Detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen from serum can aid in timing of COVID-19 infection

SARS-CoV-2 S1 subunit produces a protracted priming of the neuroinflammatory, physiological, and behavioral responses to a remote immune challenge: A role for corticosteroids

Long COVID is a major public health consequence of COVID-19 and is characterized by multiple neurological and neuropsychatric symptoms. SARS-CoV-2 antigens (e.g., spike S1 subunit) are found in the circulation of Long COVID patients, have been detected in post-mortem brain of COVID patients, and exhibit neuroinflammatory properties. Considering recent observations of chronic neuroinflammation in Long COVID patients, the present study explores the idea that antigens derived from SARS-CoV-2 might produce a long-term priming or sensitization of neuroinflammatory processes, thereby potentiating the magnitude and/or duration of the neuroinflammatory response to future inflammatory insults. Rats were administered S1 or vehicle intra-cisterna magna and 7d later challenged with vehicle or LPS. The neuroinflammatory, physiological, and behavioral responses to LPS were measured at various time points post-LPS. We found that prior S1 treatment potentiated many of these responses to LPS suggesting that S1 produces a protracted priming of these processes. Further, S1 produced a protracted reduction in basal brain corticosteroids. Considering the anti-inflammatory properties of corticosteroids, these findings suggest that S1 might disinhibit innate immune processes in brain by reducing anti-inflammatory drive, thereby priming neuroinflammatory processes. Given that hypocortisolism is observed in Long COVID, we propose that similar S1-induced innate immune priming processes might play role in the pathophysiology of Long COVID.

Prevalence and clinical relevance of viraemia in viral respiratory tract infections: a systematic review

In this Review, we analysed the prevalence of viraemia during infection with SARS-CoV-2 and other relevant respiratory viruses, including other human coronaviruses such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, adenovirus, human metapneumovirus, human rhinovirus/enterovirus, influenza A and B virus, parainfluenza virus, and respiratory syncytial virus. First, a preliminary systematic search was conducted to identify articles published before May 23, 2024 that reported on viraemia during infection with respiratory viruses. The articles were then analysed for relevant terms to identify the prevalence of viraemia, its association with the disease severity and long-term consequences, and host responses. A total of 202 articles were included in the final study. The pooled prevalence of viraemia was 34% for SARS-CoV-2 and between 6% and 65% for other viruses. Association of viraemia with disease severity was extensively reported for SARS-CoV-2 and also for SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, adenoviruses, rhinoviruses, respiratory syncytial virus, and influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 (albeit with low evidence). SARS-CoV-2 viraemia was linked to memory problems and worsened quality of life. Viraemia was associated with signatures denoting dysregulated host responses. In conclusion, the high prevalence of viraemia and its association with disease severity suggests that viraemia could be a relevant pathophysiological event with important translational implications in respiratory viral infections.

SARS-CoV-2 RNA and Nucleocapsid Antigen Are Blood Biomarkers Associated With Severe Disease Outcomes That Improve in Response to Remdesivir

BACKGROUND

Although antivirals remain important for the treatment COVID-19, methods to assess treatment efficacy are lacking. Here, we investigated the impact of remdesivir on viral dynamics and their contribution to understanding antiviral efficacy in the multicenter Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial 1, which randomized patients to remdesivir or placebo.

METHODS

Longitudinal specimens collected during hospitalization from a substudy of 642 patients with COVID-19 were measured for viral RNA (upper respiratory tract and plasma), viral nucleocapsid antigen (serum), and host immunologic markers. Associations with clinical outcomes and response to therapy were assessed.

RESULTS

Higher baseline plasma viral loads were associated with poorer clinical outcomes, and decreases in viral RNA and antigen in blood but not the upper respiratory tract correlated with enhanced benefit from remdesivir. The treatment effect of remdesivir was most pronounced in patients with elevated baseline nucleocapsid antigen levels: the recovery rate ratio was 1.95 (95% CI, 1.40-2.71) for levels >245 pg/mL vs 1.04 (95% CI, .76-1.42) for levels <245 pg/mL. Remdesivir also accelerated the rate of viral RNA and antigen clearance in blood, and patients whose blood levels decreased were more likely to recover and survive.

CONCLUSIONS

Reductions in SARS-CoV-2 RNA and antigen levels in blood correlated with clinical benefit from antiviral therapy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04280705 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Utility of plasma nucleocapsid protein in predicting severity and prognosis in severe COVID-19 patients with comorbidities

OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 pandemic poses ongoing challenges to global public health systems, emphasizing the critical necessity for efficient diagnostic and prognostic markers. This study evaluates the MAGLUMI® SARS-CoV-2 Ag N protein chemiluminescent immunoassay (MAG-CLIA) for its analytical performance and its role in predicting disease severity and prognosis among severe COVID-19 patients with comorbidities.

METHODS

Analytical validation of plasma MAG-CLIA SARS-CoV-2 Ag N protein encompassed precision, interference, LoQ and linearity. Plasma N protein concentrations and other biomarkers were measured within 48 h of admission, tracked until discharge or death. The Mann-Whitney U test explored the association between plasma N protein and COVID-19 severity or prognosis. Longitudinal monitoring of plasma N protein dynamics was conducted in representative patients.

RESULTS

MAG-CLIA demonstrated precise quantification of plasma N protein with a CV below 10 % and minimal interference. The LoQ was 0.88 ng/L, with a broad linear range. Plasma N protein showed high diagnostic accuracy for COVID-19, achieving 95.42 % specificity and 78.32 % sensitivity at 2.388 ng/L. Plasma N protein emerged as a valuable prognostic indicator, correlating with mechanical ventilation need and patient survival. Plasma N protein concentrations ≥ 424.3 ng/L (AUC 0.8102, sensitivity 78.38 %, specificity 85.48 %) were associated with poor prognosis in severe COVID-19 patients with comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

MAG-CLIA's SARS-CoV-2 N protein detection in plasma demonstrates both analytical reliability and clinical relevance in our inaugural evaluation. As a promising prognostic biomarker for severe COVID-19 patients, it offers crucial insights into disease severity and progression, emphasizing the significance of early monitoring and intervention, especially for patients with comorbidities.

Synergistic impact of N-antigenemia profiled by a rapid antigen test and low anti-S1 antibodies on the risk of hospitalization in COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

Identifying patients with COVID-19 who are at risk of poor evolution is key to early decide on their hospitalization. We evaluated the combined impact of nucleocapsid (N)-antigenemia profiled by a rapid test and antibodies against the S1 subunit of the SARS-CoV S protein (S1) on the hospitalization risk of patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

N-antigenemia and anti-S1 antibodies were profiled at admission to the emergency department in 146 patients with COVID-19 using the Panbio® antigen Rapid Test and the SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G II Quant/SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G assay from Abbott. A multivariable analysis was used to evaluate the impact of these factors on hospitalization.

RESULTS

Patients with a positive N-antigen test in plasma and anti-S1 levels <2821 arbitrary units/mL needed hospitalization more frequently (20 of 23, 87%). A total of 20 of 71 (28.2%) of those showing a negative N-antigen test and anti-S1 ≥2821 arbitrary units/mL were hospitalized for 18 of 52 (34.6%) of the patients with only one of these conditions. Patients with a positive N-antigen test and low antibody levels showed an odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and P-value for hospitalization of 18.21, 2.74-121.18, and 0.003, respectively, and exhibited the highest mortality (30.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Simultaneous profiling of a rapid N-antigen test in plasma and anti-S1 levels could help to early identify patients with COVID-19 needing hospitalization.

Neopterin and kynurenine in serum and urine as prognostic biomarkers in hospitalized patients with delta and omicron variant SARS-CoV-2 infection

OBJECTIVES

Currently, no biomarker or scoring system could clearly identify patients at risk of progression to a severe coronavirus disease (COVID)-19. Even in patients with known risk factors, the fulminant course cannot be predicted with certainty. Analysis of commonly determined clinical parameters (frailty score, age, or body mass index) together with routine biomarkers of host response (C-reactive protein and viral nucleocapsid protein) in combination with new biomarkers neopterin, kynurenine, and tryptophan, could aid in predicting the patient outcome.

METHODS

In 2021 and 2022, urine and serum samples were prospectively collected on 1st to 4th day after hospital admission in 108 consecutive COVID-19 patients hospitalized at the University Hospital Hradec Králové, Czech Republic. Delta and omicron virus variants were studied. Neopterin, kynurenine and tryptophan were determined by liquid chromatography.

RESULTS

A significant correlation was observed between urinary and serum biomarker concentrations. Urinary and serum neopterin, kynurenine and kynurenine/tryptophan ratio were significantly (p≤0.05) higher in patients who subsequently needed oxygen therapy vs. patients without oxygen therapy. These parameters were also significantly increased in patients who died during the hospitalization compared to survivors. Complex equations have been derived using the investigated biomarkers and other clinical or laboratory parameters to predict the risk of subsequent oxygen therapy or death during hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

Present data demonstrate that neopterin, kynurenine and kynurenine/tryptophan ratio in the serum or in the urine represent promising biomarkers in the management of COVID-19 that may help to guide important therapeutic decisions.

Successful treatment of persisting SARS-CoV-2 infection in an immunocompromised patient with repeated nirmatrelvir/ritonavir courses: a case report

BACKGROUND

In immunocompromised patients, persistent SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding and relapsing COVID-19 pneumonia have been described. Currently, little is known about the management of persisting COVID-19, and immunocompromised patients are recommended to be treated using antivirals and immunomodulatory therapies at similar doses and durations as the general population. Previous case reports have described treatment with repeated and prolonged courses of remdesivir and some evidence is emerging in the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir combination (NMV/r).

METHODS

We describe a patient with recent chemotherapy including rituximab for follicular lymphoma with persisting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Polymerase chain reaction tests (PCR), cycle threshold values and blood SARS-CoV-2 antigen levels were evaluated.

RESULTS

The patient presented with persisting SARS-CoV-2 with relapsing COVID-19 pneumonia. The patient was treated successfully with repeated courses of NMV/r without any observed adverse effects. After the third, prolonged course, the patient remained afebrile and PCR negative, and no relapses have been observed four months after the third NMV/r course.

CONCLUSIONS

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir could offer a more accessible alternative to remdesivir. Further research and guidelines for persisting SARS-CoV-2 infection in immunocompromised patients are urgently needed.

Performance of Blood-Based Nucleocapsid Antigen Tests for Diagnosis of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection and Infectious Viral Shedding: A Systematic Review

Data on the performance of blood-based nucleocapsid antigen tests for diagnosing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and infectious viral shedding are limited. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a systematic review to assess the performance of blood-based nucleocapsid (N) antigen tests in diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection and identifying infectiousness. This review was registered on PROSPERO (registration no. CRD42022339635). We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Coronavirus Research Database for relevant studies published through 27 February 2023. Each study's risk of bias was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Our findings indicate that the performance of the N-antigen test is influenced by factors such as assay type, sampling timing, and illness severity. Sensitive assays provide suitable methods for viable screening and laboratory diagnostic tests in different clinical and research settings during the early phase of illness.

Exploring the immunogenic properties of SARS-CoV-2 structural proteins: PAMP:TLR signaling in the mediation of the neuroinflammatory and neurologic sequelae of COVID-19

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) produces an array of neurologic and neuropsychiatric symptoms in the acute and post-acute phase of infection (PASC; post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection). Neuroinflammatory processes are considered key factors in the etiology of these symptoms. Several mechanisms underpinning the development of inflammatory events in the brain have been proposed including SARS-CoV-2 neurotropism and peripheral inflammatory responses (i.e., cytokine storm) to infection, which might produce neuroinflammation via immune-to-brain signaling pathways. In this review, we explore evidence in support of an alternate mechanism whereby structural proteins (e.g., spike and spike S1 subunit) derived from SARS-CoV-2 virions function as pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) to elicit proinflammatory immune responses in the periphery and/or brain via classical Toll-Like Receptor (TLR) inflammatory pathways. We propose that SARS-CoV-2 structural proteins might directly produce inflammatory processes in brain independent of and/or in addition to peripheral proinflammatory effects, which might converge to play a causal role in the development of neurologic/neuropsychiatric symptoms in COVID-19.

Diagnostic value and characteristic analysis of serum nucleocapsid antigen in COVID-19 patients

Background

To date, several types of laboratory tests for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis have been developed. However, the clinical importance of serum severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleocapsid antigen (N-Ag) remains to be fully elucidated. In this study, we sought to investigate the value of serum SARS-CoV-2 N-Ag for COVID-19 diagnosis and to analyze N-Ag characteristics in COVID-19 individuals.

Methods

Serum samples collected from 215 COVID-19 patients and 65 non-COVID-19 individuals were used to quantitatively detect N-Ag via chemiluminescent immunoassay according to the manufacturer's instructions.

Results

The sensitivity and specificity of the N-Ag assay were 64.75% (95% confidence interval (95% CI) [55.94-72.66%]) and 100% (95% CI [93.05-100.00%]), respectively, according to the cut-off value recommended by the manufacturer. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve showed a sensitivity of 100.00% (95% CI [94.42-100.00%]) and a specificity of 71.31% (95% CI [62.73-78.59%]). The positive rates and levels of serum SARS-CoV-2 N-Ag were not related to sex, comorbidity status or disease severity of COVID-19 (all P < 0.001). Compared with RT‒PCR, there was a lower positive rate of serum N-Ag for acute COVID-19 patients (P < 0.001). The positive rate and levels of serum SARS-CoV-2 N-Ag in acute patients were significantly higher than those in convalescent patients (all P < 0.001). In addition, the positive rate of serum SARS-CoV-2 N-Ag in acute COVID-19 patients was higher than that of serum antibodies (IgM, IgG, IgA and neutralizing antibodies (Nab)) against SARS-CoV-2 (all P < 0.001). However, the positive rate of serum SARS-CoV-2 N-Ag in convalescent COVID-19 patients was significantly lower than that of antibodies (all P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Serum N-Ag can be used as a biomarker for early COVID-19 diagnosis based on appropriate cut-off values. In addition, our study also demonstrated the relationship between serum N-Ag and clinical characteristics.

SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein and Neutralizing Anti-Spike Protein Antibodies Modulate Blood Platelet Function

Several studies report elevated blood platelet activation and altered platelet count in COVID-19 patients, but the role of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in this process remains intriguing. Additionally, there is no data that anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (nAb) may attenuate spike protein activity toward blood platelets. Our results indicate that under in vitro conditions, the spike protein increased the collagen-stimulated aggregation of isolated platelets and induced the binding of vWF to platelets in ristocetin-treated blood. The spike protein also significantly reduced collagen- or ADP-induced aggregation or decreased GPIIbIIIa (fibrinogen receptor) activation in whole blood, depending on the presence of the anti-spike protein nAb. Our findings suggest that studies on platelet activation/reactivity in COVID-19 patients or in donors vaccinated with anti-SARS-CoV-2 and/or previously-infected COVID-19 should be supported by measurements of spike protein and IgG anti-spike protein antibody concentrations in blood.

Development and validation of a rapid and easy-to-perform point-of-care lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein

Development and validation of rapid and easy-to-perform diagnostics continue to be a high priority during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Although vaccines are now widely available, early detection and consistent transmission control provide ideal means to mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Nucleic acid-based real-time PCR tests are widely acknowledged as the gold standard for reliable diagnosis of COVID-19 infection. These tests are based on detecting viable or nonviable viral nucleic acids. SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is an alternative and ideal target for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis in the early phase of infection, but point-of-care kits to detect the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein are limited. Here we describe a rapid and convenient method based on Lateral Flow Immunoassay (LFIA) to detect SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins, including SARS-CoV-2 variants (A.23.1, B.1.1.1, 1.617.2, B.1.1.7, B.1.351, P.1, N501Y, R.1, P681H, P3, UK, and South African) within 5 to 10 minutes. We generated highly specific monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against rationally designed SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Matched pair mAbs were selected by epitope mapping and employed as antigen capture reagents by spotting onto a nitrocellulose membrane and as detector reagents by conjugation with colloidal gold nanoparticles. We evaluated the performance of the LFIA using recombinant spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2 and several SARS-CoV-2 variants. The specificity of the LFIA was assessed using heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2 and related human coronaviruses (HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, HCoV-HKU1, and HCoV-NL63) and an FDA-approved respiratory pathogens (RP) panel. The assay exhibited 98% specificity and acceptable performance with respect to the minimum limit of detection (25 ng/test) in validation tests. This new LFIA provides improved performance for the early diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, particularly for home monitoring and in situations with limited access to molecular methods.

Evaluation of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Nucleocapsid Antigen in the Blood as a Diagnostic Test for Infection and Infectious Viral Shedding

Background

SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen can be detected in plasma, but little is known about its performance as a diagnostic test for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection or infectious viral shedding among nonhospitalized individuals.

Methods

We used data generated from anterior nasal and blood samples collected in a longitudinal household cohort of SARS-CoV-2 cases and contacts. Participants were classified as true positives if polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive for SARS-CoV-2 and as true negatives if PCR negative and seronegative. Infectious viral shedding was determined by the cytopathic effect from viral culture. Stratified by 7 days after symptom onset, we constructed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to describe optimized accuracy (Youden index), optimized sensitivity, and specificity.

Results

Of 80 participants, 58 (73%) were true positives while 22 (27%) were true negatives. Using the manufacturer's cutoff of 1.25 pg/mL for evaluating infection, sensitivity was higher from 0 to 7 days (77.6% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 64%-88.2%]) than from 8 to 14 days (43.2% [95% CI, 31.1%-54.5%]) after symptom onset; specificity was unchanged at 100% (95% CI, 88.1%-100%). This test had higher sensitivity (100% [95% CI, 88.4%-100%]) and lower specificity (65% [95% CI, 40.8%-84.6%]) for infectious viral shedding as compared with infection, particularly within the first week of symptom onset. Although the presence of N-antigen correlated with infectious viral shedding (r = 0.63; P < .01), sensitivity still declined over time. Additional cutoffs from ROC curves were identified to optimize sensitivity and specificity.

Conclusions

We found that this SARS-CoV-2 N-antigen test was highly sensitive for detecting early but not late infectious viral shedding, making it a viable screening test for community-dwelling individuals to inform isolation practices.

Plasma SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen levels are associated with progression to severe disease in hospitalized COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Studies quantifying SARS-CoV-2 have focused on upper respiratory tract or plasma viral RNA with inconsistent association with clinical outcomes. The association between plasma viral antigen levels and clinical outcomes has not been previously studied. Our aim was to investigate the relationship between plasma SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen (N-antigen) concentration and both markers of host response and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

SARS-CoV-2 N-antigen concentrations were measured in the first study plasma sample (D0), collected within 72 h of hospital admission, from 256 subjects admitted between March 2020 and August 2021 in a prospective observational cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The rank correlations between plasma N-antigen and plasma biomarkers of tissue damage, coagulation, and inflammation were assessed. Multiple ordinal regression was used to test the association between enrollment N-antigen plasma concentration and the primary outcome of clinical deterioration at one week as measured by a modified World Health Organization (WHO) ordinal scale. Multiple logistic regression was used to test the association between enrollment plasma N-antigen concentration and the secondary outcomes of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation at 28 days, and death at 28 days. The prognostic discrimination of an externally derived "high antigen" cutoff of N-antigen ≥ 1000 pg/mL was also tested.

RESULTS

N-antigen on D0 was detectable in 84% of study participants. Plasma N-antigen levels significantly correlated with RAGE (r = 0.61), IL-10 (r = 0.59), and IP-10 (r = 0.59, adjusted p = 0.01 for all correlations). For the primary outcome of clinical status at one week, each 500 pg/mL increase in plasma N-antigen level was associated with an adjusted OR of 1.05 (95% CI 1.03-1.08) for worse WHO ordinal status. D0 plasma N-antigen ≥ 1000 pg/mL was 77% sensitive and 59% specific (AUROC 0.68) with a positive predictive value of 23% and a negative predictive value of 93% for a worse WHO ordinal scale at day 7 compared to baseline. D0 N-antigen concentration was independently associated with ICU admission and 28-day mechanical ventilation, but not with death at 28 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Plasma N-antigen levels are readily measured and provide important insight into the pathogenesis and prognosis of COVID-19. The measurement of N-antigen levels early in-hospital course may improve risk stratification, especially for identifying patients who are unlikely to progress to severe disease.

Nucleocapsid antigenemia in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy with protracted COVID-19

Immunocompromised patients with prolonged coronavirus disease 2019 symptoms present diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. We measured viral nucleocapsid antigenemia in 3 patients treated with anti-CD20 immunotherapy who acquired severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and experienced protracted symptoms. Our results support nucleocapsid antigenemia as a marker of persistent infection and therapeutic response.

Nucleocapsid Antigenemia Is a Marker of Acute SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is essential for diagnosis, treatment, and infection control. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) fails to distinguish acute from resolved infections, as RNA is frequently detected after infectiousness. We hypothesized that nucleocapsid in blood marks acute infection with the potential to enhance isolation and treatment strategies. In a retrospective serosurvey of inpatient and outpatient encounters, we categorized samples along an infection timeline using timing of SARS-CoV-2 testing and symptomatology. Among 1860 specimens from 1607 patients, the highest levels and frequency of antigenemia were observed in samples from acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antigenemia was higher in seronegative individuals and in those with severe disease. In our analysis, antigenemia exhibited 85.8% sensitivity and 98.6% specificity as a biomarker for acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Thus, antigenemia sensitively and specifically marks acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Further study is warranted to determine whether antigenemia may aid individualized assessment of active COVID-19.

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.