Diagnostic accuracy of a SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test in real-life clinical settings

The Usefulness of Antigen Testing in Predicting Contagiousness in COVID-19

Increasing the diagnostic capacity for COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 infection) is required to improve case detection, reduce COVID-19 expansion, and boost the world economy. Rapid antigen detection tests are less expensive and easier to implement, but their diagnostic performance has been questioned compared to reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR). Here, we evaluate the performance of the Standard Q COVID-19 antigen test for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection and predicting contagiousness compared to RT-PCR and viral culture, respectively. The antigen test was 100.0% specific but only 40.9% sensitive for diagnosing infection compared to RT-PCR. Interestingly, SARS-CoV-2 contagiousness is highly unlikely with a negative antigen test since it exhibited a negative predictive value of 99.9% compared to viral culture. Furthermore, a cycle threshold (CT) value of 18.1 in RT-PCR was shown to be the one that best predicts contagiousness (area under the curve [AUC], 97.6%). Thus, screening people with antigen testing is a good approach to prevent SARS-CoV-2 contagion and allow returning to daily activities. IMPORTANCE The importance of our results is the excellent agreement between the Standard Q COVID-19 antigen test and the viral culture, indicating that it is important as a marker of contagiousness. Due to its high positive predictive value in situations of a high prevalence of infection, positive results do not require confirmation with another test. Likewise, its high negative predictive value for contagiousness makes possible to use this test as a criterion to discharge patients in isolation and screen people moving into environments that could facilitate the transmission of the virus. Screening people with antigen testing is a good approach to prevent SARS-CoV-2 contagion and allow returning to daily activities.

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.

Diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 saliva antigen testing in a real-life clinical setting

Background

SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests with saliva facilitate examination in settings that lack trained personnel. However, little is known about the diagnostic accuracy in real-life clinical settings. Therefore, we studied the diagnostic accuracy of a saliva antigen test in diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection in a primary/secondary care testing facility.

Methods

Individuals who presented at a COVID-19 testing facility affiliated with a Swiss university hospital were prospectively recruited (n=377). Saliva specimen was obtained, and the PCL Inc. COVID19 Gold antigen test was conducted in parallel with 2 real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays from a nasopharyngeal swab.

Results

RT-PCR results were positive in 53 individuals, corresponding to a prevalence of 14.1% (missing material in 1 individual). The PCL saliva antigen test was positive in 22 individuals (5.8%) and negative in 354 (93.9%). The sensitivity of the saliva antigen test was 30.2% (95% confidence interval 18.3, 44.3), both overall and in symptomatic individuals. The specificity was 98.1% (96.0, 99.3).

Conclusions

The diagnostic accuracy of a SARS-CoV-2 saliva antigen test in a primary/secondary care testing facility was remarkably lower than that reported in the manufacturer's specifications.

Sensitivity and specificity of two WHO approved SARS-CoV2 antigen assays in detecting patients with SARS-CoV2 infection

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen (Ag) detection kits are widely used in addition to quantitative reverse transcription PCR PCR (RT-qPCR), as they are cheaper with a rapid turnaround time. As there are many concerns regarding their sensitivity and specificity, in different settings, we evaluated two WHO approved rapid Ag kits in a large cohort of Sri Lankan individuals.

METHODS

Paired nasopharangeal swabs were obtained from 4786 participants for validation of the SD-Biosensor rapid Ag assay and 3325 for the Abbott rapid Ag assay, in comparison to RT-qPCR. A short questionnaire was used to record symptoms at the time of testing, and blood samples were obtained from 2721 of them for detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies.

RESULTS

The overall sensitivity of the SD-Biosensor Ag kit was 36.5% and the Abbott Ag test was 50.76%. The Abbott Ag test showed specificity of 99.4% and the SD-Biosensor Ag test 97.5%. At Ct values < 25, the sensitivity was 71.3% to 76.6% for the SD-Biosensor Ag test and 77.3% to 88.9% for the Abbott Ag test. The Ct values for all genes (RdRP, S, E and N) tested with all RT-qPCR kits were significantly lower for the positive results of the Abbott Ag test compared to the SD-Biosensor test. 209 (48.04%) individuals who had antibodies gave a positive RT-qPCR result, and antibody positivity rates were higher at Ct values > 30 (46.1 to 82.9%). 32.1% of those who gave a positive result with the SD-Biosensor Ag test and 26.3% of those who gave positive results with the Abbott Ag test had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at the time of detection.

CONCLUSIONS

Both rapid Ag tests appeared to be highly sensitive in detecting individuals at lower Ct values, in a community setting in Sri Lanka, but it will be important to further establish the relationship to infectivity.

Rational development and application of biomarkers in the field of autoimmunity: A conceptual framework guiding clinicians and researchers

Clear guidance is needed in the development and implementation of laboratory biomarkers in medicine. So far, no standardized phased approach is established that would pilot researchers and clinicians in this process. This leads to often incompletely validated biomarkers, which can bear the consequence of wrong applications, misinterpretation and inadequate management in the clinical context.

In this conceptual article, we describe a stepwise approach to develop and comprehensively validate laboratory biomarkers. We will delineate basic steps including technical performance, pre-analytical issues, and biological variation, as well as advanced aspects of biomarker utility comprising interpretability, diagnostic and prognostic accuracy, and health-care outcomes. These aspects will be illustrated by using well-known examples from the field of immunology.

The application of this conceptual framework will guide researchers in conducting meaningful projects to develop and evaluate biomarkers for the use in clinical practice. Furthermore, clinicians will be able to adequately interpret pre-clinical and clinical diagnostic literature and rationally apply biomarkers in clinical practice. Improvement in the implementation and application of biomarkers might relevantly change the management and outcomes of our patients for the better.

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.

The Rapid Antigen Detection Test for SARS-CoV-2 Underestimates the Identification of COVID-19 Positive Cases and Compromises the Diagnosis of the SARS-CoV-2 (K417N/T, E484K, and N501Y) Variants

Timely detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome due to coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) has been the gold- strategy for identifying positive cases during the current pandemic. However, faster and less expensive methodologies are also applied for the massive diagnosis of COVID-19. In this way, the rapid antigen test (RAT) is widely used. However, it is necessary to evaluate its detection efficiency considering the current pandemic context with the circulation of new viral variants. In this study, we evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of RAT (SD BIOSENSOR, South Korea), widely used for testing and SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis in Santiago of Chile. The RAT showed a 90% (amplification range of 20 ≤ Cq <25) and 10% (amplification range of 25 ≤ Cq <30) of positive SARS-CoV-2 cases identified previously by RT-qPCR. Importantly, a 0% detection was obtained for samples within a Cq value>30. In SARS-CoV-2 variant detection, RAT had a 42.8% detection sensitivity in samples with RT-qPCR amplification range 20 ≤ Cq <25 containing the single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) K417N/T, N501Y and E484K, associated with beta or gamma SARS-CoV-2 variants. This study alerts for the special attention that must be paid for the use of RAT at a massive diagnosis level, especially in the current scenario of appearance of several new SARS-CoV-2 variants which could generate false negatives and the compromise of possible viral outbreaks.

Clinical evaluation of the Diagnostic Analyzer for Selective Hybridization (DASH): a point-of-care PCR test for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection

BACKGROUND

Rapid and accurate testing for SARS-CoV-2 is an essential tool in the medical and public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. An ideal test for COVID-19 would combine the sensitivity of laboratory-based PCR combined with the speed and ease of use of point-of-care (POC) or home-based rapid antigen testing.

METHODS

To evaluate the performance of the Diagnostic Analyzer for Selective Hybridization (DASH) SARS-CoV-2 POC PCR (sample insertion to result time of 16 minutes), we conducted a cross-sectional study of adults with and without symptoms of COVID-19 at four clinical sites. We collected two bilateral anterior nasal swabs from each participant and information on COVID-19 symptoms, vaccination, and exposure. One swab was tested with the DASH SARS-CoV-2 POC PCR and the second in a central laboratory using Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 PCR. We assessed test concordance and calculated sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values using Xpert as the "gold standard."

RESULTS

We enrolled 315 and analyzed 313 participants with median age 42 years; 65% were female, 62% symptomatic, 75% had received ≥2 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, and 16% currently COVID-19 positive. There were concordant results for 307 tests indicating an overall agreement for DASH of 0.98 [95% CI 0.96, 0.99] compared to Xpert. DASH performed at 0.96 [95% CI 0.86, 1.00] sensitivity and 0.98 [95% CI 0.96, 1.00] specificity, with a positive predictive value of 0.85 [95% CI 0.73, 0.96] and negative predictive value of 0.996 [95% CI 0.99, 1.00]. The six discordant tests between DASH and Xpert all had high Ct values (>30) on the respective positive assay. DASH and Xpert Ct values were highly correlated (R=0.89 [95% CI 0.81, 0.94]).

CONCLUSIONS

DASH POC SARS-CoV-2 PCR was accurate, easy to use, and provided fast results in real-life clinical settings with an overall performance similar to an EUA-approved laboratory-based PCR. Its compact design and ease of use are optimal for a variety of healthcare, and potentially community settings, including areas with lack of access to central laboratory-based PCR testing.

SUMMARY

DASH is an accurate, easy to use, and fast point-of-care test with applications for diagnosis and screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Breath collection protocol for SARs-CoV-2 testing in an ambulatory setting

Breath research during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic offers an opportunity for discovery of a rapid point-of-care screening test, but also introduces a hazard to researchers collecting, transporting and analyzing breath samples not only for COVID -19 research, but all human breath-related research during the ongoing pandemic. Safe workflows to protect study participants and staff collecting and analysing the samples must be determined. We developed a SARS-CoV-2 breath test protocol for collection and processing of breath samples in ambulatory care COVID-19 testing sites and prospectively evaluated the protocol. 528 breath samples from 393 participants at COVID-19 testing sites were safely collected, transported, stored, and analysed with zero transmission to staff. Our method development for the safe collection of samples included the examination of 2 different filters for added safety. We discovered the use of filters leads to increased sample contamination and/or reduction of endogenous features in breath samples. Personal protective equipment (PPE) is essential for all breath collection while SARS-CoV-2 remains wide-spread through the general population. We have demonstrated that use of completely disposable breath collection devices and PPE, are sufficient for safe collection. Filters in the workflow add complexity to an already complex breath matrix and may compromise bio-safety.

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.

Comparison of Rapid and Automated Antigen Detection Tests for the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection

SARS-CoV-2 viral antigen detection may be an interesting alternative to RT-PCR for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection as a less laborious or expensive method but requires validation. This study aimed to compare the performance of the DiaSorin™ LiaisonXL automated quantitative antigen test (QAT) and the AAZ™ rapid antigen test (RAT) to the DiaSorin™ MDX RT-PCR assay. A total of 242 nasopharyngeal samples were tested at La Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital (Paris, France). Performances for the detection of variants of SARS-CoV-2 were further investigated. RATs were visually read for qualitative results and band intensity was determined. Overall sensitivity was 63.2% for QAT and 58.6% for RAT. For RT-PCR Ct value 25, sensitivity was 89.8% for both tests. Both tests showed comparable sensitivity for detection of variants. There was a strong relationship between antigen concentration and band positivity. On the same set of samples these tests share similar performances.

UBNet: Deep learning-based approach for automatic X-ray image detection of pneumonia and COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

Analysis of chest X-ray images is one of the primary standards in diagnosing patients with COVID-19 and pneumonia, which is faster than using PCR Swab method. However, accuracy of using X-ray images needs to be improved.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a new deep learning system of chest X-ray images and evaluate whether it can quickly and accurately detect pneumonia and COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

The developed deep learning system (UBNet v3) uses three architectural hierarchies, namely first, to build an architecture containing 7 convolution layers and 3 ANN layers (UBNet v1) to classify between normal images and pneumonia images. Second, using 4 layers of convolution and 3 layers of ANN (UBNet v2) to classify between bacterial and viral pneumonia images. Third, using UBNet v1 to classify between pneumonia virus images and COVID-19 virus infected images. An open-source database with 9,250 chest X-ray images including 3,592 COVID-19 images were used in this study to train and test the developed deep learning models.

RESULTS

CNN architecture with a hierarchical scheme developed in UBNet v3 using a simple architecture yielded following performance indices to detect chest X-ray images of COVID-19 patients namely, 99.6%accuracy, 99.7%precision, 99.7%sensitivity, 99.1%specificity, and F1 score of 99.74%. A desktop GUI-based monitoring and classification system supported by a simple CNN architecture can process each chest X-ray image to detect and classify COVID-19 image with an average time of 1.21 seconds.

CONCLUSION

Using three hierarchical architectures in UBNet v3 improves system performance in classifying chest X-ray images of pneumonia and COVID-19 patients. A simple architecture also speeds up image processing time.

Lessons from a pandemic

Several interventions have been used around the world trying to contain the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, such as quarantine, prohibition of mass demonstrations, isolation of sick people, tracing of virus carriers, semi-containment, promotion of barrier gestures, development of rapid self-tests and vaccines among others. We propose a simple model to evaluate the potential impact of such interventions. A model for the reproduction number of an infectious disease including three main contexts of infection (indoor mass events, public indoor activities and household) and seven parameters is considered. We illustrate how these parameters could be obtained from the literature or from expert assumptions, and we apply the model to describe 20 scenarios that can typically occur during the different phases of a pandemic. This model provides a useful framework for better understanding and communicating the effects of different (combinations of) possible interventions, while encouraging constant updating of expert assumptions to better match reality. This simple approach will bring more transparency and public support to help governments to think, decide, evaluate and adjust what to do during a pandemic.

In-House Immunofluorescence Assay for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antigens in Cells from Nasopharyngeal Swabs as a Diagnostic Method for COVID-19

Immunofluorescence is a traditional diagnostic method for respiratory viruses, allowing rapid, simple and accurate diagnosis, with specific benefits of direct visualization of antigens-of-interest and quality assessment. This study aims to evaluate the potential of indirect immunofluorescence as an in-house diagnostic method for SARS-CoV-2 antigens from nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS). Three primary antibodies raised from mice were used for immunofluorescence staining, including monoclonal antibody against SARS-CoV nucleocapsid protein, and polyclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein and receptor-binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Smears of cells from NPS of 29 COVID-19 patients and 20 non-infected individuals, and cells from viral culture were stained by the three antibodies. Immunofluorescence microscopy was used to identify respiratory epithelial cells with positive signals. Polyclonal antibody against SARS-CoV-2 N protein had the highest sensitivity and specificity among the three antibodies tested, detecting 17 out of 29 RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 cases and demonstrating no cross-reactivity with other tested viruses except SARS-CoV. Detection of virus-infected cells targeting SARS-CoV-2 N protein allow identification of infected individuals, although accuracy is limited by sample quality and number of respiratory epithelial cells. The potential of immunofluorescence as a simple diagnostic method was demonstrated, which could be applied by incorporating antibodies targeting SARS-CoV-2 into multiplex immunofluorescence panels used clinically, such as for respiratory viruses, thus allowing additional routine testing for diagnosis and surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 even after the epidemic has ended with low prevalence of COVID-19.

Management of COVID-19 Patients in the Emergency Department

COVID-19 is an emerging disease of global public health concern. As the pandemic overwhelmed emergency departments (EDs), a restructuring of emergency care delivery became necessary in many hospitals. Furthermore, with more than 2000 papers being published each week, keeping up with ever-changing information has proven to be difficult for emergency physicians. The aim of the present review is to provide emergency physician with a summary of the current literature regarding the management of COVID-19 patients in the emergency department.