Multi-site assessment of rapid, point-of-care antigen testing for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a low-prevalence setting: A validation and implementation study

Keeping kids in school: modelling school-based testing and quarantine strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia

Background

In 2021, the Australian Government Department of Health commissioned a consortium of modelling groups to generate evidence assisting the transition from a goal of no community COVID-19 transmission to 'living with COVID-19', with adverse health and social consequences limited by vaccination and other measures. Due to the extended school closures over 2020-21, maximizing face-to-face teaching was a major objective during this transition. The consortium was tasked with informing school surveillance and contact management strategies to minimize infections and support this goal.

Methods

Outcomes considered were infections and days of face-to-face teaching lost in the 45 days following an outbreak within an otherwise COVID-naïve school setting. A stochastic agent-based model of COVID-19 transmission was used to evaluate a 'test-to-stay' strategy using daily rapid antigen tests (RATs) for close contacts of a case for 7 days compared with home quarantine; and an asymptomatic surveillance strategy involving twice-weekly screening of all students and/or teachers using RATs.

Findings

Test-to-stay had similar effectiveness for reducing school infections as extended home quarantine, without the associated days of face-to-face teaching lost. Asymptomatic screening was beneficial in reducing both infections and days of face-to-face teaching lost and was most beneficial when community prevalence was high.

Interpretation

Use of RATs in school settings for surveillance and contact management can help to maximize face-to-face teaching and minimize outbreaks. This evidence supported the implementation of surveillance testing in schools in several Australian jurisdictions from January 2022.

The Implementation Experience of COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Testing in a Large-Scale Construction Project in Victoria, Australia

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has caused major disruptions to industries and workplaces. Rapid Antigen Tests (RATs) for COVID-19, which allow individuals to self-administer tests and receive timely results without laboratory testing, provide the opportunity for surveillance testing of asymptomatic individuals in non-medical settings. However, the literature offers few lessons regarding how to create enabling conditions for effective and sustainable implementation in a workplace setting. Guided by the RE-AIM framework, we assessed factors associated with the adoption, implementation, and maintenance of mandatory RAT in a large-scale construction project in Victoria, Australia. We used a mixed methods approach involving site observation, worker surveys (n = 30), and interviews with 51 site workers and managers to understand the implementation experience. Factors which facilitated adoption included easy, non-invasive testing procedure; sense of workplace safety; and strong backing by management and acceptance by workers that RATs helped limit COVID-19-related lost days of work. Gaps in knowledge and adherence to testing protocols, logistical challenges (test kit supply, observation of test results), and low appetite for long-term, mandatory testing emerged as challenges for effective implementation and sustainability. As RAT becomes normalized in a range of workplace settings, strategies will be required to support the sustainability of implementation, including longer-term acceptability of surveillance testing and adherence to testing protocols.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43477-023-00085-4.

Engaging with communities to encourage adoption of a harm reduction approach to COVID-19

Since the emergence of the Omicron variant in Australia in late 2021 there have been over 5.47 million cases and 4993 deaths, disproportionately impacting on people with social and structural disadvantage. However there has been increasing reluctance by governments to intervene to reduce the impact of COVID-19 transmission and its consequences. This commentary article provides a perspective on the support and guidance required to mitigate individuals and communities risk by using a harm reduction approach to highlight strategies that can reduce COVID-19 transmission and infection.

Virus variant-specific clinical performance of SARS coronavirus two rapid antigen tests in point-of-care use, from November 2020 to January 2022

OBJECTIVES

Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are quick, widely available, and inexpensive. Consequently, RDTs have been established as an alternative and additional diagnostic strategy to quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). However, reliable clinical and large-scale performance data specific to a SARS-CoV-2 virus variant of concern (VOC) are limited, especially for the Omicron VOC. The aim of this study was to compare RDT performance among different VOCs.

METHODS

This single-centre prospective performance assessment compared RDTs from three manufacturers (NADAL, Panbio, MEDsan) with RT-qPCR including deduced standardized viral load from oropharyngeal swabs for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a clinical point-of-care setting from November 2020 to January 2022.

RESULTS

Among 35 479 RDT/RT-qPCR tandems taken from 26 940 individuals, 164 of the 426 SARS-CoV-2 positive samples tested true positive with an RDT corresponding to an RDT sensitivity of 38.50% (95% CI, 34.00-43.20%), with an overall specificity of 99.67% (95% CI, 99.60-99.72%). RDT sensitivity depended on viral load, with decreasing sensitivity accompanied by descending viral load. VOC-dependent sensitivity assessment showed a sensitivity of 42.86% (95% CI, 32.82-53.52%) for the wild-type SARS-CoV-2, 43.42% (95% CI, 32.86-54.61%) for the Alpha VOC, 37.67% (95% CI, 30.22-45.75%) for the Delta VOC, and 33.67% (95% CI, 25.09-43.49%) for the Omicron VOC. Sensitivity in samples with high viral loads of ≥10⁶ SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies per mL was significantly lower in the Omicron VOC (50.00%; 95% CI, 36.12-63.88%) than in the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 (79.31%; 95% CI, 61.61-90.15%; p 0.015).

DISCUSSION

RDT sensitivity for detection of the Omicron VOC is reduced in individuals infected with a high viral load, which curtails the effectiveness of RDTs. This aspect furthert: limits the use of RDTs, although RDTs are still an irreplaceable diagnostic tool for rapid, economic point-of-care and extensive SARS-CoV-2 screening.

Negative predictive value of the FebriDx host response point-of-care test in patients presenting to a single Australian emergency department with suspected COVID-19: an observational diagnostic accuracy study

OBJECTIVES

To determine the negative predictive value (NPV) of the FebriDx point-of-care host response device in patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 infection in a mostly immunised Australian emergency department (ED) population during the late 2021 phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

Observational diagnostic accuracy study comparing FebriDx point-of-care test to SARS-CoV-2 PCR.

SETTING

An ED in Melbourne, Australia, with 63 000 annual presentations in 2021.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 16 and over who met the Victorian Department of Health case definition for suspected COVID-19 infection PCR testing. Patients meeting any of the following criteria were excluded: <16 years of age; acute respiratory symptom(s) with onset>14 days prior to testing; current immunosuppressive or interferon therapy; live immunisation within the last 30 days; fever lasting>7 days; antibiotic or antiviral use in the preceding 14 days; experience of major trauma, major surgical intervention or severe burns within the last 30 days.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

COVID-19 PCR results (detected, not detected) and FebriDx results (bacterial positive, viral negative, viral positive).

RESULTS

94 participants were enrolled (female: 46; male: 48), 34% of participants (tested positive for COVID-19 according to PCR results, with a background incidence among all adult ED attenders of 2.5%. The sensitivity of FebriDx for detection of COVID-19 was 56% (95% CI 40% to 100%) and specificity was 92% (95% CI 84% to 100%). For the population tested, this resulted in an NPV of 80% (95% CI 71% to 100%) and a positive predictive value of 78% (95% CI 60% to 100%).

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of a population with low COVID-19 infection rates, an evolved variant of COVID-19 and a very high community COVID-19 vaccination rate, FebriDx demonstrated reduced sensitivity and NPV relative to results from earlier international tests. These contextual factors should be considered during any attempt to generalise the current results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12620001029987 (Australian Clinical Trials).

Simultaneous monitoring of eight human respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV-2 using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry

Diagnosis of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has primarily been achieved using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for acute infection, and serology for prior infection. Assay with RT-PCR provides data on presence or absence of viral RNA, with no information on virus replication competence, infectivity, or virus characterisation. Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS) is typically not used in clinical virology, despite its potential to provide supplemental data about the presence of viral proteins and thus the potential for replication-competent, transmissible virus. Using the SARS-CoV-2 as a model virus, we developed a fast ‘bottom-up’ proteomics workflow for discovery of target virus peptides using ‘serum-free’ culture conditions, providing high coverage of viral proteins without the need for protein or peptide fractionation techniques. This workflow was then applied to Coronaviruses OC43 and 229E, Influenza A/H1N1 and H3N2, Influenza B, and Respiratory Syncytial Viruses A and B. Finally, we created an LC–MS/MS method for targeted detection of the eight-virus panel in clinical specimens, successfully detecting peptides from the SARS-CoV-2 ORF9B and nucleoprotein in RT-PCR positive samples. The method provides specific detection of respiratory viruses from clinical samples containing moderate viral loads and is an important further step to the use of LC–MS/MS in diagnosis of viral infection.

Utility of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing for patient triage in the emergency department: A clinical implementation study in Melbourne, Australia

Background

Early, rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 is essential in healthcare settings in order to implement appropriate infection control precautions and rapidly assign patients to care pathways. Rapid testing methods, such as SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing (RAT) may improve patient care, despite a lower sensitivity than real-time PCR (RT-PCR) testing.

Methods

Patients presenting to an Emergency Department (ED) in Melbourne, Australia, were risk-stratified for their likelihood of active COVID-19 infection, and a non-randomised cohort of patients were tested by both Abbott Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag test (RAT) and SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. Patients with a positive RAT in the ‘At or High Risk’ COVID-19 group were moved immediately to a COVID-19 ward rather than waiting for a RT-PCR result. Clinical and laboratory data were assessed to determine test performance characteristics; and length of stay in the ED was compared for the different patient cohorts.

Findings

Analysis of 1762 paired RAT/RT-PCR samples demonstrated an overall sensitivity of 75.5% (206/273; 95% CI: 69·9-80·4) for the Abbott Panbio™ COVID-12 Ag test, with specificity of 100% (1489/1489; 95% CI: 99·8-100). Sensitivity improved with increasing risk for COVID-19 infection, from 72·4% (95% CI: 52·8-87·3) in the ‘No Risk’ cohort to 100% (95% CI: 29·2-100) in the ‘High Risk’ group. Time in the ED for the ‘At/High Risk’ group decreased from 421 minutes (IQR: 281, 525) for those with a positive RAT result to 274 minutes (IQR:140, 425) for those with a negative RAT result, p = 0.02.

Interpretation

The positive predictive value of a positive RAT in this setting was high, allowing more rapid instigation of COVID-19 care pathways and an improvement in patient flow within the ED.

Funding

Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.

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.

Performance of Antigen Detection Tests for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) initiated global health care challenges such as the necessity for new diagnostic tests. Diagnosis by real-time PCR remains the gold-standard method, yet economical and technical issues prohibit its use in points of care (POC) or for repetitive tests in populations. A lot of effort has been exerted in developing, using, and validating antigen-based tests (ATs). Since individual studies focus on few methodological aspects of ATs, a comparison of different tests is needed. Herein, we perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from articles in PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv. The bivariate method for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests pooling sensitivities and specificities was used. Most of the AT types for SARS-CoV-2 were lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA), fluorescence immunoassays (FIA), and chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassays (CLEIA). We identified 235 articles containing data from 220,049 individuals. All ATs using nasopharyngeal samples show better performance than those with throat saliva (72% compared to 40%). Moreover, the rapid methods LFIA and FIA show about 10% lower sensitivity compared to the laboratory-based CLEIA method (72% compared to 82%). In addition, rapid ATs show higher sensitivity in symptomatic patients compared to asymptomatic patients, suggesting that viral load is a crucial parameter for ATs performed in POCs. Finally, all methods perform with very high specificity, reaching around 99%. LFIA tests, though with moderate sensitivity, appear as the most attractive method for use in POCs and for performing seroprevalence studies.

Different performance of three point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection devices in symptomatic patients and close asymptomatic contacts: a real-life study

OBJECTIVES

PCR on nasopharyngeal exudates, the cornerstone of the detection of SARS-CoV-2, is time-consuming and commonly unavailable at primary health care centres. Detection of viral nucleocapsid antigens using lateral flow point-of-care tests is helpful for the early triage of patients who attend health care facilities.

METHODS

This was a prospective study carried out in clinically suspected cases and close asymptomatic contacts who attended a primary care centre (Madrid, Spain) for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Patients were divided into three 300-patient cohorts (n = 200 symptomatic cases and n = 100 close asymptomatic contacts per cohort). Three antigen detection tests (SGTI-Flex COVID-19 Ag, Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device, and GSD NovaGen SARS-CoV-2 Ag Rapid Test) were used and compared. Paired nasopharyngeal exudates were obtained, one swab for PCR and the other for antigen detection. Each antigen detection test was evaluated on one cohort.

RESULTS

All tests showed invariably 100% specificity. Sensitivity was 68.9% (95% CI: 55.7-80; SGTI-Flex), 71.1% (95% CI: 55.6-83.6; Panbio), and 84.6% (95% CI: 72-93.1; NovaGen) in clinically suspected patients and 84.6% (95% CI: 54.5-98.1), 33.3% (95% CI: 11.8-61.6), and 55.6% (95% CI: 30.7-78.4) in close asymptomatic contacts, respectively. Sensitivity was systematically higher in samples yielding positive PCR results with Ct ≤ 20.

DISCUSSION

We found considerable test-to-test antigen detection variations among patients with clinical suspicion of COVID-19 and close asymptomatic contacts. Negative antigen results, regardless of the test used, should be confirmed by PCR.

Combining rapid antigen testing and syndromic surveillance improves community-based COVID-19 detection in a low-income country

Diagnostics for COVID-19 detection are limited in many settings. Syndromic surveillance is often the only means to identify cases but lacks specificity. Rapid antigen testing is inexpensive and easy-to-deploy but can lack sensitivity. We examine how combining these approaches can improve surveillance for guiding interventions in low-income communities in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Rapid-antigen-testing with PCR validation was performed on 1172 symptomatically-identified individuals in their homes. Statistical models were fitted to predict PCR-status using rapid-antigen-test results, syndromic data, and their combination. Under contrasting epidemiological scenarios, the models’ predictive and classification performance was evaluated. Models combining rapid-antigen-testing and syndromic data yielded equal-to-better performance to rapid-antigen-test-only models across all scenarios with their best performance in the epidemic growth scenario. These results show that drawing on complementary strengths across rapid diagnostics, improves COVID-19 detection, and reduces false-positive and -negative diagnoses to match local requirements; improvements achievable without additional expense, or changes for patients or practitioners.

Rapid antigen tests and syndromic surveillance for identification of COVID-19 cases are limited by low sensitivity and specificity, respectively. Here, the authors use data from Bangladesh and show that combining the two methods improves diagnostic accuracy in a range of epidemiological scenarios.

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.

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.

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.

A Portable RT-LAMP/CRISPR Machine for Rapid COVID-19 Screening

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed people’s lives and has brought society to a sudden standstill, with lockdowns and social distancing as the preferred preventative measures. To lift these measurements and reduce society’s burden, developing an easy-to-use, rapid, and portable system to detect SARS-CoV-2 is mandatory. To this end, we developed a portable and semi-automated device for SARS-CoV-2 detection based on reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification followed by a CRISPR/Cas12a reaction. The device contains a heater element mounted on a printed circuit board, a cooler fan, a proportional integral derivative controller to control the temperature, and designated areas for 0.2 mL Eppendorf^® PCR tubes. Our system has a limit of detection of 35 copies of the virus per microliter, which is significant and has the capability of being used in crisis centers, mobile laboratories, remote locations, or airports to diagnose individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2. We believe the current methodology that we have implemented in this article is beneficial for the early screening of infectious diseases, in which fast screening with high accuracy is necessary.

Use of emerging testing technologies and approaches for SARS-CoV-2: review of literature and global experience in an Australian context

Emerging testing technologies for detection of SARS-CoV-2 include those that are rapid and can be used at point-of-care (POC), and those facilitating high throughput laboratory-based testing. Tests designed to be performed at POC (such as antigen tests and molecular assays) have the potential to expedite isolation of infectious patients and their contacts, but most are less sensitive than standard-of-care reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Data on clinical performance of the majority of emerging assays are limited with most evaluations performed on contrived or stored laboratory samples. Further evaluations of these assays are required, particularly when performed at POC on symptomatic and asymptomatic patients and at various time-points after symptom onset. A few studies have so far shown several of these assays have high specificity. However, large prospective evaluations are needed to confirm specificity, particularly before the assays are implemented in low prevalence settings or asymptomatic populations. High throughput laboratory-based testing includes the use of new sample types (e.g., saliva to increase acceptability) or innovative uses of existing technology (e.g., sample pooling). Information detailing population-wide testing strategies for SARS-COV-2 is largely missing from peer-reviewed literature. Logistics and supply chains are key considerations in any plan to 'scale up' testing in the Australian context. The strategic use of novel assays will help strike the balance between achieving adequate test numbers without overwhelming laboratory capacity. To protect testing of high-risk populations, the aims of testing with respect to the phase of the pandemic must be considered.

Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being integrated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix, bioRvix, and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 up until 30 April 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 in comparison to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses, and rated study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 assessment tool. From a total of 14,254 articles, we included 133 analytical and clinical studies resulting in 214 clinical accuracy datasets with 112,323 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 71.2% (95% CI 68.2% to 74.0%) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6% to 99.1%), respectively. Sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.1% to 79.2%) if analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers' instructions. LumiraDx showed the highest sensitivity, with 88.2% (95% CI 59.0% to 97.5%). Of instrument-free Ag-RDTs, Standard Q nasal performed best, with 80.2% sensitivity (95% CI 70.3% to 87.4%). Across all Ag-RDTs, sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, i.e., <20 (96.5%, 95% CI 92.6% to 98.4%) and <25 (95.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 97.8%), in comparison to those with Ct ≥ 25 (50.7%, 95% CI 35.6% to 65.8%) and ≥30 (20.9%, 95% CI 12.5% to 32.8%). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (83.8%, 95% CI 76.3% to 89.2%) compared to testing after 1 week (61.5%, 95% CI 52.2% to 70.0%). The best Ag-RDT sensitivity was found with anterior nasal sampling (75.5%, 95% CI 70.4% to 79.9%), in comparison to other sample types (e.g., nasopharyngeal, 71.6%, 95% CI 68.1% to 74.9%), although CIs were overlapping. Concerns of bias were raised across all datasets, and financial support from the manufacturer was reported in 24.1% of datasets. Our analysis was limited by the included studies' heterogeneity in design and reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study we found that Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2-infected persons within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load. Thus, they can have high utility for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease, making them a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization in conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data.

One-Year Update on Salivary Diagnostic of COVID-19

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global health problem, which is challenging healthcare worldwide. In this critical review, we discussed the advantages and limitations in the implementation of salivary diagnostic platforms of COVID-19. The diagnostic test of COVID-19 by invasive nasopharyngeal collection is uncomfortable for patients and requires specialized training of healthcare professionals in order to obtain an appropriate collection of samples. Additionally, these professionals are in close contact with infected patients or suspected cases of COVID-19, leading to an increased contamination risk for frontline healthcare workers. Although there is a colossal demand for novel diagnostic platforms with non-invasive and self-collection samples of COVID-19, the implementation of the salivary platforms has not been implemented for extensive scale testing. Up to date, several cross-section and clinical trial studies published in the last 12 months support the potential of detecting SARS-CoV-2 RNA in saliva as a biomarker for COVID-19, providing a self-collection, non-invasive, safe, and comfortable procedure. Therefore, the salivary diagnosis is suitable to protect healthcare professionals and other frontline workers and may encourage patients to get tested due to its advantages over the current invasive methods. The detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva was substantial also in patients with a negative nasopharyngeal swab, indicating the presence of false negative results. Furthermore, we expect that salivary diagnostic devices for COVID-19 will continue to be used with austerity without excluding traditional gold standard specimens to detect SARS-CoV-2.