Performance and operational feasibility of antigen and antibody rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients in Cameroon: a clinical, prospective, diagnostic accuracy study

Performance evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 rapid diagnostic tests in Nigeria: A cross-sectional study

The COVID-19 pandemic challenged health systems globally. Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the gold standard for detecting the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical samples. Rapid diagnostic test (RDT) kits for COVID-19 have been widely used in Nigeria. This has greatly improved test turnover rates and significantly decreased the high technical demands of RT-PCR. However, there is currently no nationally representative evaluation of the performance characteristics and reliability of these kits. This study assessed the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of ten RDT kits used for COVID-19 testing in Nigeria. This large multi-centred cross-sectional study was conducted across the 6 geo-political zones of Nigeria over four months. Ten antigen (Ag) and antibody (Ab) RDT kits were evaluated, and the results were compared with RT-PCR. One thousand, three hundred and ten (1,310) consenting adults comprising 767 (58.5%) males and 543 (41.5%) females participated in the study. The highest proportion, 757 (57.7%), were in the 20-39 years' age group. In terms of diagnostic performance, Lumira Dx (61.4, 95% CI: 52.4-69.9) had the highest sensitivity while MP SARS and Panbio (98.5, 95% CI: 96.6-99.5) had the highest specificity. For predictive values, Panbio (90.7, 95% CI: 79.7-96.9) and Lumira Dx (81.2, 95% CI: 75.9-85.7) recorded the highest PPV and NPV respectively. Ag-RDTs had better performance characteristics compared with Ab-RDTs; however, the sensitivities of all RDTs in this study were generally low. The relatively high specificity of Ag-RDTs makes them useful for the diagnosis of infection in COVID-19 suspected cases where positive RDT may not require confirmation by molecular testing. There is therefore the need to develop RDTs in-country that will take into consideration the unique environmental factors, interactions with other infectious agents, and strains of the virus circulating locally. This may enhance the precision of rapid and accurate diagnosis of COVID-19 in Nigeria.

Questionnaire-based study of COVID-19 vaccination induced headache: evidence of clusters of adverse events

BACKGROUND

The adverse events (AEs) after a Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) Pfizer-Biotech mRNA vaccination present a medical and epidemiological issue of increasing interest. Headache is the most frequent neurological adverse effect and generally the third most common adverse event after a Covid-19 vaccination, but only a few studies focus on the link between headache and other AEs after vaccination. This study aims to investigate the correlation between headaches and Covid-19 vaccination, as well as the possible links between headaches and other AEs after Covid-19 vaccination, thereby helping the management of AEs and avoiding further occurrences.

METHODS

This study is based on a published questionnaire survey of 1,402 healthcare workers. Our study focused on the 5 questions including 12 AEs and headaches extracted from the questionnaire post the first and second Covid-19 vaccination. The severity of the 12 AEs and headaches could be classified by the participants on a five-step scale: "Not at all", "Little", "Average", "Quite", and "Very" (abbreviated as "N", "L", "A", "Q", "V"). We used the Bowker test to study the comparison of headache severity, indicated on a 5-point Likert scale between the first and second vaccinations. We applied an ordinal logistic regression to the 5 categories with headache severity serving as the dependent variable and the ratings of the other 12 AEs serving as the independent variable to further explore to what extent the severity of the 12 AEs is associated with the severity of headaches. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted to evaluate the predictive value of the ratings of the 12 AEs to headache severity.

RESULTS

We found that participants rated their headaches as more severe after the second vaccination, and participants who reported experiencing fatigue, flu-like symptoms, pain at the injection site, known tension-type headache, fever, dizziness/balance problems and known migraine are associated with headache symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

There are clusters of headache-associated AEs post Covid-19 vaccination. The association of various AEs with headaches may be due to similar causative mechanisms.

Comparison of in-hospital mortality in children and adolescents with sickle cell disease in a resource-limited setting before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 in children and adolescents with sickle cell disease (SCD) has variable presentations (from mild to severe disease), and the main symptoms are vaso-occlusive crises (VOC) and acute chest syndrome (ACS). We hypothesized that the desertion of hospitals due to the pandemic would lead to late arrival at the emergency room and an increased mortality. In this study, we sought to measure and compare the mortality of children with sickle cell disease before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study at the sickle cell disease management center of Laquintinie Hospital in Douala (Cameroon). The study period was divided into two, i.e., from March 2019 to February 2020 (Pre-COVID-19) and from March 2020 to February 2021 (COVID-19). All administrative and ethical considerations were fully respected. Data were analyzed using SPSS 20.0.

RESULTS

Overall, 823 patients were admitted during the study period. Males represented 52.4% of the overall population, giving a sex ratio of 1.1:1. We admitted 479 patients during the pre-COVID-19 period versus 344 patients during the COVID-19 period, which is a 28.2% drop in admissions during the COVID-19 period. The mortality rate was 3.5% during the pre-COVID-19 period and 3.2% during the COVID-19 period (p>0.05). The most common causes of death were ACS (39.3%, n = 11), severe anemia (25.0%, n = 7), and VOC (17.9%, n = 5). ACS (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=3.628, 95% confidence interval [CI], [1.645-7.005], p<0.001) was significantly associated with mortality.

CONCLUSION

During the COVID-19 pandemic, although the consultation frequency decreased, the mortality rate of sickle cell disease patients remained unchanged.

SARS-CoV-2 Virus Detection Via a Polymeric Nanochannel-Based Electrochemical Biosensor

The development of simple, cost-effective, rapid, and quantitative diagnostic tools remains critical to monitor infectious COVID-19 disease. Although numerous diagnostic platforms, including rapid antigen tests, are developed and used, they suffer from limited accuracy, especially when tested with asymptomatic patients. Here, a unique approach to fabricate a nanochannel-based electrochemical biosensor that can detect the entire virion instead of virus fragments, is demonstrated. The sensing platform has uniform nanoscale channels created by the convective assembly of polystyrene (PS) beads on gold electrodes. The PS beads are then functionalized with bioreceptors while the gold surface is endowed with anti-fouling properties. When added to the biosensor, SARS-CoV-2 virus particles block the nanochannels by specific binding to the bioreceptors. The nanochannel blockage hinders the diffusion of a redox probe; and thus, allows quantification of the viral load by measuring the changes in the oxidation current before and after virus incubation. The biosensor shows a low limit of detection of ≈1.0 viral particle mL-1 with a wide detection range up to 108 particles mL-1 in cell culture media. Moreover, the biosensor is able to differentiate saliva samples with SARS-CoV-2 from those without, demonstrating the potential of this technology for translation into a point-of-care biosensor product.

Seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies in HIV-positive and HIV-negative patients in clinical settings in Douala, Cameroon

Background

The asymptomatic nature of COVID-19 coupled with differential testing are confounders in the assessment of SARS-CoV-2 incidence among people living with HIV (PLWH). As various comorbidities increase the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, it is crucial to assess the potential contribution of HIV to the risk of acquiring COVID-19. Our study aimed to compare the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG seroprevalence among people living with and without HIV.

Methods

PLWH were enrolled in the HIV units of two health facilities in Douala, Cameroon. Participants were consecutively enrolled, among which 47 were people living with HIV and 31 were HIV-negative patients. SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests were performed on all participants. Overall, medical consultation was conducted. For HIV-positive participants only, viral load, antiretroviral regimen, duration of HIV infection, and duration of antiretroviral treatment were retrieved from medical records.

Results

We found an overall SARS-CoV-2 IgG seroprevalence of 42.31% within the study population, with a SARS-CoV-2 IgG seroprevalence of 44.6% for PLWH and 38.7% among those without HIV infection; no significant statistical difference was observed. Adjusting for sex, HIV status, and BCG vaccination, the odds of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were higher among married persons in the study population. Sex, BCG vaccination, and HIV status were not found to be associated with SARS-CoV-2 IgG seropositivity.

Conclusions

Our findings support the lack of association between HIV status and susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The ARV regimen, suppressed viral load, and Tenofovir boasted ARV regimen might not affect the body's immune response after exposure to SARS-CoV-2 among PLWH. Thus, if HIV is well treated, the susceptibility to COVID-19 in PLWH would be like that of the general population.

Community-based COVID-19 active case finding and rapid response in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: Improving case detection and response

A community-based coronavirus disease (COVID-19) active case-finding strategy using an antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) was implemented in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to enhance COVID-19 case detection. With this pilot community-based active case finding and response program that was designed as a clinical, prospective testing performance, and implementation study, we aimed to identify insights to improve community diagnosis and rapid response to COVID-19. This pilot study was modeled on the DRC's National COVID-19 Response Plan and the COVID-19 Ag-RDT screening algorithm defined by the World Health Organization (WHO), with case findings implemented in 259 health areas, 39 health zones, and 9 provinces. In each health area, a 7-member interdisciplinary field team tested the close contacts (ring strategy) and applied preventive and control measures to each confirmed case. The COVID-19 testing capacity increased from 0.3 tests per 10,000 inhabitants per week in the first wave to 0.4, 1.6, and 2.2 in the second, third, and fourth waves, respectively. From January to November 2021, this capacity increase contributed to an average of 10.5% of COVID-19 tests in the DRC, with 7,110 positive Ag-RDT results for 40,226 suspected cases and close contacts who were tested (53.6% female, median age: 37 years [interquartile range: 26.0-50.0)]. Overall, 79.7% (n = 32,071) of the participants were symptomatic and 7.6% (n = 3,073) had comorbidities. The Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 55.5% and 99.0%, respectively, based on reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction analysis, and there was substantial agreement between the tests (k = 0.63). Despite its limited sensitivity, the Ag-RDT has improved COVID-19 testing capacity, enabling earlier detection, isolation, and treatment of COVID-19 cases. Our findings support the community testing of suspected cases and asymptomatic close contacts of confirmed cases to reduce disease spread and virus transmission.

Risk factors associated with indoor transmission during home quarantine of COVID-19 patients

Purpose

The study aimed to identify potential risk factors for family transmission and to provide precautionary guidelines for the general public during novel Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) waves.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study with numerous COVID-19 patients recruited was conducted in Shanghai. Epidemiological data including transmission details, demographics, vaccination status, symptoms, comorbidities, antigen test, living environment, residential ventilation, disinfection and medical treatment of each participant were collected and risk factors for family transmission were determined.

Results

A total of 2,334 COVID-19 patients participated. Compared with non-cohabitation infected patients, cohabitated ones were younger (p = 0.019), more commonly unvaccinated (p = 0.048) or exposed to infections (p < 0.001), and had higher rates of symptoms (p = 0.003) or shared living room (p < 0.001). Risk factors analysis showed that the 2019-nCov antigen positive (OR = 1.86, 95%CI 1.40-2.48, p < 0.001), symptoms development (OR = 1.86, 95%CI 1.34-2.58, p < 0.001), direct contact exposure (OR = 1.47, 95%CI 1.09-1.96, p = 0.010) were independent risk factors for the cohabitant transmission of COVID-19, and a separate room with a separate toilet could reduce the risk of family transmission (OR = 0.62, 95%CI 0.41-0.92, p = 0.018).

Conclusion

Patients showing negative 2019-nCov antigen tests, being asymptomatic, living in a separate room with a separate toilet, or actively avoiding direct contact with cohabitants were at low risk of family transmission, and the study recommended that avoiding direct contact and residential disinfection could reduce the risk of all cohabitants within the same house being infected with COVID-19.

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.

Evaluation of Rapid Antigen Test as a Marker of SARS-CoV-2 Infectivity

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that emerged in late 2019 continues to spread globally. Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), which is considered the gold standard for diagnosis, does not always indicate contagiousness. This study was planned to evaluate the performance of the rapid antigen test (RAT) with the duration of symptoms and the usefulness of these tests in determining the infectivity of patients by performing sub-genomic RT-PCR. Methodology This prospective, observational study was designed to compare the diagnostic value of the COVID-19 RAT (SD Biosensor, Korea) with COVID-19 RT-PCR (Thermo Fisher, USA) by serial testing of patients. To evaluate the infectivity of the virus, sub-genomic RT-PCR was performed on previous RAT and RT-PCR-positive samples. Results Of 200 patients, 102 were positive on both RT-PCR and RAT, with 87 patients serially followed and tested. The sensitivity and specificity of RAT were 92.73% and 93.33%, respectively, in symptomatic patients. The mean duration of RAT positivity was 9.1 days, and the mean duration of RT-PCR positivity was 12.6 days. Sub-genomic RT-PCR test was performed on samples that were reported to be positive by RAT, and 73/87 (83.9%) patients were found to be positive. RAT was positive in symptomatic patients whose duration of illness was less than 10 days or those with a cycle threshold value below 32. Conclusions Thus, RAT can be used as the marker of infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic patients, especially in healthcare workers.

Epidemiology of the Acceptance of Anti COVID-19 Vaccine in Urban and Rural Settings in Cameroon

The COVID-19 pandemic rapidly evolved in December 2019 and to prevent its spread, effective vaccines were produced and made available to the population. Despite their availability so far in Cameroon, the vaccination coverage remains low. This study aimed at describing the epidemiology of the acceptance of vaccines against COVID-19 in some urban and rural areas of Cameroon. A cross-sectional, descriptive and analytical survey was conducted from March 2021 to August 2021 targeting unvaccinated individuals from urban and rural area. After receiving appropriate administrative authorizations and an ethical clearance from the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Douala University (N° 3070CEI-Udo/05/2022/M), a cluster sampling at many degrees was performed and a language-adapted questionnaire was completed by each consenting participant. Data were analyzed using Epi info version 7.2.2.6 software and for p-values < 0.05, the difference was considered as statistically significant. Out of 1053 individuals, 58.02% (611/1053) participants were residing in urban and 41.98% (442/1053) in rural areas. Good knowledge relative to COVID-19 was significantly higher in urban areas as compared to rural areas (97.55% vs. 85.07, p < 0.000). The proportion of respondents who intended to accept the anti COVID-19 vaccine was significantly higher in urban areas than rural areas (42.55% vs. 33.26, p = 0.0047). Conversely, the proportion of anti COVID-19 reluctant respondents thinking that the vaccine can induce a disease was significantly higher in rural areas than urban areas (54 (35.07 vs. 8.84, p < 0.0001). The significant determinants of anti-COVID-19 acceptance were the level of education (p = 0.0001) and profession in the rural areas (p ≤ 0.0001), and only the profession (p = 0.0046) in the urban areas. This study globally showed that anti-COVID-19 vaccination remains a major challenge in urban as well as rural areas in Cameroon. We should continue sensitizing and educating the population about vaccine importance in preventing the COVID-19 spread.

Rapid Antigen Tests during the COVID-19 Era in Korea and Their Implementation as a Detection Tool for Other Infectious Diseases

Rapid antigen tests (RATs) are diagnostic tools developed to specifically detect a certain protein of infectious agents (viruses, bacteria, or parasites). RATs are easily accessible due to their rapidity and simplicity. During the COVID-19 pandemic, RATs have been widely used in detecting the presence of the specific SARS-CoV-2 antigen in respiratory samples from suspected individuals. Here, the authors review the application of RATs as detection tools for COVID-19, particularly in Korea, as well as for several other infectious diseases. To address these issues, we present general knowledge on the design of RATs that adopt the lateral flow immunoassay for the detection of the analyte (antigen). The authors then discuss the clinical utilization of the authorized RATs amidst the battle against the COVID-19 pandemic in Korea and their role in comparison with other detection methods. We also discuss the implementation of RATs for other, non-COVID-19 infectious diseases, the challenges that may arise during the application, the limitations of RATs as clinical detection tools, as well as the possible problem solving for those challenges to maximize the performance of RATs and avoiding any misinterpretation of the test result.

Head-to-head comparison of nasal and nasopharyngeal sampling using SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing in Lesotho

OBJECTIVES

To assess the real-world diagnostic performance of nasal and nasopharyngeal swabs for SD Biosensor STANDARD Q COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Test (Ag-RDT).

METHODS

Individuals ≥5 years with COVID-19 compatible symptoms or history of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 presenting at hospitals in Lesotho received two nasopharyngeal and one nasal swab. Ag-RDT from nasal and nasopharyngeal swabs were performed as point-of-care on site, the second nasopharyngeal swab used for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as the reference standard.

RESULTS

Out of 2198 participants enrolled, 2131 had a valid PCR result (61% female, median age 41 years, 8% children), 84.5% were symptomatic. Overall PCR positivity rate was 5.8%. The sensitivity for nasopharyngeal, nasal, and combined nasal and nasopharyngeal Ag-RDT result was 70.2% (95%CI: 61.3-78.0), 67.3% (57.3-76.3) and 74.4% (65.5-82.0), respectively. The respective specificity was 97.9% (97.1-98.4), 97.9% (97.2-98.5) and 97.5% (96.7-98.2). For both sampling modalities, sensitivity was higher in participants with symptom duration ≤ 3days versus ≤ 7days. Agreement between nasal and nasopharyngeal Ag-RDT was 99.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

The STANDARD Q Ag-RDT showed high specificity. Sensitivity was, however, below the WHO recommended minimum requirement of ≥ 80%. The high agreement between nasal and nasopharyngeal sampling suggests that for Ag-RDT nasal sampling is a good alternative to nasopharyngeal sampling.

Conventional and Novel Diagnostic Tools for the Diagnosis of Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants

Accurate identification at an early stage of infection is critical for effective care of any infectious disease. The "coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)" outbreak, caused by the virus "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)", corresponds to the current and global pandemic, characterized by several developing variants, many of which are classified as variants of concern (VOCs) by the "World Health Organization (WHO, Geneva, Switzerland)". The primary diagnosis of infection is made using either the molecular technique of RT-PCR, which detects parts of the viral genome's RNA, or immunodiagnostic procedures, which identify viral proteins or antibodies generated by the host. As the demand for the RT-PCR test grew fast, several inexperienced producers joined the market with innovative kits, and an increasing number of laboratories joined the diagnostic field, rendering the test results increasingly prone to mistakes. It is difficult to determine how the outcomes of one unnoticed result could influence decisions about patient quarantine and social isolation, particularly when the patients themselves are health care providers. The development of point-of-care testing helps in the rapid in-field diagnosis of the disease, and such testing can also be used as a bedside monitor for mapping the progression of the disease in critical patients. In this review, we have provided the readers with available molecular diagnostic techniques and their pitfalls in detecting emerging VOCs of SARS-CoV-2, and lastly, we have discussed AI-ML- and nanotechnology-based smart diagnostic techniques for SARS-CoV-2 detection.

Clinical Features of COVID-19, Dengue, and Influenza among Adults Presenting to Emergency Departments and Urgent Care Clinics-Puerto Rico, 2012-2021

Dengue and influenza are pathogens of global concern and cause febrile illness similar to COVID-19. We analyzed data from an enhanced surveillance system operating from three emergency departments and an urgent care clinic in Puerto Rico to identify clinical features predictive of influenza or dengue compared with COVID-19. Participants with fever or respiratory symptoms and aged ≥18 years enrolled May 2012-January 2021 with dengue, influenza, or SARS-CoV-2 confirmed by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction were included. We calculated adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs using logistic regression to assess clinical characteristics of participants with COVID-19 compared to those with dengue or influenza, adjusting for age, subregion, and days from illness onset to presentation for clinical care. Among 13,431 participants, we identified 2,643 with dengue (N = 303), influenza (N = 2,064), or COVID-19 (N = 276). We found differences in days from onset to presentation among influenza (2 days [interquartile range: 1-3]), dengue (3 days [2-4]), and COVID-19 cases (4 days [2-7]; P < 0.001). Cough (aOR: 0.12 [95% CI: 0.07-0.19]) and shortness of breath (0.18 [0.08-0.44]) were less common in dengue compared with COVID-19. Facial flushing (20.6 [9.8-43.5]) and thrombocytopenia (24.4 [13.3-45.0]) were more common in dengue. Runny nose was more common in influenza compared with COVID-19 (8.3 [5.8-12.1]). In summary, cough, shortness of breath, facial flushing, and thrombocytopenia helped distinguish between dengue and COVID-19. Although few features distinguished influenza from COVID-19, presentation > 4 days after symptom onset suggests COVID-19. These findings may assist clinicians making time-sensitive decisions regarding triage, isolation, and management while awaiting pathogen-specific testing.

Lateral Flow Immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2

The continued circulation of SARS-CoV-2 virus in different parts of the world opens up the possibility for more virulent variants to evolve even as the coronavirus disease 2019 transitions from pandemic to endemic. Highly transmissible and virulent variants may seed new disruptive epidemic waves that can easily put the healthcare system under tremendous pressure. Despite various nucleic acid-based diagnostic tests that are now commercially available, the wide applications of these tests are largely hampered by specialized equipment requirements that may not be readily available, accessible and affordable in less developed countries or in low resource settings. Hence, the availability of lateral flow immunoassays (LFIs), which can serve as a diagnostic tool by detecting SARS-CoV-2 antigen or as a serological tool by measuring host immune response, is highly appealing. LFI is rapid, low cost, equipment-free, scalable for mass production and ideal for point-of-care settings. In this review, we first summarize the principle and assay format of these LFIs with emphasis on those that were granted emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration followed by discussion on the specimen type, marker selection and assay performance. We conclude with an overview of challenges and future perspective of LFI applications.

Choice of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test: challenges and key considerations for the future

A plethora of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) diagnostic tests are available, each with different performance specifications, detection methods, and targets. This narrative review aims to summarize the diagnostic technologies available and how they are best selected to tackle SARS-CoV-2 infection as the pandemic evolves. Seven key settings have been identified where diagnostic tests are being deployed: symptomatic individuals presenting for diagnostic testing and/or treatment of COVID-19 symptoms; asymptomatic individuals accessing healthcare for planned non-COVID-19-related reasons; patients needing to access emergency care (symptom status unknown); patients being discharged from healthcare following hospitalization for COVID-19; healthy individuals in both single event settings (e.g. airports, restaurants, hotels, concerts, and sporting events) and repeat access settings (e.g. workplaces, schools, and universities); and vaccinated individuals. While molecular diagnostics remain central to SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies, we have offered some discussion on the considerations for when other tools and technologies may be useful, when centralized/point-of-care testing is appropriate, and how the various additional diagnostics can be deployed in differently resourced settings. As the pandemic evolves, molecular testing remains important for definitive diagnosis, but increasingly widespread point-of-care testing is essential to the re-opening of society.

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.

Laboratory and field evaluation of the STANDARD Q and Panbio™ SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid test in Namibia using nasopharyngeal samples

Background

As new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern emerge, there is a need to scale up testing to minimize transmission of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Many countries especially those in the developing world continue to struggle with scaling up reverse transcriptase polymerase reaction (RT-PCR) to detect SARS-CoV-2 due to scarcity of resources. Alternatives such as antigen rapid diagnostics tests (Ag-RDTs) may provide a solution to enable countries scale up testing.

Methods

In this study, we evaluated the Panbio^™ and STANDARD Q Ag-RDTs in the laboratory using 80 COVID-19 RT-PCR confirmed and 80 negative nasopharyngeal swabs. The STANDARD Q was further evaluated in the field on 112 symptomatic and 61 asymptomatic participants.

Results

For the laboratory evaluation, both tests had a sensitivity above 80% (Panbio^™ = 86% vs STANDARD Q = 88%). The specificity of the Panbio^™ was 100%, while that of the STANDARD Q was 99%. When evaluated in the field, the STANDARD Q maintained a high specificity of 99%, however the sensitivity was reduced to 56%.

Conclusion

Using Ag-RDTs in low resource settings will be helpful in scaling-up SARS-CoV-2 testing, however, negative results should be confirmed by RT-PCR where possible to rule out COVID-19 infection.

A Protein Microarray-Based Respiratory Viral Antigen Testing Platform for COVID-19 Surveillance

High-throughput and rapid screening testing is highly desirable to effectively combat the rapidly evolving COVID-19 pandemic co-presents with influenza and seasonal common cold epidemics. Here, we present a general workflow for iterative development and validation of an antibody-based microarray assay for the detection of a respiratory viral panel: (a) antibody screening to quickly identify optimal reagents and assay conditions, (b) immunofluorescence assay design including signal amplification for low viral titers, (c) assay characterization with recombinant proteins, inactivated viral samples and clinical samples, and (d) multiplexing to detect a panel of common respiratory viruses. Using RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative pharyngeal swab samples, we demonstrated that the antibody microarray assay exhibited a clinical sensitivity and specificity of 77.2% and 100%, respectively, which are comparable to existing FDA-authorized antigen tests. Moreover, the microarray assay is correlated with RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values and is particularly effective in identifying high viral titers. The multiplexed assay can selectively detect SARS-CoV-2 and influenza virus, which can be used to discriminate these viral infections that share similar symptoms. Such protein microarray technology is amenable for scale-up and automation and can be broadly applied as a both diagnostic and research tool.

Smart and connected devices in point-of-care molecular diagnostics: what role can they play in the response to COVID-19?

INTRODUCTION

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has been a huge public health challenge that has led to significant morbidity and mortality across the globe. Given the high prevalence and continued circulation of SARS-CoV-2 infection globally, accurate and rapid point-of-care testing is critical.

AREAS COVERED

Knowledge of role of digital technology including smart and connected devices in rapid diagnosis of COVID-19 is an evolving area of scientific investigation. This review discusses the importance of rapid at-home point-of-care testing, highlighting the possible role of smart and connected device-based molecular diagnostics for COVID-19.

EXPERT OPINION

Accurate and rapid diagnostic modalities have the potential to improve accessibility and efficiency of diagnosis of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients and could be instrumental in timely implementation of appropriate therapeutic interventions as well as public health measures to mitigate spread of infection. With emerging challenges like newer, virulent viral variants, global vaccine shortages and vaccine hesitancy, accurate diagnostic testing with the ability to rapidly identify infection remains critical and has the potential to be pivotal in pandemic control. Digital technologies are likely to become important tools in future of healthcare and technological advancements may play a crucial role in response to COVID-19 with the goal of ultimately overcoming this pandemic.

Epidemiological Comparison of Four COVID-19 Waves in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, March 2020-January 2022

PURPOSE

Nationwide analyses are required to optimise and tailor activities to control future COVID-19 waves of resurgence continent-wide. We compared epidemiological and clinical outcomes of the four COVID-19 waves in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

METHODS

This retrospective descriptive epidemiological analysis included data from the national line list of confirmed COVID-19 cases in all provinces for all waves between 9 March 2020 and 2 January 2022. Descriptive statistical measures (frequencies, percentages, case fatality rates [CFR], test positivity rates [TPR], and characteristics) were compared using chi-squared or the Fisher-Irwin test.

RESULTS

During the study period, 72,108/445,084 (16.2%) tests were positive, with 9,641/56,637 (17.0%), 16,643/66,560 (25.0%), 24,172/157,945 (15.3%), and 21,652/163,942 (13.2%) cases during the first, second, third, and fourth waves, respectively. TPR significantly decreased from 17.0% in the first wave to 13.2% in the fourth wave as did infection of frontline health workers (5.2% vs. 0.9%). CFR decreased from 5.1 to 0.9% from the first to fourth wave. No sex- or age-related differences in distributions across different waves were observed. The majority of cases were asymptomatic in the first (73.1%) and second (86.6%) waves, in contrast to that in the third (11.1%) and fourth (31.3%) waves.

CONCLUSION

Despite fewer reported cases, the primary waves (first and second) of the COVID-19 pandemic in the DRC were more severe than the third and fourth waves, with each wave being associated with a new SARS-CoV-2 variant. Tailored public health and social measures, and resurgence monitoring are needed to control future waves of COVID-19.

Modeling the optimization of COVID-19 pooled testing: How many samples can be included in a single test?

Objectives

This study tries to answer the crucial question of how many biological samples can be optimally included in a single test for COVID-19 pooled testing.

Methods

It builds a novel theoretical model which links the local population to be tested in a region, the number of biological samples included in a single test, the “attitude” toward resource cost saving and time taken in a single test, as well as the corresponding resource cost function and time function, together. The numerical simulation results are then used to formulate the resource cost function as well as the time function. Finally, a loss function to be minimized is constructed and the optimal number of samples included is calculated.

Results

In a numerical example, we consider a region of 1 million population which needs to be tested for the infection of COVID-19. The solution calculates the optimal number of biological samples included in a single test as 4.254 when the time taken is given the weight of 50% under the infection probability of 10%. Other combinations of numerical results are also presented.

Conclusions

As we can see in our simulation results, given the infection probability at 10%, setting the number of biological samples included in a single test (in the integer level) at [4,6] is reasonable for a wide range of the subjective attitude between time and resource costs. Therefore, in the current practice, 5-mixed samples would sound better than the commonly used 10-mixed samples.

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.

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

SCOPE

The objective of these guidelines is to identify the most appropriate diagnostic test and/or diagnostic approach for SARS-CoV-2. The recommendations are intended to provide guidance to clinicians, clinical microbiologists, other health care personnel, and decision makers.

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. Each 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, 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. Quality of evidence assessment was based on the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation - adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of recommendations) approach.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A total of 43 PICO questions were selected that involve the following types of populations: (a) patients with signs and symptoms of COVID-19; (b) travellers, healthcare workers, and other individuals at risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2; (c) asymptomatic individuals, and (d) close contacts of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. The type of diagnostic test (commercial rapid nucleic acid amplification tests and rapid antigen detection), biomaterial, time since onset of symptoms/contact with an infectious case, age, disease severity, and risk of developing severe disease are also taken into consideration.

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.

Screening for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Close Contacts of Individuals With Confirmed Infection: Performance and Operational Considerations

BACKGROUND

Point-of-care and decentralized testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is critical to inform public health responses. Performance evaluations in priority use cases such as contact tracing can highlight trade-offs in test selection and testing strategies.

METHODS

A prospective diagnostic accuracy study was conducted among close contacts of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases in Brazil. Two anterior nares swabs (ANS), a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), and saliva were collected at all visits. Vaccination history and symptoms were assessed. Household contacts were followed longitudinally. Three rapid antigen tests and 1 molecular method were evaluated for usability and performance against reference reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on nasopharyngeal swab specimens.

RESULTS

Fifty index cases and 214 contacts (64 household) were enrolled. Sixty-five contacts were RT-PCR positive during ≥1 visit. Vaccination did not influence viral load. Gamma variants were most prevalent; Delta variants emerged increasingly during implementation. The overall sensitivity of evaluated tests ranged from 33% to 76%. Performance was higher among symptomatic cases and those with cycle threshold (Ct) values <34 and lower among oligosymptomatic or asymptomatic cases. Assuming a 24-hour time to results for RT-PCR, the cumulative sensitivity of an anterior nares swab rapid antigen test was >70% and almost 90% after 4 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The near-immediate time to results for antigen tests significantly offsets lower analytical sensitivity in settings where RT-PCR results are delayed or unavailable.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 Spatial Care Path: Home, Community, and Emergency Diagnostic Portals

This research uses mathematically derived visual logistics to interpret COVID-19 molecular and rapid antigen test (RAgT) performance, determine prevalence boundaries where risk exceeds expectations, and evaluate benefits of recursive testing along home, community, and emergency spatial care paths. Mathematica and open access software helped graph relationships, compare performance patterns, and perform recursive computations. Tiered sensitivity/specificity comprise: (T1) 90%/95%; (T2) 95%/97.5%; and (T3) 100%/≥99%, respectively. In emergency medicine, median RAgT performance peaks at 13.2% prevalence, then falls below T1, generating risky prevalence boundaries. RAgTs in pediatric ERs/EDs parallel this pattern with asymptomatic worse than symptomatic performance. In communities, RAgTs display large uncertainty with median prevalence boundary of 14.8% for 1/20 missed diagnoses, and at prevalence > 33.3−36.9% risk 10% false omissions for symptomatic subjects. Recursive testing improves home RAgT performance. Home molecular tests elevate performance above T1 but lack adequate validation. Widespread RAgT availability encourages self-testing. Asymptomatic RAgT and PCR-based saliva testing present the highest chance of missed diagnoses. Home testing twice, once just before mingling, and molecular-based self-testing, help avoid false omissions. Community and ER/ED RAgTs can identify contagiousness in low prevalence. Real-world trials of performance, cost-effectiveness, and public health impact could identify home molecular diagnostics as an optimal diagnostic portal.

Vaccine effectiveness of heterologous CoronaVac plus BNT162b2 in Brazil

There is considerable interest in the waning of effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and vaccine effectiveness (VE) of booster doses. Using linked national Brazilian databases, we undertook a test-negative design study involving almost 14 million people (~16 million tests) to estimate VE of CoronaVac over time and VE of BNT162b2 booster vaccination against RT-PCR-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes (hospitalization or death). Compared with unvaccinated individuals, CoronaVac VE at 14-30 d after the second dose was 55.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 54.3-55.7) against confirmed infection and 82.1% (95% CI: 81.4-82.8) against severe outcomes. VE decreased to 34.7% (95% CI: 33.1-36.2) against infection and 72.5% (95% CI: 70.9-74.0) against severe outcomes over 180 d after the second dose. A BNT162b2 booster, 6 months after the second dose of CoronaVac, improved VE against infection to 92.7% (95% CI: 91.0-94.0) and VE against severe outcomes to 97.3% (95% CI: 96.1-98.1) 14-30 d after the booster. Compared with younger age groups, individuals 80 years of age or older had lower protection after the second dose but similar protection after the booster. Our findings support a BNT162b2 booster vaccine dose after two doses of CoronaVac, particularly for the elderly.

Longitudinal profile of antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19 in a setting from Sub-Saharan Africa: A prospective longitudinal study

Background

Serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 plays an important role for epidemiological studies, in aiding the diagnosis of COVID-19, and assess vaccine responses. Little is known on dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 serology in African settings. Here, we aimed to characterize the longitudinal antibody response profile to SARS-CoV-2 in Ethiopia.

Methods

In this prospective study, a total of 102 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients were enrolled. We obtained 802 plasma samples collected serially. SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were determined using four lateral flow immune-assays (LFIAs), and an electrochemiluminescent immunoassay. We determined longitudinal antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 as well as seroconversion dynamics.

Results

Serological positivity rate ranged between 12%-91%, depending on timing after symptom onset. There was no difference in positivity rate between severe and non-severe COVID-19 cases. The specificity ranged between 90%-97%. Agreement between different assays ranged between 84%-92%. The estimated positive predictive value (PPV) for IgM or IgG in a scenario with seroprevalence at 5% varies from 33% to 58%. Nonetheless, when the population seroprevalence increases to 25% and 50%, there is a corresponding increases in the estimated PPVs. The estimated negative-predictive value (NPV) in a low seroprevalence scenario (5%) is high (>99%). However, the estimated NPV in a high seroprevalence scenario (50%) for IgM or IgG is reduced significantly to 80% to 85%. Overall, 28/102 (27.5%) seroconverted by one or more assays tested, within a median time of 11 (IQR: 9–15) days post symptom onset. The median seroconversion time among symptomatic cases tended to be shorter when compared to asymptomatic patients [9 (IQR: 6–11) vs. 15 (IQR: 13–21) days; p = 0.002]. Overall, seroconversion reached 100% 5.5 weeks after the onset of symptoms. Notably, of the remaining 74 COVID-19 patients included in the cohort, 64 (62.8%) were positive for antibody at the time of enrollment, and 10 (9.8%) patients failed to mount a detectable antibody response by any of the assays tested during follow-up.

Conclusions

Longitudinal assessment of antibody response in African COVID-19 patients revealed heterogeneous responses. This underscores the need for a comprehensive evaluation of seroassays before implementation. Factors associated with failure to seroconvert needs further research.

Performance of the LumiraDx Microfluidic Immunofluorescence Point-of-Care SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test in Asymptomatic Adults and Children

OBJECTIVES

The LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 Ag Test has previously been shown to accurately detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in individuals symptomatic for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This evaluation investigated the LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 Ag Test as an aid in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in asymptomatic adults and children.

METHODS

Asymptomatic individuals at high risk of COVID-19 infection were recruited in 5 point-of-care (POC) settings. Two paired anterior nasal swabs were collected from each participant, tested by using the LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 Ag Test at the POC, and compared with results from reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays (cobas 6800 [Roche Diagnostics] or TaqPath [Thermo Fisher Scientific]). We calculated positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA), then stratified results on the basis of RT-PCR reference platform and cycle threshold.

RESULTS

Of the 222 included study participants confirmed to be symptom-free for at least 2 weeks before testing, the PPA was 82.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.4%-92.1%). The LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 Ag Test correctly identified 95.8% (95% CI, 79.8%-99.3%) of the samples confirmed positive in fewer than 33 RT-PCR cycles and 100% (95% CI, 85.1%-100%) in fewer than 30 RT-PCR cycles while maintaining 100% NPA.

CONCLUSIONS

This rapid, high-sensitivity test can be used to screen asymptomatic patients for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection in clinic- and community-based settings.

Evaluation of FAST COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test Kit for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Respiratory Samples from Mildly Symptomatic or Asymptomatic Patients

Molecular tests are the gold standard to diagnose severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection but are associated with a diagnostic delay, while antigen detection tests can generate results within 20 min even outside a laboratory. In order to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of the FAST COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test Kit (Ag-RDT), two respiratory swabs were collected simultaneously from 501 patients, with mild or no coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related symptoms, and analyzed with both the Reverse Transcriptase-quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-qPCR) and the FAST COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test. Results were then compared to determine clinical performance in a screening setting. We measured a precision of 97.41% (95% CI 92.42–99.15%) and a recall of 98.26% (95% CI 93.88–99.25%), with a specificity of 99.22% (95% CI 97.74–99.74%), a negative predictive value of 99.48% (95% CI 97.98–99.87%), and an overall accuracy of 99.00% (95% CI 97.69–99.68%). Concordance was described by a Kappa coefficient of 0.971 (95% CI 0.947–0.996). Considering short lead times, low cost, and opportunities for decentralized testing, the Ag-RDT test can enhance the efforts to control SARS-CoV-2 spread in several settings.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 with RAPID: a prospective cohort study

COVID-19 has killed over 6 million people worldwide. Currently available methods to detect SARS-CoV-2 are limited by their cost and need for multistep sample preparation and trained personnel. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop fast, inexpensive, and scalable point-of-care diagnostics that can be used for mass testing. Between January and March 2021, we obtained 321 anterior nare swab samples from individuals in Philadelphia (PA, USA). For the Real-time Accurate Portable Impedimetric Detection prototype 1.0 (RAPID) test, anterior nare samples were tested via an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) approach. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of RAPID in this cohort study were 80.6%, 89.0%, and 88.2%, respectively. We present a rapid, accurate, inexpensive (<$5.00 per unit), and scalable test for diagnosing COVID-19 at the point-of-care. We anticipate that further iterations of this approach will enable widespread deployment, large-scale testing, and population-level surveillance.

•

RAPID shows high accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity in prospective cohort study

•

RAPID was successfully validated using 321 clinical samples

•

Effective point-of-care diagnosis of a heterogeneous sample set

Diagnostics for COVID-19: moving from pandemic response to control

Diagnostics have proven to be crucial to the COVID-19 pandemic response. There are three major methods for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection and their role has evolved during the course of the pandemic. Molecular tests such as PCR are highly sensitive and specific at detecting viral RNA, and are recommended by WHO for confirming diagnosis in individuals who are symptomatic and for activating public health measures. Antigen rapid detection tests detect viral proteins and, although they are less sensitive than molecular tests, have the advantages of being easier to do, giving a faster time to result, of being lower cost, and able to detect infection in those who are most likely to be at risk of transmitting the virus to others. Antigen rapid detection tests can be used as a public health tool for screening individuals at enhanced risk of infection, to protect people who are clinically vulnerable, to ensure safe travel and the resumption of schooling and social activities, and to enable economic recovery. With vaccine roll-out, antibody tests (which detect the host's response to infection or vaccination) can be useful surveillance tools to inform public policy, but should not be used to provide proof of immunity, as the correlates of protection remain unclear. All three types of COVID-19 test continue to have a crucial role in the transition from pandemic response to pandemic control.

Diagnostic accuracy of antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for diagnosis of COVID-19 in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Antigen detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) used for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleocapsid protein are inexpensive, faster and easy to use alternative of Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT) for diagnosis of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the diagnostic accuracy of Ag-RDTs in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). We included studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of Ag-RDTs (sensitivity and specificity) against reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as a reference standard. The study population comprised of people living in LMICs irrespective of age and gender, who had undergone testing for COVID-19. We included peer reviewed prospective or retrospective cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, case control studies, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) as well as non-randomized experimental studies which addressed the review question. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar to identify studies published between 1 January, 2020 and 15 August, 2021. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 tool was used to assess the methodological quality of studies. The analysis was done using Review Manager 5.4 and R software 4.0.2. From the total of 12 diagnostic accuracy studies with 4,817 study participants, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 78.2% and 99.5% respectively. Sensitivity was marginally higher in subgroup analysis based on studies with low risk of bias and applicability concerns (78.9%) and studies using SD Biosensor Ag-RDT (79.4%). However, an inverse relation between cycle threshold (Ct) and sensitivity of Ag-RDT was not seen. The review demonstrated pooled sensitivity value approaching the minimum performance requirement for diagnosis of COVID-19 by WHO with specificity value meeting the specified requirement. Ag-RDTs, therefore have the potential to be used as a screening tool for SARS-CoV-2 detection in low resource settings where RT-PCR might not be readily accessible. However, false negative results need to be interpreted with caution.

Ratio of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases among ascertained SARS-CoV-2 infections in different regions and population groups in 2020: a systematic review and meta-analysis including 130 123 infections from 241 studies

INTRODUCTION

Asymptomatic infection of SARS-CoV-2 may lead to silent community transmission and compromise the COVID-19 pandemic control measures. We aimed to estimate the rate of asymptomatic COVID-19 from published studies and compare this rate among different regions and patient groups.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, electronic databases including Medline, Embase, PubMed and three Chinese electronic databases (Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure [CNKI], WanFang Data and China Science, and Technology Journal Database [VIP]) were searched for literature published from 1 November 2019 to 31 December 2020. Original investigations with sample size (or number of subjects) not less than five were included for further analyses. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to different study types, study periods, geographical regions and patient demographics. The STATA (V.14.0) command 'metaprop' was implemented to conduct a meta-analysis of the pooled rate estimates of asymptomatic infections with exact binomial and score test-based 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 130 123 ascertained COVID-19 infections from 241 studies were included in this meta-analysis, including 31 411 asymptomatic infections. The overall rate of asymptomatic infections was 23.6% (18.5%-29.1%) and 21.7% (16.8%-27.0%) before and after excluding presymptomatic cases, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that significantly higher in pregnant women (48.8%, 28.9%-68.9%), children (32.1%, 24.2%-40.5%), and studies reporting screening programmes (36.0%, 24.6%-48.1%) conducted on or after 1 March 2020 (42.5%, 33.4%-51.9%). In terms of geographical region, the rate was the highest in Africa (64.3%, 56.7%-71.6%), followed by America (40.0%, 27.4%-53.3%), Europe (28.1%, 19.0%-38.1%) and Asia (18.1%, 13.2%-23.5%).

CONCLUSION

We approximated that one-fifth of COVID-19 infections are asymptomatic throughout the course of infection. Public health policies targeting these high-risk groups may be recommended to achieve early identification and more stringent containment of the pandemic.

Integrating PCR-free amplification and synergistic sensing for ultrasensitive and rapid CRISPR/Cas12a-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection

Antigen detection provides particularly valuable information for medical diagnoses; however, the current detection methods are less sensitive and accurate than nucleic acid analysis. The combination of CRISPR/Cas12a and aptamers provides a new detection paradigm, but sensitive sensing and stable amplification in antigen detection remain challenging. Here, we present a PCR-free multiple trigger dsDNA tandem-based signal amplification strategy and a de novo designed dual aptamer synergistic sensing strategy. Integration of these two strategies endowed the CRISPR/Cas12a and aptamer-based method with ultra-sensitive, fast, and stable antigen detection. In a demonstration of this method, the limit of detection was at the single virus level (0.17 fM, approximately two copies/μL) in SARS-CoV-2 antigen nucleocapsid protein analysis of saliva or serum samples. The entire procedure required only 20 min. Given our system's simplicity and modular setup, we believe that it could be adapted reasonably easily for general applications in CRISPR/Cas12a-aptamer-based detection.

Recent findings and applications of biomedical engineering for COVID-19 diagnosis: a critical review

COVID-19 is one of the most severe global health crises that humanity has ever faced. Researchers have restlessly focused on developing solutions for monitoring and tracing the viral culprit, SARS-CoV-2, as vital steps to break the chain of infection. Even though biomedical engineering (BME) is considered a rising field of medical sciences, it has demonstrated its pivotal role in nurturing the maturation of COVID-19 diagnostic technologies. Within a very short period of time, BME research applied to COVID-19 diagnosis has advanced with ever-increasing knowledge and inventions, especially in adapting available virus detection technologies into clinical practice and exploiting the power of interdisciplinary research to design novel diagnostic tools or improve the detection efficiency. To assist the development of BME in COVID-19 diagnosis, this review highlights the most recent diagnostic approaches and evaluates the potential of each research direction in the context of the pandemic.

Assessment of the Field Utility of a Rapid Point-of-Care Test for SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in a Household Cohort

Point-of-care (POC) tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies offer quick assessment of serostatus after natural infection or vaccination. We compared the field performance of the BioMedomics COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Antibody Test against an ELISA in 303 participants enrolled in a SARS-CoV-2 household cohort study. The rapid antibody test was easily implemented with consistent interpretation across 14 users in a variety of field settings. Compared with ELISA, detection of seroconversion lagged by 5 to 10 days. However, it retained a sensitivity of 90% (160/177, 95% confidence interval [CI] 85-94%) and specificity of 100% (43/43, 95% CI 92-100%) for those tested 3 to 5 weeks after symptom onset. Sensitivity was diminished among those with asymptomatic infection (74% [14/19], 95% CI 49-91%) and early in infection (45% [29/64], 95% CI 33-58%). When used appropriately, rapid antibody tests offer a convenient way to detect symptomatic infections during convalescence.

Identifying Inconclusive Data in the SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Diagnostic Using Nucleocapsid Phosphoprotein Gene as Target

CONTEXT

The gold standard test to identify the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients is the real-time reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), but the inconclusive data and presence of false positive diagnosis remain the major problem of this approach.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the fitness of two primers sets to the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid phosphoprotein (NP) gene in the molecular diagnosis of COVID-19, we verify the inconclusive data and confidence of high cycle threshold (Ct) values in the SARS-CoV-2 detection.

DESIGN

The 970 patient samples were tested using United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention protocol. We compared the fitness of two primers sets to two different regions of NP gene. In addition, we check the consistency of positive samples with high Ct values by retesting extracted SARS-CoV-2 RNA or by second testing of patients.

RESULTS

The N1 and N2 displayed similar fitness during testing with no differences between Ct values. Then, we verified security range Cts related to positive diagnostic with Ct above 34 failing in 21/32 (65.6%) after retesting of samples. The samples patients with Ct above 34.89 that were doubly positive revealed a low sensitivity (52.4%) and specificity (63.6%) of the test in samples with Ct above 34.

CONCLUSIONS

It is secure to use one primer set to the NP gene to identify SARS-CoV-2 in samples. However, samples with high Ct values may be considered inconclusive and retested to avoid false positive diagnosis.

Evaluation and clinical implications of the time to a positive results of antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2

INTRODUCTION

Antigen tests for severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 sometimes show positive lines earlier than their specified read time, although the implication of getting the results at earlier time is not well understood.

METHODS

We prospectively collected additional nasopharyngeal samples from patients who had already tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription PCR. The swab was used for an antigen test, QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag, and the time periods to get positive results were measured.

RESULTS

In 84 of 96 (87.5%) analyzed cases, the results of QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag were positive. The time to obtain positive results was 15.0 seconds in median (inter quartile range: 12.0-33.3, range 11-736) and was extended in samples with higher cycle thresholds (p < 0.001). Positive lines appeared within a minute in 85.7% of cases and within 5 min in 96.4%.

CONCLUSION

QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag immediately showed positive results in most cases, and the time to a positive reaction may have indicated the viral load.

Emerging Biosensors to Detect Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): A Review

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is a global health crisis caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the gold standard test for diagnosing COVID-19. Although it is highly accurate, this lab test requires highly-trained personnel and the turn-around time is long. Rapid and inexpensive immuno-diagnostic tests (antigen or antibody test) are available, but these point of care (POC) tests are not as accurate as the RT-PCR test. Biosensors are promising alternatives to these rapid POC tests. Here we review three types of recently developed biosensors for SARS-CoV-2 detection: surface plasmon resonance (SPR)-based, electrochemical and field-effect transistor (FET)-based biosensors. We explain the sensing principles and discuss the advantages and limitations of these sensors. The accuracies of these sensors need to be improved before they could be translated into POC devices for commercial use. We suggest potential biorecognition elements with highly selective target-analyte binding that could be explored to increase the true negative detection rate. To increase the true positive detection rate, we suggest two-dimensional materials and nanomaterials that could be used to modify the sensor surface to increase the sensitivity of the sensor.

Comparison of Dried Blood Spots and Venous Blood for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in a Population of Nursing Home Residents

In the current severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, testing for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies is paramount for monitoring immune responses in postauthorization vaccination and seroepidemiological studies. However, large-scale and iterative serological testing by venipuncture in older persons can be challenging. Capillary blood sampling using a finger prick and collection on protein saver cards, i.e., dried blood spots (DBSs), has already proven to be a promising alternative. However, elderly persons have reduced cutaneous microvasculature, which may affect DBS-based antibody testing. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the performance of DBS tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among nursing homes residents. We collected paired venous blood and DBS samples on two types of protein saver cards (Whatman and EUROIMMUN) from nursing home residents, as well as from staff members as a reference population. Venous blood samples were analyzed for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies using the Abbott chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA). DBS samples were analyzed by the EUROIMMUN enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies. We performed a statistical assessment to optimize the ELISA cutoff value for the DBS testing using Youden's J index. A total of 273 paired DBS-serum samples were analyzed, of which 129 were positive, as assessed by the reference test. The sensitivities and specificities of DBS testing ranged from 95.0% to 97.1% and from 97.1% to 98.8%, respectively, depending on the population (residents or staff members) and the DBS card type. Therefore, we found that DBS sampling is a valid alternative to venipuncture for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among elderly subjects. IMPORTANCE Since the implementation of newly developed SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the general population, serological tests are of increasing importance. Because DBS samples can be obtained with a finger prick and can be shipped and stored at room temperature, they are optimal for use in large-scale SARS-CoV-2 serosurveillance or postauthorization vaccination studies, even in an elderly study population.

Evaluation of the Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs

Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the automated Elecsys® SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay compared to RT-PCR taken as the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 detection.

Methods

225 nasopharyngeal swabs were randomly collected among which 123 were tested positive and 102 negatives for SARS-CoV-2 based on RT-PCR. Antigen dosing were performed on a Cobas 8000 e801 analyzer.

Results

The antigen test diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection status with an overall sensitivity of 65,85% (95% CI 56,76–74,16%), a specificity of 100% (95% CI 96,49–100%) with a Cut-off value ≥ 1. When the cut-off value for the antigen assay was set to > 0,673 COI, the accuracy reached its highest level with a sensitivity of 74,8% (95% CI 66,2 – 82,2%) and a specificity of 97,1% (95% CI 91,6 – 99,4%). Imprecision was estimated in accordance with manufacturer's claims.

Conclusions

We obtained an overall sensitivity of 65,85% (95% CI 56,76–74,16%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI 96,49–100%), slightly higher than the results reported by the manufacturer. Yet, it remains relatively low comparatively to what is generally acceptable for these antigenic assays (a relative sensitivity of 80%). We also noticed that the accuracy could reach its highest level if the cut-off is set above 0,673 which is lower than established by the manufacturer. Thus, our results suggest that the Elecsys® SARS-CoV-2 Antigen assays, should be improved prior to be used in a SARS-Cov-2 screening strategy. However, if one antigenic assay could demonstrate acceptable performance, it might be centralized in clinical laboratories, keeping the RT-PCR in a second phase for confirmation.

Clinical performance and accuracy of a qPCR-based SARS-CoV-2 mass-screening workflow for healthcare-worker surveillance using pooled self-sampled gargling solutions: A cross-sectional study

Introduction

The large number of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections necessitates general screening of employees. We evaluate the performance of a SARS-CoV-2 screening program in asymptomatic healthcare-workers (HCW), utilizing self-sampled gargling-solution and sample pooling for RT-qPCR.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional retrospective study to collect real-life data on the performance of a screening-workflow based on automated-pooling and high-throughput qPCR testing over a 3-month-period at the University Hospital Hamburg.

Results

Matrix validation reveals that lower limit of detection for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in gargling-solution was 180 copies/mL (5-sample-pool). A total of 55,122 self-collected gargle samples (= 7513 HCWs) was analyzed. The median time to result was 8.5 hours (IQR 7.2–10.8). Of 11,192 pools analyzed, 11,041 (98.7%) were negative, 69 (0.6%) were positive and 82 (0.7%) were invalid. Individual testing of pool participants revealed 57 SARS-CoV-2 previously unrecognized infections. All 57 HCWs were either pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic (prevalence 0.76%,CI95%0.58–0.98%). Accuracy based on HCWs with gargle-solution and NP-swab available within 3-day-interval (N = 521) was 99.5% (CI95%98.3–99.9%), sensitivity 88.9% (CI95%65.3–98.6%) while specificity 99.8% (CI95%98.9–99.9).

Conclusion

This workflow was highly effective in identifying SARS-CoV-2 positive HCWs, thereby lowering the potential of inter-HCW and HCW-patient transmissions. Automated-sample-pooling helped to conserve qPCR reagents and represents a promising alternative strategy to antigen testing in mass-screening programs.

A Bayesian method for synthesizing multiple diagnostic outcomes of COVID-19 tests

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide and threatened human life. Diagnosis is crucial to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infections and save lives. Diagnostic tests for COVID-19 have varying sensitivity and specificity, and the false-negative results would have substantial consequences to patient treatment and pandemic control. To detect all suspected infections, multiple testing is widely used. However, it may be challenging to build an assertion when the testing results are inconsistent. Considering the situation where there is more than one diagnostic outcome for each subject, we proposed a Bayesian probabilistic framework based on the sensitivity and specificity of each diagnostic method to synthesize a posterior probability of being infected by SARS-CoV-2. We demonstrated that the synthesized posterior outcome outperformed each individual testing outcome. A user-friendly web application was developed to implement our analytic framework with free access via http://www2.ccrb.cuhk.edu.hk/statgene/COVID_19/. The web application enables the real-time display of the integrated outcome incorporating two or more tests and calculated based on Bayesian posterior probability. A simulation-based assessment demonstrated higher accuracy and precision of the Bayesian probabilistic model compared with a single-test outcome. The online tool developed in this study can assist physicians in making clinical evaluations by effectively integrating multiple COVID-19 tests.

Diagnostic performance and clinical implications of rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing in Mexico using real-world nationwide COVID-19 registry data

Background

SARS-CoV-2 testing capacity is important to monitor epidemic dynamics and as a mitigation strategy. Given difficulties of large-scale quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) implementation, rapid antigen tests (Rapid Ag-T) have been proposed as alternatives in settings like Mexico. Here, we evaluated diagnostic performance of Rapid Ag-T for SARS-CoV-2 infection and its associated clinical implications compared to qRT-PCR testing in Mexico.

Methods

We analyzed data from the COVID-19 registry of the Mexican General Directorate of Epidemiology up to April 30th, 2021 (n = 6,632,938) and cases with both qRT-PCR and Rapid Ag-T (n = 216,388). We evaluated diagnostic performance using accuracy measures and assessed time-dependent changes in the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC). We also explored test discordances as predictors of hospitalization, intubation, severe COVID-19 and mortality.

Results

Rapid Ag-T is primarily used in Mexico City. Rapid Ag-T have low sensitivity 37.6% (95%CI 36.6–38.7), high specificity 95.5% (95%CI 95.1–95.8) and acceptable positive 86.1% (95%CI 85.0–86.6) and negative predictive values 67.2% (95%CI 66.2–69.2). Rapid Ag-T has optimal diagnostic performance up to days 3 after symptom onset, and its performance is modified by testing location, comorbidity, and age. qRT-PCR (-) / Rapid Ag-T (+) cases had higher risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes (HR 1.54 95% CI 1.41–1.68) and were older, qRT-PCR (+)/ Rapid Ag-T(-) cases had slightly higher risk or adverse outcomes and ≥7 days from symptom onset (HR 1.53 95% CI 1.48–1.59). Cases detected with rapid Ag-T were younger, without comorbidities, and milder COVID-19 course.

Conclusions

Rapid Ag-T could be used as an alternative to qRT-PCR for large scale SARS-CoV-2 testing in Mexico. Interpretation of Rapid Ag-T results should be done with caution to minimize the risk associated with false negative results.