Field evaluation of COVID-19 antigen tests versus RNA based detection: Potential lower sensitivity compensated by immediate results, technical simplicity, and low cost

Rapid antigen detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 in stray cats: A cross-sectional study

Background and Aim

Although reverse zoonotic transmission events from humans to domestic cats have been described, there is currently little evidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) circulation in stray cats. Due to the evidence of natural and experimental infections in cats and the capacity to disseminate the virus among them, this study aimed to identify the SARS-CoV-2 antigen in stray cats from the Federal University of Sergipe in Brazil.

Materials and Methods

One hundred twenty six stray cats from the university were screened for SARS-CoV-2 antigens by random sampling. Throat swab samples were tested for the virus using rapid antigen detection tests.

Results

Of the 126 animals tested, 30 (23.60%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 antigens. To our knowledge, for the first time, this study detected the SARS-CoV-2 antigen in stray cats and confirmed the presence of SARS-CoV-2 infections in Brazil's stray cat population.

Conclusion

The detection of SARS-CoV-2 in stray cats poses a risk for infected and healthy animals and possibly for humans who attend the university daily. As a limitation of the study, the small sample size necessitates caution when interpreting the results. This underscores the need for further research in this area to help control diseases in stray animals during potential pandemics. This highlights the need for monitoring and controlling the spread of the virus in stray animal populations.

Time between symptom and testing in relation to familial transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

Brazil has a huge number of cases and deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, few studies have dealt with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among familial contacts in Brazil. Here, we report our findings on transmission in a family-based study in Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil. The study, conducted from July to November 2020, comprised 974 individuals with 233 index patients and 741 familial contacts. Familial contacts were evaluated using the rapid COVID-19 Ag ECO and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests immediately after the index patient diagnosis. The antigen-based rapid test was validated in 121 individuals using RT-PCR as the gold standard. Additionally, 30 days later, familial contacts were evaluated for IgM and IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. We found 333 cases of COVID-19 among familial contacts (44.9%). A positive correlation was observed between the time elapsed from the onset of symptoms until the index patient's COVID-19 testing and the number of family contacts infected by SARS-CoV-2. Early SARS-CoV-2 testing and familial contact evaluation are relevant strategies to contain transmission.

PdPtRu trimetallic nanozymes and application to electrochemical immunosensor for sensitive SARS-COV-2 antigen detection

Herein, a ternary PdPtRu nanodendrite as novel trimetallic nanozyme was reported, which possessed excellent peroxidase-like activity as well as electro-catalytic activity on account of the synergistic effect between the three metals. Based on the excellent electro-catalytic activity of trimetallic PdPtRu nanozyme toward the reduction of H₂O₂, the trimetallic nanozyme was applied to construct a brief electrochemical immunosensor for SARS-COV-2 antigen detection. Concretely, trimetallic PdPtRu nanodendrite was used to modify electrode surface, which not only generated high reduction current of H₂O₂ for signal amplification, but also provided massive active sites for capture antibody (Ab₁) immobilization to construct immunosensor. In the presence of target SARS-COV-2 antigen, SiO₂ nanosphere labeled detection antibody (Ab₂) composites were introduced on the electrode surface according sandwich immuno-reaction. Due to the inhibitory effect of SiO₂ nanosphere on the current signal, the current signal was decreased with the increasing target SARS-COV-2 antigen concentration. As a result, the proposed electrochemical immunosensor presented sensitive detection of SARS-COV-2 antigen with linear range from 1.0 pg/mL to 1.0 μg/mL and limit of detection down to 51.74 fg/mL. The proposed immunosensor provide a brief but sensitive antigen detection tool for rapid diagnosis of COVID-19.

SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy and preterm birth in Massachusetts from March 2020 through March 2021

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy has been linked to preterm birth, but this association is not well understood.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and spontaneous and provider-initiated preterm birth (PTB), and how timing of infection, and race/ethnicity as a marker of structural inequality, may modify this association.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study among pregnant people who delivered singleton, liveborn infants (22-44 weeks gestation) from 1 March 2020 to 31 March 2021 (n = 68,288). We used Cox proportional hazards models to compare the hazard of PTB between pregnant people with and without laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy. We evaluated this association according to the trimester of infection, timing from infection to birth, and timing of PTB. We also examined the joint associations of SARS-CoV-2 infection and race/ethnicity with PTB using the relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI).

RESULTS

Positive SARS-CoV-2 tests were identified for 2195 pregnant people (3.2%). The prevalence of PTB was 7.2% (3.8% spontaneous, 3.6% provider-initiated). SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy was associated with an increased risk of PTB overall (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34, 1.74), and provider-initiated PTB (HR 1.79, 95% CI 1.50, 2.12) but not spontaneous PTB (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.89, 1.36). Second trimester infections were associated with an increased risk of provider-initiated PTB, and third trimester infections were associated with an increased risk of both PTB subtypes. A joint inverse association between White non-Hispanic race/ethnicity and SARS-CoV-2 infection and spontaneous PTB (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34, 0.94; RERI -0.6, 95% CI -1.0, -0.2) was also observed.

CONCLUSIONS

SARS-CoV-2 infections were primarily associated with an increased risk for provider-initiated PTB in this study. These findings highlight the importance of promoting infection-prevention strategies among pregnant people.

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.

Visual Detection of COVID-19 from Materials Aspect

Abstract

In the recent COVID-19 pandemic, World Health Organization emphasized that early detection is an effective strategy to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 viruses. Several diagnostic methods, such as reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), have been applied based on the mechanism of specific recognition and binding of the probes to viruses or viral antigens. Although the remarkable progress, these methods still suffer from inadequate cellular materials or errors in the detection and sampling procedure of nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swab collection. Therefore, developing accurate, ultrafast, and visualized detection calls for more advanced materials and technology urgently to fight against the epidemic. In this review, we first summarize the current methodologies for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Then, recent representative examples are introduced based on various output signals (e.g., colorimetric, fluorometric, electronic, acoustic). Finally, we discuss the limitations of the methods and provide our perspectives on priorities for future test development.

Graphical Abstract

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.

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

An ideal test for COVID-19 would combine the sensitivity of laboratory-based PCR with the speed and ease of use of point-of-care (POC) or home-based rapid antigen testing. We evaluated clinical performance of the Diagnostic Analyzer for Selective Hybridization (DASH) SARS-CoV-2 POC rapid PCR test.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study of adults with and without symptoms of COVID-19 at four clinical sites where we collected two bilateral anterior nasal swabs 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 SARS-CoV-2 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 (approximately 15 minutes) in real-life clinical settings with an overall performance similar to an EUA-approved laboratory-based PCR.

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.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19 Detection: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

Introduction

Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to detect SARS-CoV-2 is time-consuming and sometimes not feasible in developing nations. Rapid antigen test (RAT) could decrease the load of diagnosis. However, the efficacy of RAT is yet to be investigated comprehensively. Thus, the current systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of RAT against RT-PCR methods as the reference standard.

Methods

We searched the MEDLINE/Pubmed and Embase databases for the relevant records. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. Diagnostic accuracy measures [i.e., sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratios (PLR), negative likelihood ratios (NLR), and the area under the curve (AUC)] were pooled with a random-effects model. All statistical analyses were performed with Meta-DiSc (Version 1.4, Cochrane Colloquium, Barcelona, Spain).

Results

After reviewing retrieved records, we identified 60 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the rapid antigen tests against the reference test (the real-time PCR) were 69% (95% CI: 68–70) and 99% (95% CI: 99–99). The PLR, NLR, DOR and the AUC estimates were found to be 72 (95% CI: 44–119), 0.30 (95% CI: 0.26–0.36), 316 (95% CI: 167–590) and 97%, respectively.

Conclusion

The present study indicated that using RAT kits is primarily recommended for the early detection of patients suspected of having COVID-19, particularly in countries with limited resources and laboratory equipment. However, the negative RAT samples may need to be confirmed using molecular tests, mainly when the symptoms of COVID-19 are present.

Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay: An Adaptable Methodology to Study SARS-CoV-2 Humoral and Cellular Immune Responses

The Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay is a versatile technique, which can be used for several applications. It has enormously contributed to the study of infectious diseases. This review highlights how this methodology supported the science conducted in COVID-19 pandemics, allowing scientists to better understand the immune response against SARS-CoV-2. ELISA can be modified to assess the functionality of antibodies, as avidity and neutralization, respectively by the standardization of avidity-ELISA and surrogate-neutralization methods. Cellular immunity can also be studied using this assay. Products secreted by cells, like proteins and cytokines, can be studied by ELISA or its derivative Enzyme-linked immunospot (ELISpot) assay. ELISA and ELISA-based methods aided the area of immunology against infectious diseases and is still relevant, for example, as a promising approach to study the differences between natural and vaccine-induced immune responses against SARS-CoV-2.

Using Andersen's model of health care utilization to assess factors associated with COVID-19 testing among adults in nine low-and middle-income countries: an online survey

Background

This study aimed to investigate, using Andersen’s model of health care utilization, factors associated with COVID-19 testing among adults in nine low- and middle- income countries.

Methods

In between 10 December 2020 and 9 February 2021, an online survey was organized in nine low- and middle-income countries. In total 10,183 adults (median age 45 years, interquartile range 33–57 years, range 18–93 years), including 6470 from Brazil, 1738 Malaysia, 1124 Thailand, 230 Bangladesh, 219 DR Congo, 159 Benin, 107 Uganda, 81 Malawi and 55 from Mali participated in the study. COVID-19 testing/infection status was assessed by self-report.

Results

Of the 10,183 participants, 40.3% had ever tested for COVID-19, 7.3% tested positive, and 33.0% tested negative. In an adjusted logistic regression model, predisposing factors (residing in Brazil, postgraduate education), enabling/disabling factors (urban residence, higher perceived economic status, being a student or worker in the health care sector, and moderate or severe psychological distress), and need factors (having at least one chronic condition) increased the odds of COVID-19 testing. Among those who were tested, participants residing in Bangladesh, those who had moderate to severe psychological distress were positively associated with COVID-19 positive diagnosis. Participants who are residing in Malaysia and Thailand, and those who had higher education were negatively associated with a COVID-19 positive diagnosis. Considering all participants, higher perceived economic status, being a student or worker in the health sector, and moderate or severe psychological distress were positively associated with a COVID-19 positive diagnosis, and residing in Malaysia, Thailand or five African countries was negatively associated with a COVID-19 positive diagnosis.

Conclusion

A high rate of COVID-19 testing among adults was reported in nine low-and middle-income countries. However, access to testing needs to be increased in Africa. Moreover, COVID-19 testing programmes need to target persons of lower economic status and education level who are less tested but most at risk for COVID-19 infection.

Comparison between Nasal and Nasopharyngeal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Detection in an Asymptomatic Population, and Direct Confirmation by RT-PCR from the Residual Buffer

Containment measures employed during the COVID-19 pandemic included prompt recognition of cases, isolation, and contact tracing. Bilateral nasal (NA) swabs applied to a commercial antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) offer a simpler and more comfortable alternative to nasopharyngeal (NP) collection; however, little is known about the sensitivity of this method in an asymptomatic population. Participants in community-based asymptomatic testing sites were screened for SARS-CoV-2 using an Ag-RDT with NP sampling. Positive individuals returned for confirmatory molecular testing and consented to repeating the Ag-RDT using a bilateral NA swab for comparison. Residual test buffer (RTB) from Ag-RDTs was subjected to real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR). Of 123,617 asymptomatic individuals, 197 NP Ag-RDT-positive participants were included, with 175 confirmed positive by RT-PCR. Of these cases, 154 were identified from the NA swab collection with Ag-RDT, with a sensitivity of 88.0% compared to the NP swab collection. Stratifying results by RT-PCR cycle threshold demonstrated that sensitivity of the nasal collection method varied based on the cycle threshold (C_T) value of the paired RT-PCR sample. RT-PCR testing on the RTB from the Ag-RDT using NP and NA swab collections resulted in 100.0% and 98.7% sensitivity, respectively. NA swabs provide an adequate alternative to NP swab collection for use with Ag-RDT, with the recognition that the test is most sensitive in specimens with high viral loads. With the high sensitivity of RT-PCR testing on RTB from Ag-RDT, a more streamlined approach to confirmatory testing is possible without recollection or use of paired collections strategies.

IMPORTANCE Nasal swabbing for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) comes with many benefits but is slightly less sensitive than traditional nasopharyngeal swabbing; however, confirmatory lab-based testing could be performed directly from the residual buffer from either sample type.

Alternative SARS-CoV-2 detection protocol from self-collected saliva for mass diagnosis and epidemiological studies in low-incoming regions

Until mass vaccination befalls, control of the new betacoronavirus-associated severe acute respiratory syndrome pandemic (SARS-CoV-2) is based on decreasing virus circulation by social distancing and blocking transmission foci after diagnosis. Globally adopted SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic criteria embrace viral RNA detection by quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) on nasopharynx secretions, which requires healthcare facilities and specialized personnel for sample collection. To develop an alternative protocol, hydrophilic cotton as the material and saliva as the source for biological sample collection in qRT-PCR/RT-endpoint-PCR SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic methods prepared with local consumables were evaluated using 99 archived nasopharynx samples previously diagnosed as positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 111 prospective saliva samples pared with nasopharynx samples from patients attending the local reference ABC Medical School diagnostic laboratory. The kappa agreement coefficient between the SARS-CoV-2 qRT-PCR and RT-endpoint-PCR was k = 0.97 (95 % CI 0.92-1.00) and k = 0.90 (95 % CI 0.81-0.99), respectively, on SARS-CoV-2-positive archived samples, with the initial qRT-PCR C_T under 25. The agreement coefficient of the SARS-CoV-2 alternative saliva diagnostic protocol, when used to test the paired nasopharynx samples, was k = 0.79 (95 % CI 0.56-1,00). These data support that the SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic assay based on self-collected saliva on cotton represents an alternative protocol for mass diagnosis and epidemiological studies in low-income regions.

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.

Review on oxidative stress relation on COVID-19: Biomolecular and bioanalytical approach

COVID-19 disease has put life of people in stress worldwide from many aspects. Since the virus has mutated in absolutely short period of time the challenge to find a suitable vaccine has become harder. Infection to COVID-19, especially at severe life threatening states is highly dependent on the strength of the host immune system. This system is partially dependent on the balance between oxidative stress and antioxidant. Besides, this virus still has unknown mechanism of action companied by a probable commune period. From another hand, some reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels can be helpful on the state determination of the disease. Thus it could be possible to use modern bioanalytical techniques for their detection and determination, which could indicate the disease state at the golden time window since they have the potential to show whether specific DNA, RNA, enzymes and proteins are affected. This also could be used as a preclude study or a reliable pathway to define the best optimized time of cure beside effective medical actions. Herein, some ROS and their relation with SARS-CoV-2 virus have been considered. In addition, modern bioelectroanalytical techniques on this approach from quantitative and qualitative points of view have been reviewed.

Analytical performance of the point-of-care BIOSYNEX COVID-19 Ag BSS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein in nasopharyngeal swabs: a prospective field evaluation during the COVID-19 third wave in France

BACKGROUND

The accuracy and reliability of rapid diagnostic tests are critical for monitoring and diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population. This study aimed to evaluate the analytical performance of the BIOSYNEX COVID-19 Ag BSS (Biosynex Swiss SA, Fribourg, Switzerland) antigen rapid diagnostic test (BIOSYNEX Ag-RDT), which targets the SARS-CoV-2 N-nucleocapsid protein for the diagnosis of COVID-19. The Ag-RDT was compared with a real-time RT-PCR (rtRT-PCR) as gold standard for performance measurement.

METHODS

Two nasopharyngeal flocked swabs were prospectively collected simultaneously in March and April 2021 from 967 individuals aged ≥ 18 years tested for SARS-CoV-2 in two private laboratories, Paris, France.

RESULTS

Overall, the Ag-RDT demonstrated high sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 81.8%, 99.6%, 96.6%, and 97.5%, respectively. The agreement (97.0%), reliability assessed using Cohen's κ-coefficient (0.87), and accuracy evaluated using Youden index (J) (81.6%) in detecting SARS-CoV-2 were high. The analytical performance of the Ag-RDT remained high when there was significant viral shedding (i.e., N gene C_t values ≤ 33 on reference RT-PCR). The sensitivity was only 55.2% in case of low or very low viral excretion (C_t > 33).

CONCLUSIONS

The BIOSYNEX Ag-RDT is a promising, potentially simple diagnostic tool, especially in symptomatic COVID-19 patients with substantial viral excretion in the nasopharynx.

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.

Clinical Application of the Novel Cell-Based Biosensor for the Ultra-Rapid Detection of the SARS-CoV-2 S1 Spike Protein Antigen: A Practical Approach

The availability of antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 represents a major step for the mass surveillance of the incidence of infection, especially regarding COVID-19 asymptomatic and/or early-stage patients. Recently, we reported the development of a Bioelectric Recognition Assay-based biosensor able to detect the SARS-CoV-2 S1 spike protein expressed on the surface of the virus in just three minutes, with high sensitivity and selectivity. The working principle was established by measuring the change of the electric potential of membrane-engineered mammalian cells bearing the human chimeric spike S1 antibody after attachment of the respective viral protein. In the present study, we applied the novel biosensor to patient-derived nasopharyngeal samples in a clinical set-up, with absolutely no sample pretreatment. More importantly, membrane-engineered cells were pre-immobilized in a proprietary biomatrix, thus enabling their long-term preservation prior to use as well as significantly increasing their ease-of-handle as test consumables. The plug-and-apply novel biosensor was able to detect the virus in positive samples with a 92.8% success rate compared to RT-PCR. No false negative results were recorded. These findings demonstrate the potential applicability of the biosensor for the early, routine mass screening of SARS-CoV-2 on a scale not yet realized.

Field evaluation of COVID-19 antigen tests versus RNA based detection: Potential lower sensitivity compensated by immediate results, technical simplicity, and low cost

One year into the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, diagnostic strategies, although central for contact tracing and other preventive measures, are still limited. To meet the global demand, lower cost and faster antigen tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) detection are a convenient alternative to the gold standard reverse transcription‐polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) assay. We tested laboratory‐based RT‐PCR RNA detection and two rapid antigen detection (RAD) tests, based on the immunochromatography test for nucleocapsid protein of SARS‐CoV‐2 (COVID‐19 Ag ECO Test, ECO Diagnóstica, and Panbio COVID‐19 Ag Rapid Test Abbott). Paired collection and testing were done in a small prospective open study in three clinical services in São Paulo, constituted of mostly symptomatic volunteers at collection (97%, 109/112) for a median of 4 days (interquartile range: 3–6), ranging from 1 to 30. Among the 108 paired RT‐PCR/RAD tests, results were concordant in 96.4% (101/108). The test's performance was comparable, with an overall sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 96%. These observations add to other data that suggest that antigen tests may provide reasonable sensitivity and specificity and deserve a role to improve testing strategies, especially in resource‐limited settings.

Testing and isolating individuals transmitting SARS‐CoV‐2, generally with high viral load, is crucial to pandemic control.

We documented comparable performance (96%) of two rapid test to standard RT‐qPCR.

Lower cost and immediate results of rapid antigen tests may allow innovative containment measures or, at least, complement current testing limitations, specially in resource limited setting.