Performance and operational feasibility of antigen and antibody rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients in Cameroon: a clinical, prospective, diagnostic accuracy study

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.

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.

High Performance of SARS-Cov-2N Protein Antigen Chemiluminescence Immunoassay as Frontline Testing for Acute Phase COVID-19 Diagnosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Objectives: COVID-19 emerged and rapidly spread throughout the world. Testing strategies focussing on patients with COVID-19 require assays that are high-throughput, low-risk of infection, and with small sample volumes. Antigen surveillance can be used to identify exposure to pathogens and measure acute infections. Methods: A total of 914 serum samples, collected from 309 currently infected COVID-19 patients, 48 recovered ones, and 410 non-COVID-19 patients, were used to measure N protein antigen levels by a chemilumineseent immunoassay. Diagnostic performances were analyzed in different periods after onset. Results: There was a high level of N protein antigen in COVID-19 patients (0.56 COI), comparing to the recovered patients (0.12 COI) and controls (0.19 COI). In receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis, the area under the curve of serum N protein antigen was 0.911 in the first week after onset. In this period, Sensitivity and specificity of serologic N protein antigen testing was 76.27 and 98.78%. Diagnosis performance of specific antibodies became better from the third week after onset. Subgroup analysis suggested that severe patients had higher levels of antigens than mild patients. Conclusions: High level of serum antigen suggested early infection and serious illness. Serum N protein antigen testing by chemiluminescence immunoassay is considered as a viable assay used to improve diagnostic sensitivity for current patients.

Performance of the Innova SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid lateral flow test in the Liverpool asymptomatic testing pilot: population based cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the performance of the SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid lateral flow test (LFT) versus polymerase chain reaction testing in the asymptomatic general population attending testing centres.

DESIGN

Observational cohort study.

SETTING

Community LFT pilot at covid-19 testing sites in Liverpool, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

5869 asymptomatic adults (≥18 years) voluntarily attending one of 48 testing sites during 6-29 November 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were tested using both an Innova LFT and a quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) test based on supervised self-administered swabbing at testing sites.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of LFT compared with RT-qPCR in an epidemic steady state of covid-19 among adults with no classic symptoms of the disease.

RESULTS

Of 5869 test results, 22 (0.4%) LFT results and 343 (5.8%) RT-qPCR results were void (that is, when the control line fails to appear within 30 minutes). Excluding the void results, the LFT versus RT-qPCR showed a sensitivity of 40.0% (95% confidence interval 28.5% to 52.4%; 28/70), specificity of 99.9% (99.8% to 99.99%; 5431/5434), positive predictive value of 90.3% (74.2% to 98.0%; 28/31), and negative predictive value of 99.2% (99.0% to 99.4%; 5431/5473). When the void samples were assumed to be negative, a sensitivity was observed for LFT of 37.8% (26.8% to 49.9%; 28/74), specificity of 99.6% (99.4% to 99.8%; 5431/5452), positive predictive value of 84.8% (68.1% to 94.9%; 28/33), and negative predictive value of 93.4% (92.7% to 94.0%; 5431/5814). The sensitivity in participants with an RT-qPCR cycle threshold (Ct) of <18.3 (approximate viral loads >106 RNA copies/mL) was 90.9% (58.7% to 99.8%; 10/11), a Ct of <24.4 (>104 RNA copies/mL) was 69.4% (51.9% to 83.7%; 25/36), and a Ct of >24.4 (<104 RNA copies/mL) was 9.7% (1.9% to 23.7%; 3/34). LFT is likely to detect at least three fifths and at most 998 in every 1000 people with a positive RT-qPCR test result with high viral load.

CONCLUSIONS

The Innova LFT can be useful for identifying infections among adults who report no symptoms of covid-19, particularly those with high viral load who are more likely to infect others. The number of asymptomatic adults with lower Ct (indicating higher viral load) missed by LFT, although small, should be considered when using single LFT in high consequence settings. Clear and accurate communication with the public about how to interpret test results is important, given the chance of missing some cases, even at high viral loads. Further research is needed to understand how infectiousness is reflected in the viral antigen shedding detected by LFT versus the viral loads approximated by RT-qPCR.

SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection to Expand Testing Capacity for COVID-19: Results from a Hospital Emergency Department Testing Site

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection has currently expanded the testing capacity for COVID-19, which yet relies on the SARS-CoV-2 RNA RT-PCR amplification.

OBJECTIVES

To report on a COVID-19 testing algorithm from a tertiary care hospital emergency department (ED) that combines both antigen (performed on the ED) and RT-PCR (performed outside the ED) testing.

METHODS

Between December 2020 and January 2021, in a priori designated, spatially separated COVID-19 or non-COVID-19 ED areas, respectively, symptomatic or asymptomatic patients received SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing on nasopharyngeal swab samples. Antigen results were promptly accessible to guide subsequent, outside performed confirmatory (RT-PCR) testing.

RESULTS

Overall, 1083 (100%) of 1083 samples in the COVID-19 area and 1815 (49.4%) of 3670 samples in the non-COVID-19 area had antigen results that required confirmation by RT-PCR. Antigen positivity rates were 12.4% (134/1083) and 3.7% (66/1815), respectively. Compared to RT-PCR testing results, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of antigen testing were, respectively, 68.0%, 98.3%, 88.8%, and 94.1% in the COVID-19 area, and 41.9%, 97.3%, 27.3%, and 98.6% in non-COVID-19 area. Practically, RT-PCR tests were avoided in 50.6% (1855/3670) of non-COVID-19 area samples (all antigen negative) from patients who, otherwise, would have needed antigen result confirmation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our algorithm had value to preserve RT-PCR from avoidable usage and, importantly, to save time, which translated into a timely RT-PCR result availability in the COVID-19 area.

Epidemiological feature, viral shedding, and antibody seroconversion among asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers and symptomatic/presymptomatic COVID-19 patients

Background

Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is pandemic. However, data concerning the epidemiological features, viral shedding, and antibody dynamics between asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers and COVID-19 patients remain controversial.

Methods

We enrolled 193 SARS-CoV-2 infected subjects in Ningbo and Zhoushan, Zhejiang, China, from January 21 to March 6, 2020. All subjects were followed up to monitor the dynamics of serum antibody immunoglobulin M (IgM) and IgG against SARS-CoV-2 using colloidal gold-labeled and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays.

Results

Of those, 31 were asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers, 148 symptomatic COVID-19 patients, and 14 presymptomatic COVID-19 patients. Compared to symptomatic COVID-19 patients, asymptomatic carriers were younger and had higher levels of white blood cell and lymphocyte, lower level of C-reactive protein, and shorter viral shedding duration. Conversion of IgM from positive to negative was shorter in asymptomatic carriers than in COVID-19 patients (7.5 vs. 25.5 days, P = 0.030). The proportion of those persistently seropositive for IgG against SARS-CoV-2 was higher in COVID-19 patients than in asymptomatic carriers (66.1% vs. 33.3%, P = 0.037). Viral load was higher in symptomatic patients than presymptomatic patients (P = 0.003) and asymptomatic carriers (P = 0.004). Viral shedding duration was longer in presymptomatic COVID-19 patients than in asymptomatic carriers (48.0 vs. 24.0 days, P = 0.002). Asymptomatic carriers acquired infection more from intra-familial transmission than did COVID-19 patients (89.0% vs. 61.0%, P = 0.028). In 4 familial clusters of SARS-CoV-2 infection, asymptomatic carriers were mainly children and young adults while severe COVID-19 was mainly found in family members older than 60 years with comorbidities.

Conclusion

Asymptomatic carriers might have a higher antiviral immunity to clear SARS-CoV-2 than symptomatic COVID-19 patients and this antiviral immunity should be contributable to innate and adaptive cellular immunity rather than humoral immunity. The severity of COVID-19 is associated with older age and comorbidities in familial clustering cases.

The importance of timely contact tracing - A simulation study

Background

While the role of contact tracing in the containment of the COVID-19 epidemic remains important until vaccines are widely available, literature on objectively measurable indicators for the effectiveness of contact tracing is scarce. We suggest the diagnostic serial interval, the time between the diagnosis of the infector and infectee, as a new indicator for the effectiveness of contact tracing.

Methods

Using an agent-based simulation model, we demonstrate how the diagnostic serial interval correlates with the course of the epidemic. We consider four scenarios of how diagnosis and subsequent isolation are triggered: 1. never, 2. by symptoms, 3. by symptoms and loose contact tracing, 4. by symptoms and tight contact tracing. We further refine scenarios 3 and 4 with different lengths of target diagnostic serial intervals.

Results

Scenarios 1 and 2 did not yield a notable difference. In scenarios 3 and 4, however, contact tracing led to a decrease of the height of the epidemic as well as the cumulative proportion of infected agents. Generally, the shorter the diagnostic serial interval was, the smaller the peak of the epidemic became, and the more proportion of the population remained susceptible at the end of the epidemic.

Conclusion

A short target diagnosis interval is critical for contact tracing to be effective in the epidemic control. The diagnosis interval can be used to assess and guide the contact tracing strategy.