagnostic tests in 2019 (COVID-19). This article seeks to describe the scientific discoveries made because of diagnostic tests conducted in recent years during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Between 2020 and 2021, searches for published papers on the COVID-19 diagnostic were made in the PubMed database. Ninety-nine scientific articles that satisfied the requirements were analyzed and included in the meta-analysis, and the specificity and sensitivity of the diagnostic accuracy were assessed. When compared to serological tests such as the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA), lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), and chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA), molecular tests such as reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) performed better in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Additionally, the area under the curve restricted to the false-positive rates (AUC_FPR) of 0.984 obtained by the antiviral neutralization bioassay (ANB) diagnostic test revealed significant potential for the identification of COVID-19. It has been established that the various diagnostic tests have been effectively adapted for the detection of SARS-CoV-2; nevertheless, their performance still must be enhanced to contain potential COVID-19 outbreaks, which will also help contain potential infectious agent outbreaks in the future.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

SARS-CoV-2 Diagnosis Using Transcriptome Data: A Machine Learning Approach

SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is the big issue of the whole world right now. The health community is struggling to rescue the public and countries from this spread, which revives time to time with different waves. Even the vaccination seems to be not prevents this spread. Accurate identification of infected people on time is essential these days to control the spread. So far, Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and rapid antigen tests are widely used in this identification, accepting their own drawbacks. False negative cases are the menaces in this scenario. To avoid these problems, this study uses machine learning techniques to build a classification model with higher accuracy to filter the COVID-19 cases from the non-COVID individuals. Transcriptome data of the SARS-CoV-2 patients along with the control are used in this stratification using three different feature selection algorithms and seven classification models. Differently expressed genes also studied between these two groups of people and used in this classification. Results shows that mutual information (or DEGs) along with naïve Bayes (or SVM) gives the best accuracy (0.98 ± 0.04) among these methods.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42979-023-01703-6.

Diagnostic accuracy of the Panbio COVID-19 antigen rapid test device for SARS-CoV-2 detection in Kenya, 2021: A field evaluation

BACKGROUND

Accurate and timely diagnosis is essential in limiting the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The reference standard, rRT-PCR, requires specialized laboratories, costly reagents, and a long turnaround time. Antigen RDTs provide a feasible alternative to rRT-PCR since they are quick, relatively inexpensive, and do not require a laboratory. The WHO requires that Ag RDTs have a sensitivity ≥80% and specificity ≥97%.

METHODS

This evaluation was conducted at 11 health facilities in Kenya between March and July 2021. We enrolled persons of any age with respiratory symptoms and asymptomatic contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases. We collected demographic and clinical information and two nasopharyngeal specimens from each participant for Ag RDT testing and rRT-PCR. We calculated the diagnostic performance of the Panbio™ Ag RDT against the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) rRT-PCR test.

RESULTS

We evaluated the Ag RDT in 2,245 individuals where 551 (24.5%, 95% CI: 22.8-26.3%) tested positive by rRT-PCR. Overall sensitivity of the Ag RDT was 46.6% (95% CI: 42.4-50.9%), specificity 98.5% (95% CI: 97.8-99.0%), PPV 90.8% (95% CI: 86.8-93.9%) and NPV 85.0% (95% CI: 83.4-86.6%). Among symptomatic individuals, sensitivity was 60.6% (95% CI: 54.3-66.7%) and specificity was 98.1% (95% CI: 96.7-99.0%). Among asymptomatic individuals, sensitivity was 34.7% (95% CI 29.3-40.4%) and specificity was 98.7% (95% CI: 97.8-99.3%). In persons with onset of symptoms <5 days (594/876, 67.8%), sensitivity was 67.1% (95% CI: 59.2-74.3%), and 53.3% (95% CI: 40.0-66.3%) among those with onset of symptoms >7 days (157/876, 17.9%). The highest sensitivity was 87.0% (95% CI: 80.9-91.8%) in symptomatic individuals with cycle threshold (Ct) values ≤30.

CONCLUSION

The overall sensitivity and NPV of the Panbio™ Ag RDT were much lower than expected. The specificity of the Ag RDT was high and satisfactory; therefore, a positive result may not require confirmation by rRT-PCR. The kit may be useful as a rapid screening tool only for symptomatic patients in high-risk settings with limited access to rRT-PCR. A negative result should be interpreted based on clinical and epidemiological information and may require retesting by rRT-PCR.

Decreased Sensitivity of Rapid Antigen Test Is Associated with a Lower Viral Load of Omicron than Delta SARS-CoV-2 Variant

Large-scale screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection is an important tool for epidemic prevention and control. The appearance of new variants associated with specific mutations can call into question the effectiveness of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) deployed massively at national and international levels. We compared the clinical and virological characteristics of individuals infected by Delta or Omicron variants to assess which factors were associated with a reduced performance of RDT. A commercially available RDT as well as the evaluation of the viral load (VL) and the detection of replicate intermediates (RIs) were carried out retrospectively on positive SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal specimens from health care workers of the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital infected by the Delta or Omicron variant between July 2021 and January 2022. Of the 205 samples analyzed (104 from individuals infected with Delta and 101 with Omicron), 176 were analyzed by RDT and 200 by RT-PCR for VL and RIs. The sensitivity of the TDR for Omicron was significantly lower than that observed for Delta (53.8% versus 74.7%, respectively, P < 0.01). Moreover, the Delta VL was significantly higher than that measured for Omicron (median Ct 21.2 versus 24.1, respectively, P < 0.01) and associated with the positivity of the RDT in multivariate analysis. We demonstrate a lower RDT sensitivity associated with a lower VL at the time of diagnosis on Omicron-infected individuals in comparison to those infected with the Delta variant. This RDT lower sensitivity should be taken into account in the large-scale screening strategy and in particular in case of strong suspicion of infection where testing should be repeated. IMPORTANCE Previous reports have shown a variability in the diagnostic performance of RDTs. In the era of SARS-CoV-2 variants and the use of RDT, mutation associated with these variants could affect the test performance. We evaluate the sensitivity of the RDT Panbio COVID-19 Ag (Abbott) with two variants of concern (VOC), the Delta and Omicron variants. In order to investigate whether clinical characteristics or virological characteristics can affect this sensitivity, we collected clinical information and performed a specific RT-PCR that detected the RIs as a marker of the viral replication and viral cycle stage. Our results showed that Omicron was less detected than the Delta variant. A lower viral load of Omicron variant in comparison to Delta variant explained this decreased sensitivity, even if they are at the same stage of the disease and the viral cycle and should be taken into account with the use of RDT as diagnostic tool.

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.

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.

Accurate Interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection by Immunochromatography

SARS-CoV-2 is a serious infectious respiratory virus that can cause lung, heart, kidney, and liver damage and even cause death. Early diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is vital for epidemic prevention and control. At present, the gold standard of COVID-19 diagnosis is nucleic acid detection of SARS-CoV-2. However, the nucleic acid detection of SARS-CoV-2 requires high site requirements and technology requirements, and the detection is time-consuming and cannot fully meet clinical needs. Although SARS-CoV-2 antigen test results cannot be directly used to diagnose COVID-19, positive results can be used for the early triage and rapid management of suspected populations. However, due to the limitations of the methodology itself, the SARS-CoV-2 antigen test is prone to produce false-positive and false-negative results in the process of detection. It is urgent to develop a batch of SARS-CoV-2 antigen reagents based on new detection technology and detection principles to overcome the defects of existing technologies.

Microbiome Analysis for Wastewater Surveillance during COVID-19

Wastewater surveillance (WS), when coupled with advanced molecular techniques, offers near real-time monitoring of community-wide transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and allows assessing and mitigating COVID-19 outbreaks, by evaluating the total microbial assemblage in a community. Composite wastewater samples (24 h) were collected weekly from a manhole between December 2020 and November 2021 in Maryland, USA. RT-qPCR results showed concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 RNA recovered from wastewater samples reflected incidence of COVID-19 cases. When a drastic increase in COVID-19 was detected in February 2021, samples were selected for microbiome analysis (DNA metagenomics, RNA metatranscriptomics, and targeted SARS-CoV-2 sequencing). Targeted SARS-CoV-2 sequencing allowed for detection of important genetic mutations, such as spike: K417N, D614G, P681H, T716I, S982A, and D1118H, commonly associated with increased cell entry and reinfection. Microbiome analysis (DNA and RNA) provided important insight with respect to human health-related factors, including detection of pathogens and their virulence/antibiotic resistance genes. Specific microbial species comprising the wastewater microbiome correlated with incidence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA, suggesting potential association with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Climatic conditions, namely, temperature, were related to incidence of COVID-19 and detection of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater, having been monitored as part of an environmental risk score assessment carried out in this study. In summary, the wastewater microbiome provides useful public health information, and hence, a valuable tool to proactively detect and characterize pathogenic agents circulating in a community. In effect, metagenomics of wastewater can serve as an early warning system for communicable diseases, by providing a larger source of information for health departments and public officials. IMPORTANCE Traditionally, testing for COVID-19 is done by detecting SARS-CoV-2 in samples collected from nasal swabs and/or saliva. However, SARS-CoV-2 can also be detected in feces of infected individuals. Therefore, wastewater samples can be used to test all individuals of a community contributing to the sewage collection system, i.e., the infrastructure, such as gravity pipes, manholes, tanks, lift stations, control structures, and force mains, that collects used water from residential and commercial sources and conveys the flow to a wastewater treatment plant. Here, we profile community wastewater collected from a manhole, detect presence of SARS-CoV-2, identify genetic mutations of SARS-CoV-2, and perform COVID-19 risk score assessment of the study area. Using metagenomics analysis, we also detect other microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, protists, and viruses) present in the samples. Results show that by analyzing all microorganisms present in wastewater, pathogens circulating in a community can provide an early warning for contagious diseases.

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.

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.

Performance and Application Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) nucleic acid detection is the gold standard for the laboratory diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). However, this method has high requirements for practitioners' skills and testing sites, so it is not easy to popularize and promote the application in places other than large hospitals. In addition, the detection flux of SARS‐CoV‐2 nucleic acid is small, and the whole detection process takes much time, which cannot meet the actual needs of rapid screening in large quantities. The WHO conditionally approved a batch of SARS‐CoV‐2 antigen reagents for clinical application to alleviate this contradiction. SARS‐CoV‐2 antigen detection offers a trade‐off among clinical performance, speed and accessibility. With the gradual increase in clinical application, the accumulated clinical data show that the sensitivity and specificity of the SARS‐CoV‐2 antigen assay are over 80% and 97%, respectively, which can basically meet the requirements of the WHO. However, the sensitivity of the SARS‐CoV‐2 Antigen Assay among asymptomatic people in low prevalence areas of COVID‐19 cannot meet the standard, leading to a large number of missed diagnoses. In addition, the detection ability of SARS‐CoV‐2 antigen reagent for different SARS‐CoV‐2 mutant strains differs greatly, especially for those escaping the COVID‐19 vaccines. In terms of results interpretation, it is highly reliable to exclude SARS‐CoV‐2 infection based on the high negative predictive value of the SARS‐CoV‐2 antigen assay. However, in the low prevalence environment, the probability of false positives of the SARS‐CoV‐2 antigen assay is high, so the positive results need to be confirmed by the SARS‐CoV‐2 nucleic acid reagent. The SARS‐CoV‐2 antigen assay is only a supplement to SARS‐CoV‐2 nucleic acid detection and can never completely replace it. To date, SARS‐CoV‐2 nucleic acid detection continues to be the standard laboratory method for COVID‐19 diagnosis.

COVID-19 Diagnosis: A Review of Rapid Antigen, RT-PCR and Artificial Intelligence Methods

As of 27 December 2021, SARS-CoV-2 has infected over 278 million persons and caused 5.3 million deaths. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, different methods, from medical to artificial intelligence, have been used for its detection, diagnosis, and surveillance. Meanwhile, fast and efficient point-of-care (POC) testing and self-testing kits have become necessary in the fight against COVID-19 and to assist healthcare personnel and governments curb the spread of the virus. This paper presents a review of the various types of COVID-19 detection methods, diagnostic technologies, and surveillance approaches that have been used or proposed. The review provided in this article should be beneficial to researchers in this field and health policymakers at large.

Exploration of the ocular surface infection by SARS-CoV-2 and implications for corneal donation: An ex vivo study

BACKGROUND

The risk of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission through corneal graft is an ongoing debate and leads to strict restrictions in corneas procurement, leading to a major decrease in eye banking activity. The aims of this study are to specifically assess the capacity of human cornea to be infected by SARS-CoV-2 and promote its replication ex vivo, and to evaluate the real-life risk of corneal contamination by detecting SARS-CoV-2 RNA in corneas retrieved in donors diagnosed with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and nonaffected donors.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

To assess the capacity of human cornea to be infected by SARS-CoV-2, the expression pattern of SARS-CoV-2 receptor angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) and activators TMPRSS2 and Cathepsins B and L in ocular surface tissues from nonaffected donors was explored by immunohistochemistry (n = 10 corneas, 78 ± 11 years, 40% female) and qPCR (n = 5 corneas, 80 ± 12 years, 40% female). Additionally, 5 freshly excised corneas (80 ± 12 years, 40% female) were infected ex vivo with highly concentrated SARS-CoV-2 solution (106 median tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50)/mL). Viral RNA was extracted from tissues and culture media and quantified by reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) (viral RNA copies) 30 minutes (H0) and 24 hours (H24) after infection. To assess the risk of corneal contamination by SARS-CoV-2, viral RNA was tested by RT-qPCR (Ct value) in both corneas and organ culture media from 14 donors diagnosed with COVID-19 (74 ± 10 years, 29% female) and 26 healthy donors (79 ± 13 years, 57% female), and in organ culture media only from 133 consecutive nonaffected donors from 2 eye banks (73 ± 13 years, 29% female). The expression of receptor and activators was variable among samples at both protein and mRNA level. Based on immunohistochemistry findings, ACE-2 was localized mainly in the most superficial epithelial cells of peripheral cornea, limbus, and conjunctiva, whereas TMPRSS2 was mostly expressed in all layers of bulbar conjunctiva. A significant increase in total and positive strands of IP4 RNA sequence (RdRp viral gene) was observed from 30 minutes to 24 hours postinfection in central cornea (1.1 × 108 [95% CI: 6.4 × 107 to 2.4 × 108] to 3.0 × 109 [1.4 × 109 to 5.3 × 109], p = 0.0039 and 2.2 × 107 [1.4 × 107 to 3.6 × 107] to 5.1 × 107 [2.9 × 107 to 7.5 × 107], p = 0.0117, respectively) and in corneoscleral rim (4.5 × 109 [2.7 × 109 to 9.6 × 109] to 3.9 × 1010 [2.6 × 1010 to 4.4 × 1010], p = 0.0039 and 3.1 × 108 [1.2 × 108 to 5.3 × 108] to 7.8 × 108 [3.9 × 108 to 9.9 × 108], p = 0.0391, respectively). Viral RNA copies in ex vivo corneas were highly variable from one donor to another. Finally, viral RNA was detected in 3 out of 28 corneas (11%) from donors diagnosed with COVID-19. All samples from the 159 nonaffected donors were negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The main limitation of this study relates to the limited sample size, due to limited access to donors diagnosed with COVID-19 and concomitant decrease in the procurement corneas from nonaffected donors.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we observed the expression of SARS-CoV-2 receptors and activators at the human ocular surface and a variable increase in viral RNA copies 24 hours after experimental infection of freshly excised human corneas. We also found viral RNA only in a very limited percentage of donors with positive nasopharyngeal PCR. The low rate of positivity in donors diagnosed with COVID-19 calls into question the utility of donor selection algorithms.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Agence de la Biomédecine, PFS-20-011 https://www.agence-biomedecine.fr/.

Validation and verification of the GeneFinder™ COVID-19 Plus RealAmp kit on the ELITe InGenius® instrument

BACKGROUND

Throughout the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, a rapid identification of the virus was essential to quickly recognize positive cases and limit further spread by applying appropriate infection prevention. Many diagnostic laboratories use a multiplex Real-Time PCR assay, as they are not only highly sensitive but also specific. Currently, there are several assays and platforms in the market available which target different SARS-CoV-2 genes. The aim of this study was to validate and verify the GeneFinder™ COVID-19 PLUS RealAmp kit on the ELITe InGenius® instrument and compare to the national reference method.

METHODS

GeneFinder™ COVID-19 PLUS RealAmp kit was evaluated against the routine WHO in- house Real-Time PCR assay, which is also the national reference method in the Netherlands and used in our laboratory. The sensitivity was tested using the analytical panel from Qnostics (Glasgow, United Kingdom) and the specificity was tested with patient material comprising of other seasonal respiratory viruses. In addition, 96 clinical samples initially analyzed by routine Real-Time PCR were tested using the GeneFinder™ COVID-19 PLUS RealAmp kit on the ELITe InGenius® instrument.

RESULTS

The GeneFinder™ COVID-19 PLUS RealAmp kit had a similar performance compared to routine in-house testing, with a limit of detection of 500 dC/mL for the RdRp-gene and E gene. Meanwhile, the N gene showed a limit of detection of 50 dC/mL. The SARS-CoV-2 test was highly specific and detected no other respiratory viruses. The results of the clinical samples were comparable between both assays with similar Ct values observed for the in-house Real-Time-PCR and the GeneFinder™ COVID-19 PLUS RealAmp kit for the N gene.

CONCLUSION

The GeneFinder™ COVID-19 PLUS RealAmp kit on the ELITe InGenius® instrument had an appropriate sensitivity and specificity that could be used in small scale laboratories or during night shifts where accurate diagnostics are crucial.

Performance of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19 Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The identification of viral RNA using reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is the gold standard for identifying an infection caused by SARS-CoV-2. The limitations of RT-qPCR such as requirement of expensive instruments, trained staff and laboratory facilities led to development of rapid antigen tests (RATs). The performance of RATs has been widely evaluated and found to be varied in different settings. The present systematic review aims to evaluate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of the commercially available RATs. This review was registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021278105). Literature search was performed through PubMed, Embase and Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to search studies published up to 26 August 2021. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of RATs and subgroup analyses were calculated. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) was used to assess the risk of bias in each study. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of RATs were 70% (95% CI: 69–71) and 98% (95% CI: 98–98), respectively. In subgroup analyses, nasal swabs showed the highest sensitivity of 83% (95% CI: 80–86) followed by nasopharyngeal swabs 71% (95% CI: 70–72), throat swabs 69% (95% CI: 63–75) and saliva 68% (95% CI: 59–77). Samples from symptomatic patients showed a higher sensitivity of 82% (95% CI: 82–82) as compared to asymptomatic patients at 68% (95% CI: 65–71), while a cycle threshold (Ct) value ≤25 showed a higher sensitivity of 96% (95% CI: 95–97) as compared to higher Ct value. Although the sensitivity of RATs needs to be enhanced, it may still be a viable option in places where laboratory facilities are lacking for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease.

What is the true place of the SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care antigen test in the hospital setting? Lessons learned from real life

To assist in the clinical management of patients and to support infection control, we tested the use of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) point‐of‐care antigen test (AgPOC) for unplanned hospitalization, coupled with a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) using specimens collected at the same time upon arrival. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of the AgPOC in this specific use compared to NAAT for SARS‐CoV‐2 diagnosis, in the context of the low prevalence of infection. For 5 months (between two peaks in France of the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic), all patients admitted who undertook the AgPOC/NAAT paired tests were included in the study. AgPOC performances were determined considering the clinical status and the delay of symptoms onset. NAAT and AgPOC results were available for 4425 subjects. AgPOC results showed a homogeneous specificity (>97%) but a low sensitivity at 45.8%. Considering the national guidelines, sensitivity dropped to 32.5% in cases of symptomatic patients with symptoms older than 5 days or more. This study shows the poor performance of AgPOC for entry screening of patients in hospitals. AgPOC may represent a useful tool in the hospital setting only if the use is restricted to patients with consistent symptoms less than 4 days old.

–

SARS‐CoV‐2 point‐of‐care antigen tests (AgPOC) are poorly evaluated to screen patients for unplanned hospitalization.

–

Performance of AgPOC showed low sensitivity in hospital setting.

–

Use of AgPOC in hospital should be restricted to patients with consistent symptoms less than 4 days old.

Disentangling post-vaccination symptoms from early COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Identifying and testing individuals likely to have SARS-CoV-2 is critical for infection control, including post-vaccination. Vaccination is a major public health strategy to reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection globally. Some individuals experience systemic symptoms post-vaccination, which overlap with COVID-19 symptoms. This study compared early post-vaccination symptoms in individuals who subsequently tested positive or negative for SARS-CoV-2, using data from the COVID Symptom Study (CSS) app.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective observational study in 1,072,313 UK CSS participants who were asymptomatic when vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) or Oxford-AstraZeneca adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) between 8 December 2020 and 17 May 2021, who subsequently reported symptoms within seven days (N=362,770) (other than local symptoms at injection site) and were tested for SARS-CoV-2 (N=14,842), aiming to differentiate vaccination side-effects per se from superimposed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The post-vaccination symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 test results were contemporaneously logged by participants. Demographic and clinical information (including comorbidities) were recorded. Symptom profiles in individuals testing positive were compared with a 1:1 matched population testing negative, including using machine learning and multiple models considering UK testing criteria.

FINDINGS

Differentiating post-vaccination side-effects alone from early COVID-19 was challenging, with a sensitivity in identification of individuals testing positive of 0.6 at best. Most of these individuals did not have fever, persistent cough, or anosmia/dysosmia, requisite symptoms for accessing UK testing; and many only had systemic symptoms commonly seen post-vaccination in individuals negative for SARS-CoV-2 (headache, myalgia, and fatigue).

INTERPRETATION

Post-vaccination symptoms per se cannot be differentiated from COVID-19 with clinical robustness, either using symptom profiles or machine-derived models. Individuals presenting with systemic symptoms post-vaccination should be tested for SARS-CoV-2 or quarantining, to prevent community spread.

FUNDING

UK Government Department of Health and Social Care, Wellcome Trust, UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, UK National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council and British Heart Foundation, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, Zoe Limited.