Time-course evaluation of the quantitative antigen test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2: The potential contribution to alleviating isolation of COVID-19 patients

The importance of predictors for in-hospital COVID-19 mortality changes over one month

BACKGROUND

Risk stratification enables care providers to make the proper clinical decision for the management of patients with COVID-19 infection. We aimed to explore changes in the importance of predictors for inpatient mortality of COVID-19 over one month.

METHODS

This research was a secondary analysis of data from in-hospital patients with COVID-19 infection. Individuals were admitted to four hospitals, New York, USA. Based on the length of hospital stay, 4370 patients were categorized into three mutually exclusive interval groups, day 1, day 2-7, and day 8-28. We measured changes in the importance of twelve confirmed predictors for mortality over one month, using principal component analysis.

RESULTS

On the first day of admission, there was a higher risk for organ dysfunction, particularly in elderly patients. On day 1, serum aspartate aminotransferase and sodium were also associated with an increased risk of mortality, while normal troponin opposes in-hospital death. With time, the importance of high aspartate aminotransferase and sodium concentrations decreases, while the variable quality of high troponin levels increases. Our study suggested the importance of maintaining normal blood pressure early in the management of patients. High serum concentrations of creatinine and C-reactive protein remain poor prognostic factors throughout the 28 days. The association of age with mortality increases with the length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

The importance of some patients' characteristics changes with the length of hospital stay. This should be considered in developing and deploying predictive models and the management of patients with COVID-19 infection.

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.

Potential usage of anterior nasal sampling in clinical practice with three rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2

Introduction

Anterior nasal sampling (AN) might be more convenient for patients than NP sampling to diagnose coronavirus disease. This study investigated the feasibility of rapid antigen tests for AN sampling, and the factors affecting the test accuracy.

Methods

This single-center prospective study evaluated one qualitative (ESP) and two quantitative (LUMI and LUMI-P) rapid antigen tests using AN and NP swabs. Symptomatic patients aged 20 years or older, who were considered eligible for reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction using NP samples within 9 days of onset were recruited. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative concordance rates between AN and NP samples were assessed for the rapid antigen tests. We investigated the characteristics that affected the concordance between AN and NP sampling results.

Results

A total of 128 cases were recruited, including 28 positive samples and 96 negative samples. The sensitivity and specificity of AN samples using ESP were 0.81 and 1.00, while those of NP samples were 0.94 and 1.00. The sensitivity of AN and NP samples was 0.91 and 0.97, respectively, and specificity was 1.00, for both LUMI and LUMI-P. The positive concordance rates of AN to NP sampling were 0.87, 0.94, and 0.85 for ESP, LUMI, and LUMI-P, respectively. No factor had a significant effect on the concordance between the sampling methods.

Conclusions

ESP, LUMI, and LUMI-P showed practical diagnostic accuracy for AN sampling compared to NP sampling. There was no significant factor affecting the concordance between AN and NP sampling for these rapid antigen tests.

Viral load may impact the diagnostic performance of nasal swabs in nucleic acid amplification test and quantitative antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 detection

INTRODUCTION

Compared to nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), there has been insufficient evaluation of the diagnostic performance of nasal swabs (NS) for the detection of severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) and quantitative SARS-CoV-2 antigen test (QAT).

METHODS

We prospectively compared healthcare worker-collected and flocked NS within nine days after symptom onset to paired NPS to detect SARS-CoV-2 in NAAT and QAT on the fully automated Lumipulse system. The agreement between sample types was evaluated, and cycle threshold (Ct) values and antigen levels were used as surrogate viral load measures.

RESULTS

Sixty sets of NPS and NS samples were collected from 40 patients with COVID-19. The overall agreements between NAAT and QAT samples were 76.7% and 65.0%, respectively. In NAAT, the Ct value of NS was significantly higher, 5.9, than that of NPS. Thirty-nine (95.1%) NS tested positive in 41 positive-paired NPS with Ct ≤ 30. The negative correlation was observed between antigen levels of NS in QAT and Ct values of NS in NAAT (r = -0.88). In QAT, the antigen level of NS was significantly lower than that of NPS. Thirty-six (90.0%) NS tested positive in 40 positive-paired NPS with antigen levels >100 pg/mL, which were collected significantly earlier than those with antigen levels ≤100 pg/mL.

CONCLUSIONS

In NAAT and QAT, NS had limited performance in detecting SARS-CoV-2 compared to NPS. However, NS may be helpful for patients with COVID-19 with high viral loads or those in the early stages of the illness.

Temperature-Responsive Liposome-Linked Immunosorbent Assay for the Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Using Immunoliposomes

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which is the etiological agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has infected more than 340 million people since the outbreak of the pandemic in 2019, resulting in approximately 55 million deaths. The rapid and effective diagnosis of COVID-19 patients is vital to prevent the spread of the disease. In a previous study, we reported a novel temperature-responsive liposome-linked immunosorbent assay (TLip-LISA) using biotinylated-TLip that exhibited high detection sensitivity for the prostate-specific antigen. Herein, we used immunoglobulin-TLip (IgG-TLip), in which the antibodies were directly conjugated to the liposomal surface to simplify pretreatment procedures and reduce the detection time for SARS-CoV-2. The results indicated that TLip-LISA could detect the recombinant nucleocapsid protein and the nucleocapsid protein in inactivated virus with 20 min incubation time in total, and the limit of detection was calculated to be 2.2 and 1.0 pg/mL, respectively. Therefore, TLip-LISA has high potential to be used in clinic for rapid diagnosis and disease control.

Fujirebio Lumipulse SARS-CoV-2 antigen immunoassay: pooled analysis of diagnostic accuracy

We provide here a pooled analysis of accuracy of Fujirebio Lumipulse SARS-CoV-2 Antigen chemiluminescent immunoassay for diagnosing acute SARS-CoV-2 infections. An electronic search was conducted in Scopus and Medline with the keywords "Lumipulse" AND "antigen" AND "SARS-CoV-2" or "COVID-19", up to January 21, 2022, for identifying clinical investigations (minimum sample size ≥100) where diagnostic accuracy of Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag was tested against reference molecular techniques. All studies which allowed to construct a 2 × 2 table were included in a pooled analysis. A final number of 21 studies, totalling 17,648 nasopharyngeal and 8538 saliva specimens, were finally included. The pooled diagnostic sensitivity and specificity in nasopharyngeal swabs were 0.80 (95%CI, 0.78-0.81) and 0.98 (95%CI, 0.97-0.98), respectively, whilst the area under the curve and agreement were 0.980 (95%CI, 0.973-0.986) and 94.9%, respectively. In the twelve studies which used the fixed 1.34 pg/mL currently recommended manufacturer's threshold, the diagnostic accuracy remained unvaried. In saliva samples, the pooled diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were 0.75 (95%CI, 0.36-0.62) and 1.00 (95%CI, 0.99-1.00), respectively, whilst the area under the curve and were 0.976 (95%CI, 0.969-0.984) and 98.4%, respectively. In the five studies which used the fixed 0.67 pg/mL currently recommended manufacturer's threshold, the diagnostic accuracy remained unvaried. In conclusion, Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag assay demonstrates good diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, thus representing a valuable complementary and integrative option to molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2 in the current pandemic.

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

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

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

Evaluation and Validation of the Roche Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Electro-Chemiluminescent Immunoassay in a Southeast Asian Region

Introduction: SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests can complement and substitute for RT-PCR tests. Centralized laboratory automated SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests that can be scaled to process a large number COVID-19 cases simultaneously are now available. We have evaluated the new Roche Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 antigen electro-chemiluminescent immunoassay. Methods: The Roche SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay is a double-antibody sandwich electro-chemiluminescent immunoassay, which reports a cut-off index (COI) (COI ≥ 1.0 considered positive). We assessed assay precision and linearity, and confirmed the reactivity limit. We determined the assay sensitivity and specificity with a verification group (289 controls and 61 RT-PCR positive COVID-19 cases). Assay performance was also validated against the consecutive samples we received (7657 controls and 17 cases) for SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing from June to October 2021. Result: The assay had a within-run precision CV of 3.0% at COI 0.68, and a CV of 1.5% at COI 3.49. Between-run precision was 3.0% at COI 0.68 and 1.8% at COI 3.49. The assay was linear from COI 0.65 to 7.84. All 35 C₅₀ ± 20% test results performed over 7 days were positive/negative, respectively. In the verification group, overall sensitivity was 42.6% (26/61 positive, 95% CI 30.0–55.9), and specificity was 99.7% (1/289 positive, 95% CI 98.1–100). The agreement between the SARS-CoV-2 antigen and the RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) count was good (r = 0.90). In cases with Ct counts ≤ 30, the antigen assay sensitivity improved to 94.7% (18/19 positive, 95% CI 74.0–99.9). In our validation group, antigen sensitivity was 62.5% (5/8 antigen positive, 95% CI 24.5–91.5) within the first week of disease onset, but no cases were reactive after the first week of disease onset. Conclusion: The Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay has good performance within manufacturer specifications. The sensitivity of the Roche antigen assay was greatest when used in patients with lower RT-PCR Ct values (≤30) and within the first week of disease onset.