Clinical evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests during the Omicron wave in South Africa

Rapid assays of SARS-CoV-2 virus and noble biosensors by nanomaterials

The COVID-19 outbreak caused by SARS-CoV-2 in late 2019 has spread rapidly across the world to form a global epidemic of respiratory infectious diseases. Increased investigations on diagnostic tools are currently implemented to assist rapid identification of the virus because mass and rapid diagnosis might be the best way to prevent the outbreak of the virus. This critical review discusses the detection principles, fabrication techniques, and applications on the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 with three categories: rapid nuclear acid augmentation test, rapid immunoassay test and biosensors. Special efforts were put on enhancement of nanomaterials on biosensors for rapid, sensitive, and low-cost diagnostics of SARS-CoV-2 virus. Future developments are suggested regarding potential candidates in hospitals, clinics and laboratories for control and prevention of large-scale epidemic.

Revolutionizing SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant detection: Towards faster and more reliable methods

The emergence of the highly contagious Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 has inflicted significant damage during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. This new variant's significant sequence changes and mutations in both proteins and RNA have rendered many existing rapid detection methods ineffective in identifying it accurately. As the world races to control the spread of the virus, researchers are urgently exploring new diagnostic strategies to specifically detect Omicron variants with high accuracy and sensitivity. In response to this challenge, we have compiled a comprehensive overview of the latest reported rapid detection techniques. These techniques include strategies for the simultaneous detection of multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants and methods for selectively distinguishing Omicron variants. By categorizing these diagnostic techniques based on their targets, which encompass protein antigens and nucleic acids, we aim to offer a comprehensive understanding of the utilization of various recognition elements in identifying these targets. We also highlight the advantages and limitations of each approach. Our work is crucial in providing a more nuanced understanding of the challenges and opportunities in detecting Omicron variants and emerging variants.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Ten rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 widely differ in their ability to detect Omicron-BA.4 and -BA.5

Since late 2021, the variant landscape of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been dominated by the variant of concern (VoC) Omicron and its sublineages. We and others have shown that the detection of Omicron-BA.1 and -BA.2-positive respiratory specimens by rapid antigen tests (RATs) is impaired compared to Delta VoC-containing samples. Here, in a single-center retrospective laboratory study, we evaluated the performance of ten most commonly used RATs for the detection of Omicron-BA.4 and -BA.5 infections. We used 171 respiratory swab specimens from SARS-CoV-2 RNA-positive patients, of which 71 were classified as BA.4 and 100 as BA.5. All swabs were collected between July and September 2022. 50 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative samples from healthy individuals, collected in October 2022, showed high specificity in 9 out of 10 RATs. When assessing analytical sensitivity using clinical specimens, the 50% limit of detection (LoD50) ranged from 7.6 × 104 to 3.3 × 106 RNA copies subjected to the RATs for BA.4 compared to 6.8 × 104 to 3.0 × 106 for BA.5. Overall, intra-assay differences for the detection of these two Omicron subvariants were not significant for both respiratory swabs and tissue culture-expanded virus isolates. In contrast, marked heterogeneity was observed among the ten RATs: to be positive in these point-of-care tests, up to 443-fold (BA.4) and up to 56-fold (BA.5) higher viral loads were required for the worst performing RAT compared to the best performing RAT. True-positive rates for Omicron-BA.4- or -BA.5-containing specimens in the highest viral load category (Ct values < 25) ranged from 94.3 to 34.3%, dropping to 25.6 to 0% for samples with intermediate Ct values (25-30). We conclude that the high heterogeneity in the performance of commonly used RATs remains a challenge for the general public to obtain reliable results in the evolving Omicron subvariant-driven pandemic.

Field evaluations of four SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests during SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant wave in South Africa

BACKGROUND

Rapid antigen tests detecting SARS-CoV-2 were shown to be a useful tool in managing the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we report on the results of a prospective diagnostic accuracy study of four SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests in a South African setting.

METHODS

Rapid antigen test evaluations were performed through drive-through testing centres in Durban, South Africa, from July to December 2021. Two evaluation studies were performed: nasal Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device (Abbott) was evaluated in parallel with the nasopharyngeal Espline SARS-CoV-2 Ag test (Fujirebio), followed by the evaluation of nasal RightSign COVID-19 Antigen Rapid test Cassette (Hangzhou Biotest Biotech) in parallel with the nasopharyngeal STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag test (SD Biosensor). The Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay was used as a reference test.

RESULTS

Evaluation of Panbio and Espline Ag tests was performed on 494 samples (31% positivity), while the evaluation of Standard Q and RightTest Ag tests was performed on 539 samples (13.17% positivity). The overall sensitivity for all four tests ranged between 60 and 72% with excellent specificity values (> 98%). Sensitivity increased to > 80% in all tests in samples with cycle number value < 20. All four tests performed best in samples from patients presenting within the first week of symptom onset.

CONCLUSIONS

All four evaluated tests detected a majority of the cases within the first week of symptom onset with high viral load.

Performance of rapid antigen tests in identifying Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 infections in South Africa

BACKGROUND

Concerns around accuracy and performance of rapid antigen tests continue to be raised with the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the performance of two widely used SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests during BA.4/BA.5 SARS-CoV-2 wave in South Africa (May - June 2022).

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective field evaluation compared the SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid test from Hangzhou AllTest Biotech (nasal swab) and the Standard Q COVID-19 Rapid Antigen test from SD Biosensor (nasopharyngeal swab) to the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay (nasopharyngeal swab) on samples collected from 540 study participants.

RESULTS

Overall 28.52% (154/540) were SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive with median cycle number value of 12.30 (IQR 9.30-19.40). Out of the 99 successfully sequenced SARS-CoV-2 positive samples, 18 were classified as BA.4 and 56 were classified as BA.5. The overall sensitivities of the AllTest SARS-CoV-2 Ag test and Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test were 73.38% (95% CI 65.89-79.73) and 74.03% (95% CI 66.58-80.31) and their specificities were 97.41% (95% CI 95.30-98.59) and 99.22% (95% CI 97.74-99.74) respectively. Sensitivity was >90% when the cycle number value was <20. The sensitivity of both rapid tests was >90% in samples infected with Omicron sub-lineage BA.4 and BA.5.

CONCLUSION

Accuracy of tested rapid antigen tests that target the nucleocapsid SARS-CoV-2 protein, were not adversely affected by BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron sub-variants.

Clinical Performance of Self-Collected Nasal Swabs and Antigen Rapid Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Resource-Poor Settings

Background: In resource-poor countries, antigen-based rapid tests (Ag-RDTs) performed at primary healthcare and community settings improved access to SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. However, the technical skills and biosafety requirements inherent to nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal (OP) specimens limit the scale-up of SARS-CoV-2 testing. The collection of nasal-swabs is programmatically viable, but its performance has not been evaluated in resource-poor settings. Methods: We first evaluated the performance of SteriPack self-collected nasal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by real-time PCR in 1498 consecutively enrolled patients with suspected infection. Next, we evaluated the clinical performance of three nasal swab-based Ag-RDTs against real-time PCR on OP specimens. Results: The sensitivity of nasal swabs was 80.6% [95% CI: 75.3−85.2%] compared to OP specimens. There was a good correlation (r = 0.58; p < 0.0001) between Ct values of 213 positive cases obtained using nasal and OP swabs. Our findings show sensitivities of 79.7% [95% CI: 73.3−85.1%] for Panbio COVID-19 Ag-RDT, 59.6% [95% CI: 55.2−63.8%] for COVIOS Ag-RDT, and 78.0% [95% CI: 73.5−82.0%] for the LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. Conclusions: In our setting, the COVIOS Ag-RDT did not meet WHO requirements. Nasal swab-based Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 detection constitute a viable and accurate diagnostic option in resource-poor settings.