Validation and implementation of the Panbio COVID-19 Ag rapid test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in symptomatic hospital healthcare workers

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Antigen Testing (January 2023)

Immunoassays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens (Ag) are commonly used to diagnose COVID-19. The most widely used tests are lateral flow assays that generate results in approximately 15 minutes for diagnosis at the point-of-care. Higher throughput, laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 Ag assays have also been developed. The number of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 Ag detection tests has increased rapidly, as has the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop best-practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 Ag testing. This guideline is an update to the third in a series of frequently updated COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines developed by the IDSA. IDSA's goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations or suggestions that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, public health authorities, administrators, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests in both medical and nonmedical settings. A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests. A review of relevant, peer-reviewed published literature was conducted through 1 April 2022. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. The panel made 10 diagnostic recommendations that address Ag testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals and assess single versus repeat testing strategies. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) have high specificity and low to moderate sensitivity compared with nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). Ag test sensitivity is dependent on the presence or absence of symptoms and, in symptomatic patients, on timing of testing after symptom onset. In most cases, positive Ag results can be acted upon without confirmation. Results of point-of-care testing are comparable to those of laboratory-based testing, and observed or unobserved self-collection of specimens for testing yields similar results. Modeling suggests that repeat Ag testing increases sensitivity compared with testing once, but no empirical data were available to inform this question. Based on these observations, rapid RT-PCR or laboratory-based NAAT remain the testing methods of choice for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, when timely molecular testing is not readily available or is logistically infeasible, Ag testing helps identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were insufficient to make a recommendation about the utility of Ag testing to guide release of patients with COVID-19 from isolation. The overall quality of available evidence supporting use of Ag testing was graded as very low to moderate.

Diagnostic evaluation of Panbio™ antigen rapid diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the reference diagnostic method for the confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infected cases. However, various antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) have been developed. The purpose of this meta-analysis study was to assess the diagnostic performance of Panbio™ Ag-RDT (Abbott Point of Care) in identifying the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

METHODS

We systematically searched eight databases from March 2020 until March 2023 to look for potentially eligible articles. Diagnostic meta-analysis of Panbio™ Ag-RDT used diverse evaluation indicators, including sensitivity, specificity, Diagnostic Odds Ratio (DOR), and the area under the curve (AUC) value.

RESULTS

Of the 794 articles identified, 49 studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled estimates of Panbio™ Ag-RDT for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 were 0,65 (95% CI: 0,64-0,66), 0,99 (95% CI: 0,99-1,00), 578,03 (95% CI: 333,37-1002,26) for sensitivity, specificity, and DOR, respectively. Moreover, the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve revealed an AUC value of 0,942 (95% CI: 0,941-0,943), suggesting an outstanding diagnostic accuracy. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses showed that continent, study period, age, study population and cycle threshold (Ct) values constituted a source of heterogeneity. Furthermore, we demonstrated proof of publication bias for DOR values analyzed using Deek's test (p = 0,001) and funnel plot.

CONCLUSION

Panbio™ Ag-RDT presented an outstanding diagnostic accuracy in the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in both adults and children with or without symptoms.

Association Between Rapid Antigen Detection Tests and Real-Time Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

Objectives: We aimed to assess the association between rapid antigen detection tests and real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction assay for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and the Web of Science from their inception to 31 May 2023. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate false positives in the RADTs group, relative to those in the RT-PCR group, and subgroup analyses were conducted based on the different Ct value cut-offs (<40 or ≥40). We performed this study in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Results: Fifty-one studies were included and considered to be of moderate quality. We found a satisfactory overall false positive rate (0.01, 95% CI: 0.00-0.01) for the RADTs compared to RT-PCR. In the stratified analysis, we also found that the false positive rates of the RADTs did not increase when Ct values of RT-PCR (Ct < 40, 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00-0.01; Ct ≥ 40, 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00-0.01). Conclusion: In conclusion, the best available evidence supports an association between RADTs and RT-PCR. When Ct-values were analyzed using cut-off <40 or ≥40, this resulted in an estimated false positive rate of only 1%.

Update of ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines: diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2

SCOPE

Since the onset of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), several assays have been deployed for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) published the first set of guidelines on SARS-CoV-2 in-vitro diagnosis in February 2022. Since the COVID-19 landscape is rapidly evolving, the relevant ESCMID guidelines panel releases an update of the previously published recommendations on diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. This update aims to delineate the best diagnostic approach for SARS-CoV-2 in different populations based on current evidence.

METHODS

An ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines task force was established by the ESCMID Executive Committee. A small group was established, half appointed by the chair, and the remaining selected with an open call. The panel met virtually once a week. For all decisions, a simple majority vote was used. A list of clinical questions using the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, and outcome) format was developed at the beginning of the process. For each PICO, two panel members performed a literature search focusing on systematic reviews with a third panellist involved in case of inconsistent results. The panel reassessed the PICOs previously defined as priority in the first set of guidelines and decided to address 49 PICO questions, as 6 of them were discarded as outdated/non-clinically relevant. The "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation(GRADE)-adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of recommendations (ADOLOPMENT)" evidence-to-decision framework was utilized to produce the guidelines.

QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY THE GUIDELINE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

After literature search, we updated 16 PICO questions; these PICOs address the use of antigen-based assays among symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with different ages, COVID-19 severity status or risk for severe COVID-19, time since onset of symptoms/contact with an infectious case, and finally, types of biomaterials used.

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.

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.

Screening for SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Students at the Medical University of Warsaw, Poland Between November 15 and December 10, 2021 Using a Single Lateral Flow Test, the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test

BACKGROUND Education was significantly affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Online learning affects the quality of learning as well as the mental health status of students. Regular screening for COVID-19 may be crucial to provide practical classes during the pandemic. The present study aimed to analyze the usefulness of rapid antigen tests for on-campus COVID-19 screening in real-life conditions at a medical university in Poland. MATERIAL AND METHODS This screening study was carried out among students attending practical classes at the Medical University of Warsaw, Poland between November 15 and December 10, 2021, during which a series of rapid antigen tests (Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device, nasal) were performed by healthcare professionals (nurses). Out of 104 student groups selected for the study (n=1847 students), 423 individuals from 63 student groups were tested at least once (22.9% response rate). A total of 2295 samples were collected. RESULTS Among the participants, 3.4% (n=15) had positive test results. Out of 15 COVID-19 cases, 14 were vaccinated. At least 1 positive COVID-19 case was detected in 8 student groups. In 3 student groups, we observed ≥2 infections that occurred at intervals, which may suggest student-to-student SARS-CoV-2 transmission. CONCLUSIONS This study produced real-world data from a COVID-19 screening study and confirmed the usefulness of the rapid antigen test (Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device nasal) for on-campus COVID-19 screening prior to practical classes. Maintaining a high percentage of participants is crucial to ensuring the effectiveness of on-campus COVID-19 screening.

An Effective Mechanism for the Early Detection and Containment of Healthcare Worker Infections in the Setting of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed healthcare workers (HCWs) to serious infection risks. In this context, the proactive monitoring of HCWs is the first step toward reducing intrahospital transmissions and safeguarding the HCW population, as well as reflecting the preparedness and response of the healthcare system. As such, this study systematically reviewed the literature on evidence-based effective monitoring measures for HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was followed by a meta-synthesis to compile the key findings, thus, providing a clearer overall understanding of the subject. Effective monitoring measures of syndromic surveillance, testing, contact tracing, and exposure management are distilled and further integrated to create a whole-process monitoring workflow framework. Taken together, a mechanism for the early detection and containment of HCW infections is, thus, constituted, providing a composite set of practical recommendations to healthcare facility leadership and policy makers to reduce nosocomial transmission rates while maintaining adequate staff for medical services. In this regard, our study paves the way for future studies aimed at strengthening surveillance capacities and upgrading public health system resilience, in order to respond more efficiently to future pandemic threats.

Accuracy of rapid point-of-care antigen-based diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression analyzing influencing factors

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive information about the accuracy of antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is essential to guide public health decision makers in choosing the best tests and testing policies. In August 2021, we published a systematic review and meta-analysis about the accuracy of Ag-RDTs. We now update this work and analyze the factors influencing test sensitivity in further detail.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched preprint and peer-reviewed databases for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 until August 31, 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 with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing as a reference. To evaluate factors influencing test sensitivity, we performed 3 different analyses using multivariable mixed-effects meta-regression models. We included 194 studies with 221,878 Ag-RDTs performed. Overall, the pooled estimates of Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 72.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.8 to 74.2) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6 to 99.1). When manufacturer instructions were followed, sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.7 to 78.7). Sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values (97.9% [95% CI 96.9 to 98.9] and 90.6% [95% CI 88.3 to 93.0] for Ct-values <20 and <25, compared to 54.4% [95% CI 47.3 to 61.5] and 18.7% [95% CI 13.9 to 23.4] for Ct-values ≥25 and ≥30) and was estimated to increase by 2.9 percentage points (95% CI 1.7 to 4.0) for every unit decrease in mean Ct-value when adjusting for testing procedure and patients' symptom status. Concordantly, we found the mean Ct-value to be lower for true positive (22.2 [95% CI 21.5 to 22.8]) compared to false negative (30.4 [95% CI 29.7 to 31.1]) results. Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (81.9% [95% CI 77.7 to 85.5]) compared to testing after 1 week (51.8%, 95% CI 41.5 to 61.9). Similarly, sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (76.2% [95% CI 73.3 to 78.9]) compared to asymptomatic (56.8% [95% CI 50.9 to 62.4]) persons. However, both effects were mainly driven by the Ct-value of the sample. With regards to sample type, highest sensitivity was found for nasopharyngeal (NP) and combined NP/oropharyngeal samples (70.8% [95% CI 68.3 to 73.2]), as well as in anterior nasal/mid-turbinate samples (77.3% [95% CI 73.0 to 81.0]). Our analysis was limited by the included studies' heterogeneity in viral load assessment and sample origination.

CONCLUSIONS

Ag-RDTs detect most of the individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2, and almost all (>90%) when high viral loads are present. With viral load, as estimated by Ct-value, being the most influential factor on their sensitivity, they are especially useful to detect persons with high viral load who are most likely to transmit the virus. To further quantify the effects of other factors influencing test sensitivity, standardization of clinical accuracy studies and access to patient level Ct-values and duration of symptoms are needed.

Performance of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19 Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The identification of viral RNA using reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is the gold standard for identifying an infection caused by SARS-CoV-2. The limitations of RT-qPCR such as requirement of expensive instruments, trained staff and laboratory facilities led to development of rapid antigen tests (RATs). The performance of RATs has been widely evaluated and found to be varied in different settings. The present systematic review aims to evaluate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of the commercially available RATs. This review was registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021278105). Literature search was performed through PubMed, Embase and Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to search studies published up to 26 August 2021. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of RATs and subgroup analyses were calculated. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) was used to assess the risk of bias in each study. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of RATs were 70% (95% CI: 69–71) and 98% (95% CI: 98–98), respectively. In subgroup analyses, nasal swabs showed the highest sensitivity of 83% (95% CI: 80–86) followed by nasopharyngeal swabs 71% (95% CI: 70–72), throat swabs 69% (95% CI: 63–75) and saliva 68% (95% CI: 59–77). Samples from symptomatic patients showed a higher sensitivity of 82% (95% CI: 82–82) as compared to asymptomatic patients at 68% (95% CI: 65–71), while a cycle threshold (Ct) value ≤25 showed a higher sensitivity of 96% (95% CI: 95–97) as compared to higher Ct value. Although the sensitivity of RATs needs to be enhanced, it may still be a viable option in places where laboratory facilities are lacking for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease.