Limitations of Molecular and Antigen Test Performance for SARS-CoV-2 in Symptomatic and Asymptomatic COVID-19 Contacts

Post-market surveillance of six COVID-19 point-of-care tests using pre-Omicron and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants

Post-market surveillance of test performance is a critical function of public health agencies and clinical researchers that ensures tests maintaining diagnostic characteristics following their regulatory approval. Changes in product quality, manufacturing processes over time, or the evolution of new variants may impact product performance. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a plethora of point-of-care tests (POCTs) was released onto the Canadian market. This study evaluated the performance characteristics of several of the most widely distributed POCTs in Canada, including four rapid antigen tests (Abbott Panbio, BTNX Rapid Response, SD Biosensor, and Quidel QuickVue) and two molecular tests (Abbott ID NOW and Lucira Check IT). All tests were challenged with 149 SARS-CoV-2 clinical positives, including multiple variants up to and including Omicron XBB.1.5, as well as 29 clinical negatives. Results were stratified based on whether the isolate was Omicron or pre-Omicron as well as by reverse transcriptase quantitative PCR Ct value. The test performance of each POCT was consistent with the manufacturers' claims and showed no significant decline in clinical performance against any of the variants tested. These findings provide continued confidence in the results of these POCTs as they continue to be used to support decentralized COVID-19 testing. This work demonstrates the essential role of post-market surveillance in ensuring reliability in diagnostic tools.IMPORTANCEPost-market surveillance of diagnostic test performance is critical to ensure their reliability after regulatory approval. This is especially critical in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic as the use of point-of-care tests (POCTs) became widespread. Our study focused on four rapid antigen tests (Abbott Panbio, BTNX Rapid Response, SD Biosensor, and Quidel QuickVue) and two molecular tests (Abbott ID NOW and Lucira Check IT) that were widely distributed across Canada, assessing their performance using many SARS-CoV-2 variants, including up to Omicron subvariant XBB.1.5. Overall, we found no significant difference in performance against any variant, reinforcing confidence in their use. As concerns in test efficacy have been raised by news outlets, particularly regarding the BTNX Rapid Response, this work is even more timely and crucial. Our research offers insights into the performance of widely used COVID-19 POCTs but also highlights the necessity for post-market surveillance.

Performance of and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Diagnostics Based on Symptom Onset and Close Contact Exposure: An Analysis From the Test Us at Home Prospective Cohort Study

Background

Understanding changes in diagnostic performance after symptom onset and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exposure within different populations is crucial to guide the use of diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2.

Methods

The Test Us at Home study was a longitudinal cohort study that enrolled individuals across the United States between October 2021 and February 2022. Participants performed paired antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) and reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests at home every 48 hours for 15 days and self-reported symptoms and known coronavirus disease 2019 exposures immediately before testing. The percent positivity for Ag-RDTs and RT-PCR tests was calculated each day after symptom onset and exposure and stratified by vaccination status, variant, age category, and sex.

Results

The highest percent positivity occurred 2 days after symptom onset (RT-PCR, 91.2%; Ag-RDT, 71.1%) and 6 days after exposure (RT-PCR, 91.8%; Ag-RDT, 86.2%). RT-PCR and Ag-RDT performance did not differ by vaccination status, variant, age category, or sex. The percent positivity for Ag-RDTs was lower among exposed, asymptomatic than among symptomatic individuals (37.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.7%-69.4%) vs 90.3% (75.1%-96.7%). Cumulatively, Ag-RDTs detected 84.9% (95% CI, 78.2%-89.8%) of infections within 4 days of symptom onset. For exposed participants, Ag-RDTs detected 94.0% (95% CI, 86.7%-97.4%) of RT-PCR-confirmed infections within 6 days of exposure.

Conclusions

The percent positivity for Ag-RDTs and RT-PCR tests was highest 2 days after symptom onset and 6 days after exposure, and performance increased with serial testing. The percent positivity of Ag-RDTs was lowest among asymptomatic individuals but did not differ by sex, variant, vaccination status, or age category.

Clinical accuracy of instrument-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen diagnostic tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, antigen diagnostic tests were frequently used for screening, triage, and diagnosis. Novel instrument-based antigen tests (iAg tests) hold the promise of outperforming their instrument-free, visually-read counterparts. Here, we provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 iAg tests' clinical accuracy.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, medRxiv, and bioRxiv for articles published before November 7th, 2022, evaluating the accuracy of iAg tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection. We performed a random effects meta-analysis to estimate sensitivity and specificity and used the QUADAS-2 tool to assess study quality and risk of bias. Sub-group analysis was conducted based on Ct value range, IFU-conformity, age, symptom presence and duration, and the variant of concern.

RESULTS

We screened the titles and abstracts of 20,431 articles and included 114 publications that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Additionally, we incorporated three articles sourced from the FIND website, totaling 117 studies encompassing 95,181 individuals, which evaluated the clinical accuracy of 24 commercial COVID-19 iAg tests. The studies varied in risk of bias but showed high applicability. Of 24 iAg tests from 99 studies assessed in the meta-analysis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity compared to molecular testing of a paired NP swab sample were 76.7% (95% CI 73.5 to 79.7) and 98.4% (95% CI 98.0 to 98.7), respectively. Higher sensitivity was noted in individuals with high viral load (99.6% [95% CI 96.8 to 100] at Ct-level ≤ 20) and within the first week of symptom onset (84.6% [95% CI 78.2 to 89.3]), but did not differ between tests conducted as per manufacturer's instructions and those conducted differently, or between point-of-care and lab-based testing.

CONCLUSION

Overall, iAg tests have a high pooled specificity but a moderate pooled sensitivity, according to our analysis. The pooled sensitivity increases with lower Ct-values (a proxy for viral load), or within the first week of symptom onset, enabling reliable identification of most COVID-19 cases and highlighting the importance of context in test selection. The study underscores the need for careful evaluation considering performance variations and operational features of iAg tests.

Mitoquinone mesylate as post-exposure prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans: an exploratory single center pragmatic open label non-randomized pilot clinical trial with matched controls

BACKGROUND

An ongoing important need exists to rapidly develop novel therapeutics for COVID-19 that will retain antiviral efficacy in the setting of rapidly evolving SARS-CoV-2 variants and potential future development of resistance of SARS-COV-2 to remdesivir and protease inhibitors. To date, there is no FDA-approved treatment for post-exposure prophylaxis against SAR-CoV-2. We have shown that the mitochondrial antioxidant mitoquinone/mitoquinol mesylate (Mito-MES), a dietary supplement, has antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro and in SARS-CoV-2 infected K18-hACE2 mice.

METHODS

In this exploratory, pragmatic open label clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05381454), we studied whether Mito-MES is an effective post-exposure prophylaxis treatment in people who had high-grade unmasked exposures to SARS-CoV-2 within 5 days prior to study entry. Participants were enrolled in real-world setting in Los Angeles, United States between May 1 and December 1, 2022 and were assigned to either mito-MES 20 mg daily for 14 days (n = 40) or no mito-MES (controls) (n = 40). The primary endpoint was development of SARS-CoV-2 infection based on 4 COVID-19 diagnostic tests [rapid antigen tests (RATs) or PCR] performed during the study period (14 days post exposure).

FINDINGS

Out of 40 (23 females; 57.5%) study participants who took Mito-MES, 12 (30%) developed SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to 30 of the 40 controls (75%) (difference -45.0%, 95% confidence intervals (CI): -64.5%, -25.5%). Out of 40 (19 females; 47.5%) study participants in the control group, 30 (75.0%) had at least one positive COVID-19 diagnostic test and 23 (57.5%) were symptomatic. With regards to key secondary outcomes, among symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, the median duration of viral symptoms was lower in the Mito-MES group (median 3.0, 95% CI 2.75, 3.25) compared to the control group (median 5.0, 95% CI 4.0, 7.0). None of the study participants was hospitalized or required oxygen therapy. Mito-MES was well tolerated and no serious side effect was reported in any study participant.

INTERPRETATION

This work describes antiviral activity of mito-MES in humans. Mito-MES was well tolerated in our study population and attenuated transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Given established safety of Mito-MES in humans, our results suggest that randomized control clinical trials of Mito-MES as post-exposure prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection are warranted.

FUNDING

This work was supported in part by National Institutes of Health grant R01AG059501 (TK), National Institutes of Health grant R01AG059502 04S1 (TK), NIH/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) UCLA CTSI Grant Number UL1TR001881 and California HIV/AIDS Research Program grant OS17-LA-002 (TK).

Net-Shaped DNA Nanostructure-Based Lateral Flow Assays for Rapid and Sensitive SARS-CoV-2 Detection

Lateral flow assay (LFA)-based rapid antigen tests are experiencing extensive global uptake as an expeditious and highly effective modality for the screening of viral infections during the COVID-19 pandemic. While these devices have played a significant role in alleviating the burden on the public healthcare system, their specificity and sensitivity fall short compared with molecular tests. In this study, we endeavor to address both limitations through the utilization of DNA nanotechnology in LFA format, wherein we substitute the target-specific antibody with designer DNA nanostructure-based molecular probes for recognizing the SARS-CoV-2 virus via multivalent, pattern-matching interactions. We meticulously designed a Net-shaped DNA nanostructure and strategically arranged trimeric clusters of aptamers that specifically recognize the spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. This approach has proven instrumental in bolstering virus-binding affinity on the LFAs. Our findings indicate high LFA sensitivity, enabling the detection of viral loads ranging from 103 to 108 viral copies/mL. This notable sensitivity is maintained across various SARS-CoV-2 viral strains, obviating the need for intricate sample preparation protocols. The significance of this heightened sensitivity lies in the crucial role played by the designer DNA nanostructure, which facilitates the detection of extremely low levels of viral loads. This not only enhances the overall reliability of self-testing but also reduces the likelihood of false-negative results, especially in cases of low viral load within patient samples.

Performance evaluation of the cobas SARS-CoV-2 Duo, a novel qualitative and quantitative assay, for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA

IMPORTANCE

Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 tests for viral load are necessary to guide patient treatment, as well as to determine infection control measures and policies. Although the real-time RT-PCR assays can report the Ct value to estimate the viral load, there are several serious concerns regarding the use of Ct values. Importantly, Ct values can vary significantly among between- and within-run methods. The diagnostic performance of the cobas SARS-CoV-2 Duo is appropriate. It is a precise, accurate, and sensitive method for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA and is comparable to two qualitative assays (the cobas SARS-CoV-2 and the Liat cobas SARS-CoV-2 and Inf A/B). In contrast, using the Ct value to estimate viral load is not reliable, and utilization of a quantitative detection test, such as the cobas SARS-CoV-2 Duo, to accurately measure the viral load is needed.

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 self-testing/self-sampling with molecular and professional-use tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Self-testing is an effective tool to bridge the testing gap for several infectious diseases; however, its performance in detecting SARS-CoV-2 using antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) has not been systematically reviewed. This study aimed to inform WHO guidelines by evaluating the accuracy of COVID-19 self-testing and self-sampling coupled with professional Ag-RDT conduct and interpretation. Articles on this topic were searched until November 7th, 2022. Concordance between self-testing/self-sampling and fully professional-use Ag-RDTs was assessed using Cohen's kappa. Bivariate meta-analysis yielded pooled performance estimates. Quality and certainty of evidence were evaluated using QUADAS-2 and GRADE tools. Among 43 studies included, twelve reported on self-testing, and 31 assessed self-sampling only. Around 49.6% showed low risk of bias. Overall concordance with professional-use Ag-RDTs was high (kappa 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88-0.94]). Comparing self-testing/self-sampling to molecular testing, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 70.5% (95% CI 64.3-76.0) and 99.4% (95% CI 99.1-99.6), respectively. Higher sensitivity (i.e., 93.6% [95% CI 90.4-96.8] for Ct < 25) was estimated in subgroups with higher viral loads using Ct values as a proxy. Despite high heterogeneity among studies, COVID-19 self-testing/self-sampling exhibits high concordance with professional-use Ag-RDTs. This suggests that self-testing/self-sampling can be offered as part of COVID-19 testing strategies.Trial registration: PROSPERO: CRD42021250706.

Digital Microfluidic Multiplex RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2 Detection and Variants Discrimination

Continuous mutations have occurred in the genome of the SARS-CoV-2 virus since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The increased transmissibility of the mutated viruses has not only imposed medical burdens but also prolonged the duration of the pandemic. A point-of-care (POC) platform that provides multitarget detection will help to track and reduce disease transmissions. Here we detected and discriminated three genotypes of SARS-CoV-2, including the wildtype and two variants of concern (VOCs), the Delta variant and Omicron variant, through reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) on a digital microfluidics (DMF)-based cartridge. Upon evaluating with the RNA samples of Omicron variant, the DMF RT-qPCR presented a sensitivity of 10 copies/μL and an amplification efficiency of 96.1%, capable for clinical diagnosis. When spiking with SARS-CoV-2 RNA (wildtype, Delta variant, or Omicron variant) and 18S rDNA, the clinical analog samples demonstrated accurate detection and discrimination of different SARS-CoV-2 strains in 49 min.

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.

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.

Infection of the oral cavity with SARS-CoV-2 variants: Scope of salivary diagnostics

Coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2, have caused pandemics in the past two decades. The most prevalent SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern can re-infect individuals who have been previously infected with other variants or had protection from vaccines targeting the original SARS-CoV-2 variant. Given the high risk of transmission of coronavirus via aerosols produced during dental procedures, it is important to understand the future risk of coronavirus infection for oral health professionals and to diagnose quickly early stages of outbreaks. Testing of saliva for coronavirus may be the least invasive and most convenient method for following the outbreak at the individual and community level. This review will describe strategies for diagnosis of coronavirus in saliva.

Point-of-care detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen among symptomatic vs. asymptomatic persons: Testing for COVID-19 vs. infectivity

Background

Management of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) requires rapid and simple methods to detect COVID-19 patients and identify potential infectors. This study aimed to evaluate the utility of a point-of-care (PoC) rapid antigen diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) in these settings.

Patients and methods

Individuals who consecutively presented for SARS-CoV-2 testing at a tertiary care center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, underwent PoC Ag-RDT testing and real-time RT-PCR (qRT-PCR) on the same day during June 2021.

Results

Of 584 included subjects, 108 (18.5%) were symptomatic for COVID-19 while the remaining presented for miscellaneous reasons unrelated to possible or confirmed contact with a SARS-CoV-2-infected individual. A positive Ag-RDT result was obtained in 26 (24.1%) symptomatic and 7 (1.5%) asymptomatic persons (p < 0.001), which was concordant with qRT-PCR in 105/108 [97.2%, Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ) = 0.927] symptomatic and 467/476 (98.1% κ = 0.563) asymptomatic participants, with a positive percentage agreement (PPA; 95% confidence interval) of 89.7% (71.5-97.3%) and 42.9% (18.8-70.4%), respectively. None of the 11 false-negative diagnoses showed a C_t-value ≤20. Considering only failures with a C_t-value below 31 as hypothetical infectivity threshold of 10⁵ SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/mL, concordance was observed in 98.1% (κ = 0.746) in the asymptomatic population, accounting for a PPA of 66.7% (30.9-91%).

Conclusions

PoC Ag-RDT accurately detected active SARS-CoV-2 infection and showed acceptable diagnostic performance in asymptomatic persons potentially spreading infectious virus. Ag-RDT may therefore be useful to slow down or stop transmission by enabling adequate decisions on isolation at a public health level.