Evaluation of four laboratory-based high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 automated antigen tests compared to RT-PCR on nasal and oropharyngeal samples

BACKGROUND

The demand for RT-PCR testing has been unprecedented during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Fully automated antigen tests (AAT) are less cumbersome than RT-PCR, but data on performance compared to RT-PCR are scarce.

METHODS

The study consists of two parts. A retrospective analytical part, comparing the performance of four different AAT on 100 negative and 204 RT-PCR positive deep oropharyngeal samples divided into four groups based on RT-PCR cycle of quantification levels. In the prospective clinical part, 206 individuals positive for and 199 individuals negative for SARS-CoV-2 were sampled from either the anterior nasal cavity (mid-turbinate) or by deep oropharyngeal swabs or both. The performance of AATs was compared to RT-PCR.

RESULTS

The overall analytical sensitivity of the AATs differed significantly from 42% (95% CI 35-49) to 60% (95% CI 53-67) with 100% analytical specificity. Clinical sensitivity of the AATs differed significantly from 26% (95% CI 20-32) to 88% (95% CI 84-93) with significant higher sensitivity for mid-turbinate nasal swabs compared to deep oropharyngeal swabs. Clinical specificity varied from 97% to 100%.

CONCLUSION

All AATs were highly specific for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Three of the four AATs were significantly more sensitive than the fourth AAT both in terms of analytical and clinical sensitivity. Anatomical test location significantly influenced the clinical sensitivity of AATs.

A nationwide analytical and clinical evaluation of 44 rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR

Background

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has resulted in massive testing by Rapid Antigen Tests (RAT) without solid independent data regarding clinical performance being available. Thus, decision on purchase of a specific RAT may rely on manufacturer-provided data and limited peer-reviewed data.

Methods

This study consists of two parts. In the retrospective analytical part, 33 RAT from 25 manufacturers were compared to RT-PCR on 100 negative and 204 positive deep oropharyngeal cavity samples divided into four groups based on RT-PCR Cq levels. In the prospective clinical part, nearly 200 individuals positive for SARS-CoV-2 and nearly 200 individuals negative for SARS-CoV-2 by routine RT-PCR testing were retested within 72 h for each of 44 included RAT from 26 manufacturers applying RT-PCR as the reference method.

Results

The overall analytical sensitivity differed significantly between the 33 included RAT; from 2.5% (95% CI 0.5–4.8) to 42% (95% CI 35–49). All RAT presented analytical specificities of 100%. Likewise, the overall clinical sensitivity varied significantly between the 44 included RAT; from 2.5% (95% CI 0.5–4.8) to 94% (95% CI 91–97). All RAT presented clinical specificities between 98 and 100%.

Conclusion

The study presents analytical as well as clinical performance data for 44 commercially available RAT compared to the same RT-PCR test. The study enables identification of individual RAT that has significantly higher sensitivity than other included RAT and may aid decision makers in selecting between the included RAT.

Funding

The study was funded by a participant fee for each test and the Danish Regions.

Bacterial Aggregates Establish at the Edges of Acute Epidermal Wounds

Objective: The bacterial composition and distribution were evaluated in acute standardized epidermal wounds and uninjured skin by a molecular in situ technology benchmarked to conventional culturing. This was done to reveal whether bacterial biofilm is present in acute wounds. Approach: On the buttock of 26 healthy volunteers, 28 suction blisters were made and de-roofed. Four wounds were biopsied immediately after wounding, whereas the remaining 24 wounds were treated daily with sterile deionized water and covered with a moisture-retaining dressing. On day 4 post-wounding, swabs were obtained for culturing from the wounds and adjacent skin, and the wounds including adjacent skin were excised. Tissue sections were stained with peptide nucleic acid (PNA) fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) probes, counterstained by 4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole, and evaluated by confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). Results: No bacterial aggregates were detected at day 0. At day 4, coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) were the sole bacteria identified by CLSM/PNA-FISH and culturing. CoNS was isolated from 78% of the wound swabs and 48% of the skin swabs. Bacterial aggregates (5-150 μm) were detected by PNA-FISH/CLSM in the split stratum corneum and fibrin deposits at the wound edges and in the stratum corneum and the hair follicles of the adjacent skin. The bacterial aggregates were more common (p = 0.0084) and larger (p = 0.0083) at wound edges than in the adjacent skin. Innovation: Bacterial aggregates can establish in all wound types and may have clinical significance in acute wounds. Conclusion: Bacterial aggregates were observed at the edges of acute epidermal wounds, indicating initiated establishment of a biofilm.