SARS-CoV-2 screening strategies for returning international travellers: Evaluation of a rapid antigen test approach

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen tests for COVID19 compared to the viral genetic test in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the currently available and upcoming point-of-care rapid antigen tests (RATs) used in primary care settings relative to the viral genetic real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test as a reference for diagnosing COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 in adults.

INTRODUCTION

Accurate COVID-19 point-of-care diagnostic tests are required for real-time identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection in individuals. Real-time RT-PCR is the accepted gold standard for diagnostic testing, requiring technical expertise and expensive equipment that are unavailable in most primary care locations. RATs are immunoassays that detect the presence of a specific viral protein, which implies a current infection with SARS-CoV-2. RATs are qualitative or semi-quantitative diagnostics that lack thresholds that provide a result within a short time frame, typically within the hour following sample collection. In this systematic review, we synthesized the current evidence regarding the accuracy of RATs for detecting SARS-CoV-2 compared with RT-PCR.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Studies that included nonpregnant adults (18 years or older) with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of symptomology or disease severity, were included. The index test was any available SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care RAT. The reference test was any commercially distributed RT-PCR-based test that detects the RNA genome of SARS-CoV-2 and has been validated by an independent third party. Custom or in-house RT-PCR tests were also considered, with appropriate validation documentation. The diagnosis of interest was COVID-19 disease and SARS-CoV-2 infection. This review considered cross-sectional and cohort studies that examined the diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 infection where the participants had both index and reference tests performed.

METHODS

The keywords and index terms contained in relevant articles were used to develop a full search strategy for PubMed and adapted for Embase, Scopus, Qinsight, and the WHO COVID-19 databases . Studies published from November 2019 to July 12, 2022, were included, as SARS-CoV-2 emerged in late 2019 and is the cause of a continuing pandemic. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were critically appraised using QUADAS-2. Using a customized tool, data were extracted from included studies and were verified prior to analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive, and negative predictive values were calculated and presented with 95% CIs. When heterogeneity was observed, outlier analysis was conducted, and the results were generated by removing outliers.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis was performed on 91 studies of 581 full-text articles retrieved that provided true-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative values. RATs can identify individuals who have COVID-19 with high reliability (positive predictive value 97.7%; negative predictive value 95.2%) when considering overall performance. However, the lower level of sensitivity (67.1%) suggests that negative test results likely need to be retested through an additional method.

CONCLUSIONS

Most reported RAT brands had only a few studies comparing their performance with RT-PCR. Overall, a positive RAT result is an excellent predictor of a positive diagnosis of COVID-19. We recommend that Roche's SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test and Abbott's BinaxNOW tests be used in primary care settings, with the understanding that negative results need to be confirmed through RT-PCR. We recommend adherence to the STARD guidelines when reporting on diagnostic data.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020224250.

COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Tests: Bibliometric Analysis of the Scientific Literature

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to disrupt health systems worldwide, conducting Rapid Antigen Testing (RAT) at specified intervals has become an essential part of many people's lives around the world. We identified and analyzed the academic literature on COVID-19 RAT. The Web of Science electronic database was queried on 6 July 2022 to find relevant publications. Publication and citation data were retrieved directly from the database. VOSviewer, a bibliometric software, was then used to relate these data to the semantic content from the titles, abstracts, and keywords. The analysis was based on data from 1000 publications. The most productive authors were from Japan and the United States, led by Dr. Koji Nakamura from Japan (n = 10, 1.0%). The most academically productive countries were in the North America, Europe and Asia, led by the United States of America (n = 266, 26.6%). Sensitivity (n = 32, 3.2%) and specificity (n = 23, 2.3%) were among the most frequently recurring author keywords. Regarding sampling methods, "saliva" (n = 54, 5.4%) was mentioned more frequently than "nasal swab" (n = 32, 3.2%) and "nasopharyngeal swab" (n = 22, 2.2%). Recurring scenarios that required RAT were identified: emergency department, healthcare worker, mass screening, airport, traveler, and workplace. Our bibliometric analysis revealed that COVID-19 RAT has been utilized in a range of studies. RAT results were cross-checked with RT-PCR tests for sensitivity and specificity. These results are consistent with comparable exchanges of methods, results or discussions among laboratorians, authors, institutions and publishers in the involved countries of the world.

Where is the greatest risk of COVID-19 infection? Findings from Germany's largest public health department, Cologne

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 has been spreading worldwide since late 2019. Before vaccines became available, exclusively non-pharmaceutical measures were used to prevent transmission of infection. Despite the fact that vaccinations are now available, it is still important to identify relevant transmission routes in order to contain the COVID-19- or further pandemics. Therefore, this study aims to systematically analyse data from the largest public health department in Germany to determine the significance of the various known and unknown transmission situations in terms of the proportion of infections.

METHODS

All infections in Cologne were systematically recorded by the local health department. In addition to clinical data, the transmission situations were recorded and categorised as pertaining to social contact, work contact, travellers, health care workers, users of educational institutions, visitors of community institutions, infection in the context of medical treatment, and unknown infection.

FINDINGS

The analysis included 25,966 persons. A transmission situation could be identified in 82.7% of the cases (n = 21,477). Most persons (42.1%) were infected due to social contact, primarily within their own household. Another 22.3% were infected at their place of work; this was particularly common among staff members of medical facilities, nursing homes and educational institutions. In 17.3% of the cases, the transmission situation remained unknown; the cases with unknown transmission situation were slightly more often symptomatic (75.2%) than the cases with known transmission situation (69.4%).

INTERPRETATION

Considering that during the study period the leading strains were the wild-type and alpha-variant transmission rather occurred during scenarios involving close contacts than in anonymous situations. Presumably, however, the findings can be transferred to the new variants. Therefore, in order to prevent transmission, besides vaccination regular antigen tests and/or appropriate protective measures remain relevant until this pandemic has subsided.

Travel in the Time of COVID: A Review of International Travel Health in a Global Pandemic

Purpose of Review

This review critically considers the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global travel and the practice of travel medicine, highlights key innovations that have facilitated the resumption of travel, and anticipates how travel medicine providers should prepare for the future of international travel.

Recent Findings

Since asymptomatic transmission of the virus was first recognized in March 2020, extensive efforts have been made to characterize the pattern and dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 transmission aboard commercial aircraft, cruise ships, rail and bus transport, and in mass gatherings and quarantine facilities. Despite the negative impact of further waves of COVID-19 driven by the more transmissible Omicron variant, rapid increases of international tourist arrivals are occurring and modeling anticipates further growth. Mitigation of spread requires an integrated approach that combines masking, physical distancing, improving ventilation, testing, and quarantine. Vaccines and therapeutics have played a significant role in reopening society and accelerating the resumption of travel and further therapeutic innovation is likely.

Summary

COVID-19 is likely to persist as an endemic infection, and surveillance will assume an even more important role. The pandemic has provided an impetus to advance technology for telemedicine, to adopt mobile devices and GPS in contact tracing, and to apply digital applications in research. The future of travel medicine should continue to harness these novel platforms in the clinical, research, and educational arenas.