Evaluation of a new "all in one" SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test and self-test: Diagnostic performance and usability in child and adult populations

Cost-effectiveness of COVID rapid diagnostic tests for patients with severe/critical illness in low- and middle-income countries: A modeling study

BACKGROUND

Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for coronavirus disease (COVID) are used in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to inform treatment decisions. However, to date, it is unclear when this use is cost-effective. Existing analyses are limited to a narrow set of countries and uses. The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of COVID RDTs to inform the treatment of patients with severe illness in LMICs, considering real world practice.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We assessed the cost-effectiveness of COVID testing across LMICs using a decision tree model, differentiating results by country income level, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) prevalence, and testing scenario (none, RDTs, polymerase chain reaction tests-PCRs and combinations). LMIC experts defined realistic care pathways and treatment options. Using a healthcare provider perspective and net monetary benefit approach, we assessed both intended (COVID symptom alleviation) and unintended (treatment side effects) health and economic impacts for each testing scenario. We included the side effects of corticosteroids, which are often the only available treatment for COVID. Because side effects depend both on the treatment and the patient's underlying illness (COVID or COVID-like illnesses, such as influenza), we considered the prevalence of COVID-like illnesses in our analyses. We found that SARS-CoV-2 testing of patients with severe COVID-like illness can be cost-effective in all LMICs, though only in some circumstances. High influenza prevalence among suspected COVID cases improves cost-effectiveness, since incorrectly provided corticosteroids may worsen influenza outcomes. In low- and some lower-middle-income countries, only patients with a high index of suspicion for COVID should be tested with RDTs, while other patients should be presumed to not have COVID. In some lower-middle-income and upper-middle-income countries, suspected severe COVID cases should almost always be tested. Further, in these settings, negative test results in patients with a high initial index of suspicion should be confirmed through PCR and, during influenza outbreaks, positive results in patients with a low initial index of suspicion should also be confirmed with a PCR. The use of interleukin-6 receptor blockers, when supported by testing, may also be cost-effective in higher-income LMICs. The cost at which they would be cost-effective in low-income countries ($162 to $406 per treatment course) is below current prices. The primary limitation of our analysis is substantial uncertainty around some of the parameters in our model due to limited data, most notably on current COVID mortality with standard of care, and insufficient evidence on the impact of corticosteroids on patients with severe influenza.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID testing can be cost-effective to inform treatment of LMIC patients with severe COVID-like disease. The optimal algorithm is driven by country income level and health budgets, the level of suspicion that the patient may have COVID, and influenza prevalence. Further research to better characterize the unintended effects of corticosteroids, particularly on influenza cases, could improve decision making around the treatment of those with COVID-like symptoms in LMICs.

Performance characteristics of INDICAID antigen rapid diagnostic test on SARS-CoV-2 samples during the omicron wave in Cameroon

Background

WHO recommends the use of COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) with at least 80 % sensitivity and 97 % specificity. In the era of Omicron variants, we sought to ascertain the performance of the INDICAID™ Ag-RDT compared to real-time PCR (RT-PCR) as the gold standard.

Methods

A laboratory-based study was conducted among consenting individuals tested for COVID-19 at the virology laboratory of the Chantal BIYA International Reference Centre, Yaoundé-Cameron. The samples were processed by INDICAID™ Ag-RDT and DaAn Gene real-time PCR according to the manufacturer's instructions, and PCR-results were interpreted as per cycle thresholds (CT). The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NVP) of INDICAID™ Ag-RDT were evaluated according to PCR CT-values.

Results

A total of 565 nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from participants (median age [IQR]: 40 [31-75]; M/F sex-ratio was 1.2 and 380 were vaccinated). Following PCR, overall COVID-19 positivity was 5.66 %. For CT < 37, INDICAID™ Ag-RDT sensitivity was 21.9 % (95%CI: [8.3-39.9]), specificity 100 % (95%CI: [99.3-100]); PPV 100 % (95%CI: [59.0-100]), NPV 95.5 % (95%CI: [93.4-97.1]) and kappa = 0.34 (95%CI: [0.19-0.35]). For CT < 25, sensitivity was 100 % (95%CI: [47.8-100.0]), specificity 99.6 % (95%CI: [98.7-99.9]); PPV 94.4 % (95%CI: [51.7-100]), NPV 100 % (95%CI: [99.3-100]) and kappa = 0.83 (95%CI: [0.6-1.0]). COVID-19 sequences generated were all Omicron BA.1 subvariants.

Conclusion

For patients infected with high viral loads (CT < 25), INDICAID™ Ag-RDT has high intrinsic (sensitivity and specificity) and extrinsic (predictive values) performances for COVID-19 diagnosis. Due to its simplicity and short turnaround time, INDICAID™ Ag-RDT is, therefore a reliable tool to prevent the spread of COVID-19 at community level in the current era of Omicron subvariants.

Lessons from the pandemic: new best practices in selecting molecular diagnostics for point-of-care testing of infectious diseases in sub-Saharan Africa

INTRODUCTION

Point-of-care molecular diagnostics offer solutions to the limited diagnostic availability and accessibility in resource-limited settings. During the COVID-19 pandemic, molecular diagnostics became essential tools for accurate detection and monitoring of SARS-CoV-2. The unprecedented demand for molecular diagnostics presented challenges and catalyzed innovations which may provide lessons for the future selection of point-of-care molecular diagnostics.

AREAS COVERED

We searched PubMed from January 2020 to August 2023 to identify lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic which may impact the selection of point-of-care molecular diagnostics for future use in sub-Saharan Africa. We evaluated this in the context of REASSURED criteria (Real-time connectivity; Ease of specimen collection; Affordable; Sensitive; Specific; User-friendly; Rapid and robust; Equipment free; and Deliverable to users at the point of need) for point-of-care diagnostics for resource-limited settings.

EXPERT OPINION

The diagnostic challenges and successes during the COVID-19 pandemic affirmed the importance of the REASSURED criteria but demonstrated that these are not sufficient to ensure new diagnostics will be appropriate for public health emergencies. Capacity for rapid scale-up of diagnostic testing and transferability of assays, data, and technology are also important, resulting in updated REST-ASSURED criteria. Few diagnostics will meet all criteria, and trade-offs between criteria will need to be context-specific.

Diagnostic accuracy of a rapid antigen triple test (SARS-CoV-2, respiratory syncytial virus, and influenza) using anterior nasal swabs versus multiplex RT-PCR in children in an emergency department

BACKGROUND

In children, respiratory infections such as SARS-CoV-2, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and influenza share similar clinical signs and symptoms. Here we compared the performance of a rapid antigen diagnostic test using a self-collected anterior nasal swab (COVID-VIRO ALL IN TRIPLEX) and multiplex RT-PCR.

METHODS

From October to December 2022, in the emergency pediatrics unit of Orleans Hospital, France, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the triplex test.

RESULTS

For the 263 children, sensitivity of the test was 88.9% (95%CI 51.8-99.7), 79.1% (95%CI 64.0-90.0), and 91.6% (95%CI 84.1-96.3), for SARS-CoV-2, RSV, and influenza, respectively. Specificity was 100% for each virus. For RT-PCR with cycle threshold < 32, sensitivity was 100.0% [95%CI 59.0-100.0], 87.2% [95%CI 72.6-95.7] and 92.3% [95%CI 84.896.9] for SARS-CoV-2, RSV, and influenza respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This easy-to-perform triplex test is a considerable advance, allowing clinicians to obtain an accurate diagnosis in most cases of respiratory infection. More data are needed to validate this test in different contexts and across several seasons.

Real-world assessment of the clinical performance of COVID-VIRO ALL IN rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen test

OBJECTIVES

Since the external validation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (SARS-CoV-2 RDT-Ags) is a necessary requisite before they can be introduced into routine clinical practice, this study reports the results of a real-world assessment of the clinical performance of the new COVID-VIRO ALL IN device.

METHODS

The study population consisted in 165 outpatients (median age: 43 years, range: 14-68 years; 66.1% females) who had paired nasal and nasopharyngeal samples collected upon hospital presentation. The samples were concomitantly tested with the AAZ-LMB COVID-VIRO ALL IN SARS-CoV-2 RDT-Ag and with Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR).

RESULTS

The number of subjects with positive RT-PCR results (i.e., mean Ct value <45) was 116 (70.3%), 109 (66.1%) and 86 (52.1%) with mean Ct values <37 and <30, respectively. In all RT-PCR positive samples, COVID-VIRO ALL IN displayed 78.8% agreement, 0.698 sensitivity, 1.000 specificity, 0.583 negative predictive value (NPV) and 1.000 positive predictive value (PPV) compared to RT-PCR. The median Ct value of samples testing positive with COVID-VIRO ALL IN was significantly lower than those testing negative (22.8 vs. 32.2; p<0.001). In samples with high viral load (i.e., Ct value <30), COVID-VIRO ALL IN displayed 92.1% agreement, 0.895 sensitivity, 0.949 specificity, 0.983 NPV and 0.951 PPV compared to RT-PCR.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the diagnostic performance of COVID-VIRO ALL IN do not exactly match those of the manufacturer, its high NPV in high viral load samples would enable fast-track and rapid identification of highly contagious subjects.

Nasal swab is a good alternative sample for detecting SARS-CoV-2 with rapid antigen test: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We aim to determine if nasal samples have equivalent detection sensitivity to nasopharyngeal swabs for RAT and evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of nasal swabs with RAT.

METHODS

PubMed and Web of Science were searched for eligible studies published before August 23, 2022. A bivariate random effects model was used to perform the quantitative synthesis.

RESULTS

The pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and summary AUC on nasal swabs with RAT were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.77-0.85), 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99-1.00), 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95-0.98), 298.91 (95% CI, 144.71-617.42) and 0.19 (95% CI, 0.15-0.23), respectively. WHO required RAT kits to perform with a sensitivity of 0.80 and a specificity of 0.97, nasal swabs (0.81) achieved the required sensitivity while nasopharyngeal swabs (0.75) did not. The symptomatic population yielded higher pooled sensitivity than the asymptomatic population (0.86 versus 0.71), with a pooled sensitivity of 0.90 for five days of symptom onset.

CONCLUSION

Nasal sampling had a great performance and yielded a high sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2 using RAT, we believe that RAT performed with nasal swabs is a good alternative for detecting SARS-CoV-2, especially early in the onset of symptoms.

Stick with the nose…Saliva rapid antigen testing is not a viable method for testing children under 5 years old

AIM

Respiratory testing with rapid antigen tests (RATs) in children under 5 years of age may be uncomfortable and presents specific challenges to testing due to compliance and procedural distress. The aim of this study was to investigate sensitivity and feasibility of self-collected nasal and saliva RAT tests compared with a combined nose and throat (CTN) swab PCR in children under 5.

METHODS

Children aged between 1 month and 5 years, with confirmed COVID-19 or who were a household contact within 7 days were included. A saliva RAT, nasal RAT and CTN swab were collected by the parent. SARS-CoV-2 cycle threshold (Ct) values for CTN tested by PCR were compared with saliva and nasal RAT results. Parent preference for method of sample was recorded.

RESULTS

Forty-one children were recruited with median age of 1.5 (interquartile range 0.7-4.0) years. Only 22/41 (54%) of parents were able to successfully collect a saliva RAT from their child. Sensitivity of the nasal RAT and saliva RAT was 0.889 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.739-0.969) and 0.158 (95% CI 0.034-0.396), respectively. Upper limit of nasal RAT detection by CTN Ct value was higher than saliva (36.05 vs. 27.29). While saliva RAT was rated most comfortable, nasal RAT was rated the preferred specimen by parents for future testing, due to saliva collection difficulties and time taken.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid antigen testing with nasal RAT is a more feasible and sensitive method for SARS-CoV-2 detection in young children compared with saliva RAT.

Positivization time of a COVID-19 rapid antigen self-test predicts SARS-CoV-2 viral load: a proof of concept

OBJECTIVES

This proof of concept study was aimed to validate the hypothesis that the time of positivization of SARS-CoV-2 self-performed rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) may reflect the actual viral load in the specimen.

METHODS

A SARS-CoV-2 positive sample with high viral load was diluted and concomitantly assayed with molecular assay (Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2) and RDT (COVID-VIRO ALL IN RDT). The (mean cycle threshold; Ct) values and RDT positivization times of these dilutions were plotted and interpolated by calculating the best fit. The parameters of this equation were then used for converting the positivization times into RDT-estimated SARS-CoV-2 Ct values in routine patient samples.

RESULTS

The best fit between measured and RDT-estimated Ct values could be achieved with a 2-degree polynomial curve. The RDT-estimated Ct values exhibited high correlation (r=0.996) and excellent Deming fit (y=1.01 × x - 0.18) with measured Ct values. In 30 consecutive patients with positive RDT test, the correlation between RDT positivization time and measured Ct value was r=0.522 (p=0.003). The correlation of RDT-estimated and measured Ct values slightly improved to 0.577 (Deming fit: y=0.44 × x + 11.08), displaying a negligible bias (1.0; 95% CI, -0.2 to 2.2; p=0.105). Concordance of RDT-estimated and measured Ct values at the <20 cut-off was 80%, with 0.84 sensitivity and 0.73 specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

This proof of concept study demonstrates the potential feasibility of using RDTs for garnering information on viral load in patients with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.

An overview of the most important preanalytical factors influencing the clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs)

Due to the many technical limitations of molecular biology, the possibility to sustain enormous volumes of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) diagnostic testing relies strongly on the use of antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs). Besides a limited analytical sensitivity, the manually intensive test procedures needed for performing these tests, very often performed by unskilled personnel or by the patients themselves, may contribute to considerably impair their diagnostic accuracy. We provide here an updated overview on the leading preanalytical drawbacks that may impair SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT accuracy, and which encompass lower diagnostic sensitivity in certain age groups, in asymptomatic subjects and those with a longer time from symptoms onset, in vaccine recipients, in individuals not appropriately trained to their usage, in those recently using oral or nasal virucidal agents, in oropharyngeal swabs and saliva, as well as in circumstances when instructions provided by the manufacturers are unclear, incomplete or scarcely readable and intelligible. Acknowledging these important preanalytical limitations will lead the way to a better, more clinically efficient and even safer use of this important technology, which represents an extremely valuable resource for management of the ongoing pandemic.

The acceptance of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen self-testing: A cross-sectional study in China

Compared with the nucleic acid amplification test (NATT), the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rapid antigen self-testing (RAST) has advantages in speed and convenience. However, little is known about people's acceptance and influencing factors for SARS-CoV-2 RAST. A cross-sectional study was conducted from April 21 to 30, 2022 in China. The χ² test and multivariate logistic regressions were used to identify the influencing factors. The structural equation model was used to test the extended protective motivation theory (PMT) model hypotheses. Among the total of 5107 participants, 62.5% were willing to accept the SARS-CoV-2 RAST. There were significant differences in acceptance among different residences (p < 0.001), educational level (p < 0.001), occupation (p < 0.001), monthly income (p < 0.001), travel frequency (p < 0.05), and feelings about NATT (p < 0.001). Response efficacy (β = 0.05; p = 0.025) and self-efficacy (β = 0.84; p < 0.001) had a positive effect, while response cost showed a negative effect (β = -0.07; p < 0.001). The public's major concerns about SARS-CoV-2 RAST are its reliability, testing method, price, and authority. Overall, a moderate intention to use SARS-CoV-2 RAST was found among the Chinese population. The extended PMT can be used for the prediction of intention to accept the RAST. We need to take measures to increase people's acceptance of SARS-CoV-2 RAST.