Accuracy and ease-of-use of seven point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting tests: A multi-centre clinical evaluation

Evaluating User Experience and DNA Yield from Self-Collection Devices

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic emphasized an urgent need for devices used in the self-collection of biospecimens in an evolving patient care system. The mailing of biospecimen self-collection kits to patients, with samples returned via mail, provides a more convenient testing regimen, but could also impart patient sampling variabilities. User compliance with device directions is central to downstream testing of collected biospecimens and clear instructions are central to this goal.

METHODS

Here, we performed an evaluation of 10 oral DNA collection devices involving either swab or saliva self-collection and analyzed ease of use and comfort level with a device, as well as DNA recovery quantity/quality and sample stability.

RESULTS

We show that while these DNA quality/quantity metrics are comparable between devices, users prefer direct saliva collection over swab-based devices.

CONCLUSIONS

This information is useful in guiding future experiments including their use in human RNA, microbial, or viral sample collection/recovery and their use in clinical testing.

Clinical accuracy of instrument-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen diagnostic tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, antigen diagnostic tests were frequently used for screening, triage, and diagnosis. Novel instrument-based antigen tests (iAg tests) hold the promise of outperforming their instrument-free, visually-read counterparts. Here, we provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 iAg tests' clinical accuracy.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, medRxiv, and bioRxiv for articles published before November 7th, 2022, evaluating the accuracy of iAg tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection. We performed a random effects meta-analysis to estimate sensitivity and specificity and used the QUADAS-2 tool to assess study quality and risk of bias. Sub-group analysis was conducted based on Ct value range, IFU-conformity, age, symptom presence and duration, and the variant of concern.

RESULTS

We screened the titles and abstracts of 20,431 articles and included 114 publications that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Additionally, we incorporated three articles sourced from the FIND website, totaling 117 studies encompassing 95,181 individuals, which evaluated the clinical accuracy of 24 commercial COVID-19 iAg tests. The studies varied in risk of bias but showed high applicability. Of 24 iAg tests from 99 studies assessed in the meta-analysis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity compared to molecular testing of a paired NP swab sample were 76.7% (95% CI 73.5 to 79.7) and 98.4% (95% CI 98.0 to 98.7), respectively. Higher sensitivity was noted in individuals with high viral load (99.6% [95% CI 96.8 to 100] at Ct-level ≤ 20) and within the first week of symptom onset (84.6% [95% CI 78.2 to 89.3]), but did not differ between tests conducted as per manufacturer's instructions and those conducted differently, or between point-of-care and lab-based testing.

CONCLUSION

Overall, iAg tests have a high pooled specificity but a moderate pooled sensitivity, according to our analysis. The pooled sensitivity increases with lower Ct-values (a proxy for viral load), or within the first week of symptom onset, enabling reliable identification of most COVID-19 cases and highlighting the importance of context in test selection. The study underscores the need for careful evaluation considering performance variations and operational features of iAg tests.

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.

Improved detection of infection with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants of concern in healthcare workers by a second-generation rapid antigen test

IMPORTANCE

The results from this study demonstrate the usefulness of a second-generation rapid antigen test for early detection of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant of concern (VoC) and reveal a higher sensitivity to detect immune escape Omicron VoCs compared to a first-generation rapid antigen test (89.4% vs 83.7%) in the high-risk group of healthcare workers.

Ultrasensitive lateral-flow assays via plasmonically active antibody-conjugated fluorescent nanoparticles

Lateral-flow assays (LFAs) are rapid and inexpensive, yet they are nearly 1,000-fold less sensitive than laboratory-based tests. Here we show that plasmonically active antibody-conjugated fluorescent gold nanorods can make conventional LFAs ultrasensitive. With sample-to-answer times within 20 min, plasmonically enhanced LFAs read out via a standard benchtop fluorescence scanner attained about 30-fold improvements in dynamic range and in detection limits over 4-h-long gold-standard enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, and achieved 95% clinical sensitivity and 100% specificity for antibodies in plasma and for antigens in nasopharyngeal swabs from individuals with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Comparable improvements in the assay's performance can also be achieved via an inexpensive portable scanner, as we show for the detection of interleukin-6 in human serum samples and of the nucleocapsid protein of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal samples. Plasmonically enhanced LFAs outperform standard laboratory tests in sensitivity, speed, dynamic range, ease of use and cost, and may provide advantages in point-of-care diagnostics.

Clinical Evaluation and Comparison of Two Microfluidic Antigenic Assays for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Virus

Given the ongoing pandemic, there is a need to identify SARS-CoV-2 and differentiate it from other respiratory viral infections in various critical settings. Since its introduction, rapid antigen testing is spreading worldwide, but diagnostic accuracy is extremely variable and often in disagreement with the manufacturer's specifications. Our study compared the clinical performances of two microfluidic rapid antigen tests towards a molecular assay, starting from positive samples. A total of 151 swabs collected at the Microbiology and Virology Laboratory of A.O. "SS Antonio e Biagio e C. Arrigo" (Alessandria, Italy) for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 were simultaneously tested to evaluate accuracy, specificity, and agreement with the RT-qPCR results. Both assays showed an overall agreement of 100% for negative specimens, while positive accuracy comprised between 45.10% and 54.90%. According to the manufacturer's instructions, the greatest correlation between the antigenic and molecular assays was observed for the subset with high viral load (18/19, 94.74%), while it dramatically decreased for other subsets. Moreover, the ability to differentiate between SARS-CoV-2 and Flu provides an added value and could be addressed in an epidemic context. However, an in-house validation should be performed due to differences observed in performance declared by manufacturers and those actually obtained.

[Diagnostic performance of two antigen-tests compared to one PCR-Test to detect SARS-CoV-2 in an emergency department and emergency service]

BACKGROUND

In the German hospital landscape and emergency care the COVID-19 pandemic was a stress test. Emergency medical health care in Germany is ensured by the supply chain between prehospital emergency rescue and clinical emergency care in the emergency rooms. In hospitals and emergency care settings a rapid, simple, accurate, and cost-effective test is needed to identify SARS-CoV‑2. In the central emergency department it is important to strictly separate patients with suspected COVID-19 from non-infected emergency persons.

METHODS

Given the background mentioned above, the performance of antigen tests in the ambulance service of the city Jena and the central emergency department of the university hospital Jena was analysed and in addition verified by using the RT-PCR gold standard. Several multiple testing procedures were performed by using antigen tests in the ambulance service and the central emergency department, and by using one or both of these antigen tests followed by the RT-PCR test. A total of 980 patients were included in the study over a two-month period (October/November 2022).

RESULTS

The average age of all patients was 65 years. More than half of the actively treated patients came from the city of Jena. The sensitivity and specificity of the antigen tests were 66.7% and 99.2% in the clinical setting (the central emergency department) and 68.8% and 96.7% in the prehospital setting (in the ambulance service) compared to RT-PCR. In the prehospital setting the sensitivity of the antigen testing was slightly higher (2%) than the clinical antigen testing. Regarding the parallel testing, 6% of antigen tests had a false negative SARS-CoV‑2 antigen test result in the ambulance service and 4.6% of antigen tests had a false negative SARS-CoV‑2 antigen test result in the central emergency department. The false-negative antigen tests, and thus the potentially unrecognized individuals, were further reviewed by considering the Ct-value.

CONCLUSION

The use of antigen testing in the ambulance service and the emergency department can lead to a quick classification of COVID and non-COVID areas of an emergency department. The measurement accuracy of antigen testing in the ambulance service and central emergency department is not equivalent to the RT-PCR. Nevertheless, antigen testing is a useful initial screening tool for early detection of SARS-CoV‑2 in prehospital and clinical settings. Dual antigen testing may be useful for more accurate diagnosis of the SARS-CoV‑2 pathogen.

Assessment of the detection accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test in children and adolescents: An updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Real-time and appropriate antigen tests play a pivotal role in preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. However, a previous meta-analysis reported that the antigen test had lower sensitivity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in children. To provide a comprehensive evaluation of diagnostic efficiency, we performed an updated meta-analysis to assess the detection accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests stratified by days after symptom onset and specimen type in children and adolescents.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched for appropriate studies in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies on the diagnostic accuracy of antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 in children and adolescents were included. The relevant data of the included studies were extracted to construct a 2 × 2 table on a per-patient basis. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests were estimated using a bivariate random-effects model.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies enrolling 10 912 patients were included in the present meta-analysis. For the detection accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests, the meta-analysis generated a pooled sensitivity of 77.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 67.3%-85.8%) and a pooled specificity of 99.6% (95% CI: 98.9%-99.8%). The subgroup analysis of studies that examined antigen tests in symptomatic participants ≦7 days after symptom onset generated a pooled sensitivity of 79.4% (95% CI: 47.6%-94.2%) and a pooled specificity of 99.4% (95% CI: 98.2%-99.8%). Another subgroup analysis of studies that evaluated nasal swab specimens demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 80.1% (95% CI: 65.0%-89.7%) and a pooled specificity of 98.5% (95% CI: 97.3%-9.2%).

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrated that the antigen test performed using nasal swab specimens exhibited high sensitivity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 within 7 days after symptom onset. Therefore, antigen testing using nasal swabs may be effective in blocking SARS-CoV-2 transmission in children.

Point of Care Tests: Changing Paradigms in the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2

Background

Point of care tests provide rapid information about the patient's condition, with a turnaround time of 15 min. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many such point of care tests were developed, to aid in the rapid diagnosis of SARS-Cov-2 infection.

Aim

To describe and synthesize the available literature on point of care tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2.

Methodology

This narrative review was done through online literature search, using Google Scholar and PubMed.

Result

There were 51 point of care tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 which were validated using different samples, such as such as nasopharyngeal swabs(42), oropharyngeal and naso-pharyngealswabs(2), oropharyngeal swab in VTM(1) nasal swabs(5) and throat swab(1).

Conclusion

There was global developement of point of care tests on a war footing. The Indian states of Delhi, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Haryana, Rajasthan, Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Goa and Uttarakhand, were in the forefront of these developments, as also the USA, Belgium, Taiwan, Korea and South Korea.

Clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic test using SERS-based lateral flow immunoassay

Background

'ACROSIS COVID-19 Ag (NPS)' kit (SG Medical, Seoul, Korea) is a newly developed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen-detection rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) using surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS)-based lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA). We evaluated its clinical performance compared with STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag (SD Biosensor, Suwon, Korea), a previously approved Ag-RDT.

Methods

A total of 286 nasopharyngeal swab specimens were collected: 104 positive and 182 negative specimens in SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse-transcription polymerase-chain-reaction (rRT-PCR). SARS-CoV-2-positive specimens were divided according to the cycle threshold (Ct) value in rRT-PCR. The clinical performance of ACROSIS was compared with that of STANDARD Q.

Results

ACROSIS showed significantly higher sensitivity than STANDARD Q (92.3% vs. 85.6%, P = 0.02), especially in specimens with 25 ≤ Ct < 30 (78.6% vs. 42.9%). The Ct values of RdRp/S genes for 95% detection rates by ACROSIS and STANDARD Q were 25.8 and 23.0, respectively.

Conclusions

This is the first study that evaluated the performance of ACROSIS compared with STANDARD Q. The overall clinical performance of ACROSIS was superior to that of STANDARD Q, especially in specimens with 25 ≤ Ct < 30. ACROSIS could be useful for SARS-CoV-2 Ag detection even in relatively low viral load specimens.

Multicenter Diagnostic Evaluation of OnSite COVID-19 Rapid Test (CTK Biotech) among Symptomatic Individuals in Brazil and the United Kingdom

The COVID-19 pandemic has given rise to numerous commercially available antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs). To generate and to share accurate and independent data with the global community requires multisite prospective diagnostic evaluations of Ag-RDTs. This report describes the clinical evaluation of the OnSite COVID-19 rapid test (CTK Biotech, CA, USA) in Brazil and the United Kingdom. A total of 496 paired nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs were collected from symptomatic health care workers at Hospital das Clínicas in São Paulo, Brazil, and 211 NP swabs were collected from symptomatic participants at a COVID-19 drive-through testing site in Liverpool, United Kingdom. Swabs were analyzed by Ag-RDT, and results were compared to quantitative reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-qPCR). The clinical sensitivity of the OnSite COVID-19 rapid test in Brazil was 90.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.1 to 96.7%) and in the United Kingdom was 75.3% (95% CI, 64.6 to 83.6%). The clinical specificity in Brazil was 99.4% (95% CI, 98.1 to 99.8%) and in the United Kingdom was 95.5% (95% CI, 90.6 to 97.9%). Concurrently, analytical evaluation of the Ag-RDT was assessed using direct culture supernatant of SARS-CoV-2 strains from wild-type (WT), Alpha, Delta, Gamma, and Omicron lineages. This study provides comparative performance of an Ag-RDT across two different settings, geographical areas, and populations. Overall, the OnSite Ag-RDT demonstrated a lower clinical sensitivity than claimed by the manufacturer. The sensitivity and specificity from the Brazil study fulfilled the performance criteria determined by the World Health Organization, but the performance obtained from the UK study failed to do. Further evaluation of Ag-RDTs should include harmonized protocols between laboratories to facilitate comparison between settings. IMPORTANCE Evaluating rapid diagnostic tests in diverse populations is essential to improving diagnostic responses as it gives an indication of the accuracy in real-world scenarios. In the case of rapid diagnostic testing within this pandemic, lateral flow tests that meet the minimum requirements for sensitivity and specificity can play a key role in increasing testing capacity, allowing timely clinical management of those infected, and protecting health care systems. This is particularly valuable in settings where access to the test gold standard is often restricted.

Usability of a novel lateral flow assay for the point-of-care detection of Neisseria gonorrhoeae: A qualitative time-series assessment among healthcare workers in South Africa

Accurate and user-friendly rapid point-of-care diagnostic tests (POCT) are needed to optimize treatment of Neisseria gonorrhoeae, especially in low-resource settings where syndromic management is the standard of care for sexually transmitted infections. This study aimed to assess the acceptability and usability of a novel lateral flow assay and portable reader for the point-of-care detection of N. gonorrhoeae infection (NG-LFA). This mixed-methods study was conducted as part of a diagnostic performance and usability evaluation of a prototype NG-LFA for detection of N. gonorrhoeae in symptomatic men and women at primary healthcare facilities in the Buffalo City Metro, South Africa. The Standardized System Usability Scale (SUS) was administered, and in-depth interviews were conducted among healthcare professionals (HCPs) and fieldworkers (FWs) at pre-implementation, initial use and 3- and 6-month study implementation to assess user expectations, practical experience, and future implementation considerations for the NG-LFA. Data collection and analysis was guided by the Health Technology Adoption Framework, including new health technology attributes, learnability, satisfaction, and suitability. The framework was adapted to include perceived durability. A total of 21 HCPs and FWs were trained on the NG-LFA use. SUS scores showed good to excellent acceptability ranging from 78.8-90.6 mean scores between HCPs and FWs across study time points. All transcripts were coded using Dedoose and qualitative findings were organized by learnability, satisfaction, suitability, and durability domains. Usability themes are described for each time point. Initial insecurity dissipated and specimen processing dexterity with novel POCT technology was perfected over time especially amongst FWs through practical learning and easy-to-use instructions (learnability). Participants experienced both positive and negative test results, yielding perceived accuracy and minimal testing challenges overall (satisfaction). By 3- and 6-month use, both HCPs and FWs found the NG-LFA convenient to use in primary health care facilities often faced with space constraints and outlined perceived benefits for patients (suitability and durability). Findings show that the NG-LFA device is acceptable and usable even amongst paraprofessionals. High SUS scores and qualitative findings demonstrate high learnability, ease-of-use and suitability that provide valuable information for first-step scale-up requirements at primary healthcare level. Minor prototype adjustments would enhance robustness and durability aspects.

The spread of the omicron variant: Identification of knowledge gaps, virus diffusion modelling, and future research needs

The World Health Organization (WHO) recognised variant B.1.1.529 of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) as a variant of concern, termed "Omicron", on November 26, 2021. Its diffusion was attributed to its several mutations, which allow promoting its ability to diffuse worldwide and its capability in immune evasion. As a consequence, some additional serious threats to public health posed the risk to undermine the global efforts made in the last two years to control the pandemic. In the past, several works were devoted to discussing a possible contribution of air pollution to the SARS-CoV-2 spread. However, to the best of the authors' knowledge, there are still no works dealing with the Omicron variant diffusion mechanisms. This work represents a snapshot of what we know right now, in the frame of an analysis of the Omicron variant spread. The paper proposes the use of a single indicator, commercial trade data, to model the virus spread. It is proposed as a surrogate of the interactions occurring between humans (the virus transmission mechanism due to human-to-human contacts) and could be considered for other diseases. It allows also to explain the unexpected increase in infection cases in China, detected at beginning of 2023. The air quality data are also analyzed to evaluate for the first time the role of air particulate matter (PM) as a carrier of the Omicron variant diffusion. Due to emerging concerns associated with other viruses (such as smallpox-like virus diffusion in Europe and America), the proposed approach seems to be promising to model the virus spreading.

SARS-CoV-2 multi-variant rapid detector based on graphene transistor functionalized with an engineered dimeric ACE2 receptor

Reliable point-of-care (POC) rapid tests are crucial to detect infection and contain the spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The emergence of several variants of concern (VOC) can reduce binding affinity to diagnostic antibodies, limiting the efficacy of the currently adopted tests, while showing unaltered or increased affinity for the host receptor, angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). We present a graphene field-effect transistor (gFET) biosensor design, which exploits the Spike-ACE2 interaction, the crucial step for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Extensive computational analyses show that a chimeric ACE2-Fragment crystallizable (ACE2-Fc) construct mimics the native receptor dimeric conformation. ACE2-Fc functionalized gFET allows in vitro detection of the trimeric Spike protein, outperforming functionalization with a diagnostic antibody or with the soluble ACE2 portion, resulting in a sensitivity of 20 pg/mL. Our miniaturized POC biosensor successfully detects B.1.610 (pre-VOC), Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Omicron (i.e., BA.1, BA.2, BA.4, BA.5, BA.2.75 and BQ.1) variants in isolated viruses and patient's clinical nasopharyngeal swabs. The biosensor reached a Limit Of Detection (LOD) of 65 cps/mL in swab specimens of Omicron BA.5. Our approach paves the way for a new and reusable class of highly sensitive, rapid and variant-robust SARS-CoV-2 detection systems.

Variable detection of Omicron-BA.1 and -BA.2 by SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests

During 2022, the COVID-19 pandemic has been dominated by the variant of concern (VoC) Omicron (B.1.1.529) and its rapidly emerging subvariants, including Omicron-BA.1 and -BA.2. Rapid antigen tests (RATs) are part of national testing strategies to identify SARS-CoV-2 infections on site in a community setting or to support layman's diagnostics at home. We and others have recently demonstrated an impaired RAT detection of infections caused by Omicron-BA.1 compared to Delta. Here, we evaluated the performance of five SARS-CoV-2 RATs in a single-centre laboratory study examining a total of 140 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive respiratory swab samples, 70 Omicron-BA.1 and 70 Omicron-BA.2, as well as 52 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative swabs collected from March 8th until April 10th, 2022. One test did not meet minimal criteria for specificity. In an assessment of the analytical sensitivity in clinical specimen, the 50% limit of detection (LoD50) ranged from 4.2 × 104 to 9.2 × 105 RNA copies subjected to the RAT for Omicron-BA.1 compared to 1.3 × 105 to 1.5 × 106 for Omicron-BA.2. Overall, intra-assay differences for the detection of Omicron-BA.1-containing and Omicron-BA.2-containing samples were non-significant, while a marked overall heterogeneity among the five RATs was observed. To score positive in these point-of-care tests, up to 22-fold (LoD50) or 68-fold (LoD95) higher viral loads were required for the worst performing compared to the best performing RAT. The rates of true-positive test results for these Omicron subvariant-containing samples in the highest viral load category (Ct values < 25) ranged between 44.7 and 91.1%, while they dropped to 8.7 to 22.7% for samples with intermediate Ct values (25-30). In light of recent reports on the emergence of two novel Omicron-BA.2 subvariants, Omicron-BA.2.75 and BJ.1, awareness must be increased for the overall reduced detection rate and marked differences in RAT performance for these Omicron subvariants.

Evaluation of the performance of a rapid antigen test (Roche) for COVID-19 diagnosis in an emergency setting in Sweden

During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, rapid and reliable detection of SARS-CoV-2 is important to enable proper care of patients and to prevent further transmission. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (Ag-RDT) in an emergency care setting during a high pandemic period. The analytical performance of the Ag-RDT was compared to real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR). A total of 132 patient samples, previously analyzed with rRT-PCR, were reanalyzed with the Ag-RDT. Tenfold serial dilutions of five different patient strains containing the pangolin variants BA.1, BA.2, B.1.1.7, B.1.160, and B.1.177 were analyzed in parallel with the Ag-RDT and rRT-PCR. A clinical evaluation was performed in which 1911 consecutive patients admitted to the emergency wards in Region Gävleborg, Sweden, were included. Paired samples were collected and analyzed with the Ag-RDT on-site and with rRT-PCR at the microbiology laboratory. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the Ag-RDT in the clinical evaluation were 71.3% and 99.7%, respectively. When samples with cycle threshold (Ct) values above 30 were excluded, the sensitivity was 86.5%. Eleven of the admitted patients who were positive for both the Ag-RDT and rRT-PCR (Ct-range 16.9-30.4) showed no symptoms of COVID-19. Using the Ag-RDT shortened the detection time by an average of 11 h. The Ag-RDT is a useful tool for preliminary screening of SARS-CoV-2 because it enables rapid detection in infectious individuals and therefore, can counteract unnecessary spread of infection at an early stage.

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.

Evaluation of Four Strategies for SARS-CoV-2 Detection: Characteristics and Prospects

The pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has posed an enormous burden on the global public health system and has had disastrous socioeconomic consequences. Currently, single sampling tests, 20-in-1 pooling tests, nucleic acid point-of-care tests (POCTs), and rapid antigen tests are implemented in different scenarios to detect SARS-CoV-2, but a comprehensive evaluation of them is scarce and remains to be explored. In this study, 3 SARS-CoV-2 inactivated cell culture supernatants were used to evaluate the analytical performance of these strategies. Additionally, 5 recombinant SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) proteins were also used for rapid antigen tests. For the wild-type (WT), Delta, and Omicron strains, the lowest inactivated virus concentrations to achieve 100% detection rates of single sampling tests ranged between 1.28 × 102 to 1.02 × 103, 1.28 × 102 to 4.10 × 103, and 1.28 × 102 to 2.05 × 103 copies/mL. The 20-in-1 pooling tests ranged between 1.30 × 102 to 1.04 × 103, 5.19 × 102 to 2.07 × 103, and 2.59 × 102 to 1.04 × 103 copies/mL. The nucleic acid POCTs were all 1.42 × 103 copies/mL. The rapid antigen tests ranged between 2.84 × 105 to 7.14 × 106, 8.68 × 104 to 7.14 × 106, and 1.12 × 105 to 3.57 × 106 copies/mL. For the WT, Delta AY.2, Delta AY.1/AY.3, Omicron BA.1, and Omicron BA.2 recombinant N proteins, the lowest concentrations to achieve 100% detection rates of rapid antigen tests ranged between 3.47 to 142.86, 1.74 to 142.86, 3.47 to 142.86, 3.47 to 142.86, and 5.68-142.86 ng/mL, respectively. This study provided helpful insights into the scientific deployment of tests and recommended the full-scale consideration of the testing purpose, resource availability, cost performance, result rapidity, and accuracy to facilitate a profound pathway toward the long-term surveillance of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). IMPORTANCE In the study, we reported an evaluation of 4 detection strategies implemented in different scenarios for SARS-CoV-2 detection: single sampling tests, 20-in-1 pooling tests, nucleic acid point-of-care tests, and rapid antigen tests. 3 SARS-CoV-2-inactivated SARS-CoV-2 cell culture supernatants and 5 recombinant SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid proteins were used for evaluation. In this analysis, we found that for the WT, Delta, and Omicron supernatants, the lowest concentrations to achieve 100% detection rates of single sampling tests ranged between 1.28 × 102 to 1.02 × 103, 1.28 × 102 to 4.10 × 103, and 1.28 × 102 to 2.05 × 103 copies/mL. The 20-in-1 pooling tests ranged between 1.30 × 102 to 1.04 × 103, 5.19 × 102 to 2.07 × 103, and 2.59 × 102 to 1.04 × 103 copies/mL. The nucleic acid POCTs were all 1.42 × 103 copies/mL. The rapid antigen tests ranged between 2.84 × 105 to 7.14 × 106, 8.68 × 104 to 7.14 × 106, and 1.12 × 105 to 3.57 × 106 copies/mL. For the WT, Delta AY.2, Delta AY.1/AY.3, Omicron BA.1, and Omicron BA.2 recombinant N proteins, the lowest concentrations to achieve 100% detection rates of rapid antigen tests ranged between 3.47 to 142.86, 1.74 to 142.86, 3.47 to 142.86, 3.47 to 142.86, and 5.68 to 142.86 ng/mL, respectively.

Investigation of the diagnostic performance of the SARS-CoV-2 saliva antigen test: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Rapid identification and isolation of patients with COVID-19 are critical strategies to contain COVID-19. The saliva antigen test has the advantages of noninvasiveness and decreased transmission risk to health-care professionals. This meta-analysis investigated the diagnostic accuracy of the saliva antigen test for SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

We searched for relevant studies in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Biomed Central. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of saliva antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 were included. The data of the included studies were used to construct a 2 × 2 table on a per patient basis. The overall sensitivity and specificity of saliva antigen tests were determined using a bivariate random-effects model.

RESULTS

Nine studies enrolling 9842 patients were included. The meta-analysis generated a pooled sensitivity of 65.3% and a pooled specificity of 99.7%. A subgroup analysis of the studies performing the chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLEIA) for participants from airports and public health centers revealed a pooled sensitivity of 93.6%.

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrated that the saliva antigen test performed using CLEIA exhibited higher sensitivity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, the saliva antigen test performed using CLEIA might be an effective and noninvasive screening tool for SARS-CoV-2.

Risk-based decision-making related to preprocedural coronavirus disease 2019 testing in the setting of GI endoscopy: management of risks, evidence, and behavioral health economics

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Controversies exist regarding the benefits and most appropriate approach for preprocedural coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing (eg, rapid antigen test, polymerase chain reaction, or real-time polymerase chain reaction) for outpatients undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, such as GI endoscopy, to prevent COVID-19 infections among staff. Guidelines for protecting healthcare workers (HCWs) from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection from outpatient procedures varies across medical professional organizations. This study provides an evidence-based decision support tool for key decision-makers (eg, clinicians) to respond to COVID-19 transmission risks and reduce the effect of personal biases.

METHODS

A scoping review was used to identify relevant factors influencing COVID-19 transmission risk relevant for GI endoscopy. From 12 relevant publications, 8 factors were applicable: test sensitivity, prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the population, age-adjusted SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in the patient cohort, proportion of asymptomatic patients, risk of transmission from asymptomatic carriers, risk reduction by personal protective equipment (PPE), vaccination rates of HCWs, and risk reduction of SAE by vaccination. The probability of a serious adverse event (SAE), such as workplace-acquired infection resulting in HCW death, under various scenarios with preprocedural testing was determined to inform decision-makers of expected costs of reductions in SAEs.

RESULTS

In a setting of high community transmission, without testing and PPE, 117.5 SAEs per million procedures were estimated to occur, and this was reduced to between .079 and 2.35 SAEs per million procedures with the use of PPE and preprocedural testing. When these variables are used and a range of scenarios are tested, the probability of an SAE was low even without testing but was reduced by preprocedural testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Under all scenarios tested, preprocedural testing reduced the SAE risk for HCWs regardless of the SARS-CoV-2 variant. Benefits of preprocedural testing are marginal when community transmission is low (eg, below 10 infections a day per 100,000 population). The proposed decision support tool can assist in developing rational preprocedural testing policies.

SARS-CoV-2 Spatiotemporal Genomic and Molecular Analysis of the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Macaé, the Brazilian Capital of Oil

The SARS-CoV-2 virus infection led to millions of deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hundreds of workers from several other Brazilian cities, as well as from other countries, arrive daily in Macaé to work in the oil supply chain, making this city a putative hotspot for the introduction of new viral lineages. In this study, we performed a genomic survey of SARS-CoV-2 samples from Macaé during the first outbreak of COVID-19, combined with clinical data and a molecular integrative analysis. First, phylogenomic analyses showed a high occurrence of viral introduction events and the establishment of local transmissions in Macaé, including the ingression and spread of the B.1.1.28 lineage in the municipality from June to August 2020. Second, SARS-CoV-2 mutations were identified in patients with distinct levels of COVID-19 severity. Third, molecular interactions of the mutated spike protein from three B.1.1.33 local samples and human ACE2 showed higher interactions than that of the wild-type spike protein from the ancestral virus. Altogether, these results elucidate the SARS-CoV-2 genomic profile in a strategic Brazilian city and further explore the functional aspects of SARS-CoV-2 with a characterization of emerging viral mutations associated with clinical data and the potential targets for drug development against SARS-CoV-2.

Clinical Performance of Self-Collected Nasal Swabs and Antigen Rapid Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Resource-Poor Settings

Background: In resource-poor countries, antigen-based rapid tests (Ag-RDTs) performed at primary healthcare and community settings improved access to SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. However, the technical skills and biosafety requirements inherent to nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal (OP) specimens limit the scale-up of SARS-CoV-2 testing. The collection of nasal-swabs is programmatically viable, but its performance has not been evaluated in resource-poor settings. Methods: We first evaluated the performance of SteriPack self-collected nasal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by real-time PCR in 1498 consecutively enrolled patients with suspected infection. Next, we evaluated the clinical performance of three nasal swab-based Ag-RDTs against real-time PCR on OP specimens. Results: The sensitivity of nasal swabs was 80.6% [95% CI: 75.3−85.2%] compared to OP specimens. There was a good correlation (r = 0.58; p < 0.0001) between Ct values of 213 positive cases obtained using nasal and OP swabs. Our findings show sensitivities of 79.7% [95% CI: 73.3−85.1%] for Panbio COVID-19 Ag-RDT, 59.6% [95% CI: 55.2−63.8%] for COVIOS Ag-RDT, and 78.0% [95% CI: 73.5−82.0%] for the LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. Conclusions: In our setting, the COVIOS Ag-RDT did not meet WHO requirements. Nasal swab-based Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 detection constitute a viable and accurate diagnostic option in resource-poor settings.

SARS-CoV-2 Mutations and Variants May Muddle the Sensitivity of COVID-19 Diagnostic Assays

The performance of diagnostic polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays can be impacted by SARS-CoV-2 variability as this is dependent on the full complementarity between PCR primers/probes and viral target templates. Here, we investigate the genetic variability of SARS-CoV-2 regions recognized by primers/probes utilized by PCR diagnostic assays based on nucleotide mismatching analysis. We evaluated the genetic variation in the binding regions of 73 primers/probes targeting the Nucleocapsid (N, N = 36), Spike (S, N = 22), and RNA-dependent RNA-polymerase/Helicase (RdRp/Hel, N = 15) of the publicly available PCR-based assays. Over 4.9 million high-quality SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences were retrieved from GISAID and were divided into group-A (all except Omicron, >4.2 million) and group-B (only Omicron, >558 thousand). In group-A sequences, a large range of variability in primers/probes binding regions in most PCR assays was observed. Particularly, 87.7% (64/73) of primers/probes displayed ≥1 mismatch with their viral targets, while 8.2% (6/73) contained ≥2 mismatches and 2.7% (2/73) contained ≥3 mismatches. In group-B sequences, 32.9% (24/73) of primers/probes were characterized by ≥1 mismatch, 13.7% (10/73) by ≥2 mismatches, and 5.5% (4/73) by ≥3 mismatches. The high rate of single and multiple mismatches- found in the target regions of molecular assays used worldwide for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis reinforces the need to optimize and constantly update these assays according to SARS-CoV-2 genetic evolution and the future emergence of novel variants.

An updated review of SARS-CoV-2 detection methods in the context of a novel coronavirus pandemic

The World Health Organization has reported approximately 430 million confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), worldwide, including nearly 6 million deaths, since its initial appearance in China in 2019. While the number of diagnosed cases continues to increase, the need for technologies that can accurately and rapidly detect SARS-CoV-2 virus infection at early phases continues to grow, and the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) has licensed emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for virtually hundreds of diagnostic tests based on nucleic acid molecules and antigen-antibody serology assays. Among them, the quantitative real-time reverse transcription PCR (qRT-PCR) assay is considered the gold standard for early phase virus detection. Unfortunately, qRT-PCR still suffers from disadvantages such as the complex test process and the occurrence of false negatives; therefore, new nucleic acid detection devices and serological testing technologies are being developed. However, because of the emergence of strongly infectious mutants of the new coronavirus, such as Alpha (B.1.1.7), Delta (B.1.617.2), and Omicron (B.1.1.529), the need for the specific detection of mutant strains is also increasing. Therefore, this article reviews nucleic acid- and antigen-antibody-based serological assays, and compares the performance of some of the most recent FDA-approved and literature-reported assays and associated kits for the specific testing of new coronavirus variants.

Performance differences among commercially available antigen rapid tests for COVID-19 in Brazil

A rapid and accurate diagnosis is a crucial strategy for containing the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Considering the obstacles to upscaling the use of RT–qPCR, rapid tests based on antigen detection (Ag-RDT) have become an alternative to enhance mass testing, reducing the time for a prompt diagnosis and virus spreading. However, the performances of several commercially available Ag-RDTs have not yet been evaluated in several countries. Here, we evaluate the performance of eight Ag-RDTs available in Brazil to diagnose COVID-19. Patients admitted to tertiary hospitals with moderate or mild COVID-19 symptoms and presenting risk factors for severe disease were included. The tests were performed using a masked protocol, strictly following the manufacturer’s recommendations and were compared with RT–qPCR. The overall sensitivity of the tests ranged from 9.8 to 81.1%, and specificity greater than 83% was observed for all the evaluated tests. Overall, slight or fair agreement was observed between Ag-RDTs and RT–PCR, except for the Ag-RDT COVID-19 (Acro Biotech), in which moderate agreement was observed. Lower sensitivity of Ag-RDTs was observed for patients with cycle threshold > 25, indicating that the sensitivity was directly affected by viral load, whereas the effect of the disease duration was unclear. Despite the lower sensitivity of Ag-RDTs compared with RT–qPCR, its easy fulfillment and promptness still justify its use, even at hospital admission. However, the main advantage of Ag-RDTs seems to be the possibility of increasing access to the diagnosis of COVID-19 in patients with a high viral load, allowing immediate clinical management and reduction of infectivity and community transmission.

Evaluation of a laboratory-based high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay

OBJECTIVES

Antigen tests are an essential part of SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies. Rapid antigen tests are easy to use but less sensitive compared to nucleic acid amplification tests (NAT) and less suitable for large-scale testing. In contrast, laboratory-based antigen tests are suitable for high-throughput immunoanalyzers. Here we evaluated the diagnostic performance of the laboratory-based Siemens Healthineers SARS-CoV-2 Antigen (CoV2Ag) assay.

METHODS

In a public test center, from 447 individuals anterior nasal swab specimens as well as nasopharyngeal swab specimens were collected. The nasal swab specimens were collected in sample inactivation medium and measured using the CoV2Ag assay. The nasopharyngeal swab specimens were measured by RT-PCR. Additionally, 9,046 swab specimens obtained for screening purposes in a tertiary care hospital were analyzed and positive CoV2Ag results confirmed by NAT.

RESULTS

In total, 234/447 (52.3%) participants of the public test center were positive for SARS-CoV-2-RNA. Viral lineage B1.1.529 was dominant during the study. Sensitivity and specificity of the CoV2Ag assay were 88.5% (95%CI: 83.7-91.9%) and 99.5% (97.4-99.9%), respectively. Sensitivity increased to 93.7% (97.4-99.9%) and 98.7% (97.4-99.9%) for swab specimens with cycle threshold values <30 and <25, respectively. Out of 9,046 CoV2Ag screening tests from hospitalized patients, 21 (0.2%) swab specimens were determined as false-positive by confirmatory NAT.

CONCLUSIONS

Using sample tubes containing inactivation medium the laboratory-based high-throughput CoV2Ag assay is a very specific and highly sensitive assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen in nasal swab specimens including the B1.1.529 variant. In low prevalence settings confirmation of positive CoV2Ag results by SARS-CoV-2-RNA testing is recommended.

Impaired detection of omicron by SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests

Since autumn 2020, rapid antigen tests (RATs) have been implemented in several countries as an important pillar of the national testing strategy to rapidly screen for infections on site during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The current surge in infection rates around the globe is driven by the variant of concern (VoC) omicron (B.1.1.529). Here, we evaluated the performance of nine SARS-CoV-2 RATs in a single-centre laboratory study. We examined a total of 115 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative and 166 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive respiratory swab samples (101 omicron, 65 delta (B.1.617.2)) collected from October 2021 until January 2022 as well as cell culture-expanded clinical isolates of both VoCs. In an assessment of the analytical sensitivity in clinical specimen, the 50% limit of detection (LoD50) ranged from 1.77 × 106 to 7.03 × 107 RNA copies subjected to the RAT for omicron compared to 1.32 × 105 to 2.05 × 106 for delta. To score positive in these point-of-care tests, up to 10-fold (LoD50) or 101-fold (LoD95) higher virus loads were required for omicron- compared to delta-containing samples. The rates of true positive test results for omicron samples in the highest virus load category (Ct values < 25) ranged between 31.4 and 77.8%, while they dropped to 0-8.3% for samples with intermediate Ct values (25-30). Of note, testing of expanded virus stocks suggested a comparable RAT sensitivity of both VoCs, questioning the predictive value of this type of in vitro-studies for clinical performance. Given their importance for national test strategies in the current omicron wave, awareness must be increased for the reduced detection rate of omicron infections by RATs and a short list of suitable RATs that fulfill the minimal requirements of performance should be rapidly disclosed.

Small form factor flow virometer for SARS-CoV-2

Current diagnostics of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection heavily rely on reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or on rapid antigen detection tests. The former suffers from long time-to-result and high cost while the latter from poor sensitivity. Therefore, it is crucial to develop rapid, sensitive, robust, and inexpensive methods for SARS-CoV-2 testing. Herein, we report a novel optofluidic technology, a flow-virometry reader (FVR), for fast and reliable SARS-CoV-2 detection in saliva samples. A small microfluidic chip together with a laser-pumped optical head detects the presence of viruses tagged with fluorescent antibodies directly from saliva samples. The technology has been validated using clinical samples with high sensitivity (91.2%) and specificity (90%). Thanks also to its short time-to-result (<30 min) and small size (25 × 30 × 13 cm), which can be further reduced in the future, it is a strong alternative to existing tests, especially for point-of-care (POC) and low resource settings.

The economic cost of implementing antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 screening in high-risk transmission settings: evidence from Germany

BACKGROUND

Antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) have been implemented in hospitals and nursing homes to screen for infectious individuals without symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infections and to prevent entry into these high-risk settings. Despite their benefits for screening, the cost of large-scale implementation is largely understudied. Our study presents evidence on their implementation costs in high-risk settings. This study aimed to estimate the economic costs of implementing Ag-RDT-based screening for SARS-CoV-2 in two tertiary care hospitals (University Hospital Heidelberg - UKHD, and Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin) and one nursing home in Germany.

METHODS

We adopted a health system perspective and followed the three sequential steps to costing: identification of resources, measurement of resource consumption, and valuation of costs. Data on resource consumption were collected between October 2020 and April 2021 through various techniques and data sources. The cost estimation considered all costs along the screening algorithm including PCR confirmation tests for positive cases. We estimated the costs for the two implementation modalities observed: staff dedicated exclusively to screening and staff not dedicated exclusively to screening. Furthermore, cost estimations were performed under both observed capacity use and hypothetical capacity use assumptions (60, 80 and 100%).

RESULTS

Our study indicates that the average cost per Ag-RDT is highly dependent on the capacity use and implementation mode. Staff time and test kits are the two main cost drivers of implementing the large-scale screening programs for SARS-CoV-2 using Ag-RDTs. For hospitals, the average cost per test in UKHD was €30.12 (capacity observed); €14.56 (non-dedicated mode); €19.47, €16.37, €14.53 at 60, 80, 100% capacity respectively (dedicated mode); and at Charité €13.10 (non-dedicated mode). For the nursing home the estimated average cost per test was €15.03 (non-dedicated mode).

CONCLUSIONS

The information on the estimated costs by mode of implementation and capacity use may support the planning of Ag-RDT-based covid-19 screening programs suitable for each institution. Further research is needed to cost this screening strategy for COVID-19 in other high-risk, high-income settings to reach generalizability.