Evaluation of the INDICAID COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test in Symptomatic Populations and Asymptomatic Community Testing

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Antigen Testing (January 2023)

Immunoassays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens (Ag) are commonly used to diagnose COVID-19. The most widely used tests are lateral flow assays that generate results in approximately 15 minutes for diagnosis at the point-of-care. Higher throughput, laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 Ag assays have also been developed. The number of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 Ag detection tests has increased rapidly, as has the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop best-practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 Ag testing. This guideline is an update to the third in a series of frequently updated COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines developed by the IDSA. IDSA's goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations or suggestions that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, public health authorities, administrators, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests in both medical and nonmedical settings. A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests. A review of relevant, peer-reviewed published literature was conducted through 1 April 2022. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. The panel made 10 diagnostic recommendations that address Ag testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals and assess single versus repeat testing strategies. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) have high specificity and low to moderate sensitivity compared with nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). Ag test sensitivity is dependent on the presence or absence of symptoms and, in symptomatic patients, on timing of testing after symptom onset. In most cases, positive Ag results can be acted upon without confirmation. Results of point-of-care testing are comparable to those of laboratory-based testing, and observed or unobserved self-collection of specimens for testing yields similar results. Modeling suggests that repeat Ag testing increases sensitivity compared with testing once, but no empirical data were available to inform this question. Based on these observations, rapid RT-PCR or laboratory-based NAAT remain the testing methods of choice for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, when timely molecular testing is not readily available or is logistically infeasible, Ag testing helps identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were insufficient to make a recommendation about the utility of Ag testing to guide release of patients with COVID-19 from isolation. The overall quality of available evidence supporting use of Ag testing was graded as very low to moderate.

Microstructure-Driven Self-Transport and Convection of Water on Membrane Surface for Ultra-Fast, Highly Sensitive, Low-Cost Lateral-Flow Assays

Lateral-flow assay (LFA) is one of the most commonly used detection technologies, in which the chromatographic membranes are currently used as the lateral-flow membrane (e.g., nitrocellulose membrane, NC Mem). However, several disadvantages of existing chromatographic membranes limit the performance of LFA, including relatively low flow velocity of sample solution and relatively more residuals of sample on membrane, which increase detection time and detection noise. Herein, a surface structure membrane (SS Mem) is proposed, which enables fast self-transport of water with a convection manner and realizes low residuals of sample on membrane surface after the flow. On SS Mem, the flow velocity of water is 7.1-fold higher, and the residuals of sample are decreased by 60-67%, comparing those in NC Mem. SS Mem is used as lateral-flow membrane to prepare lateral-flow strips of nanogold LFA and fluorescence LFA for rapid detection of SARS CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein. These LFAs require 210 s per detection, with limits of detection of 3.98 pg mL-1 and 53.3 fg mL-1, sensitivity of 96.5%, and specificity of 90%. The results suggest that SS Mem enables ultrafast, highly sensitive lateral-flow immunoassays and shows great potential as a new type of lateral-flow membrane to broaden the application of LFA.

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.

Performance of different rapid antigen testing strategies for SARS-CoV-2: A living rapid review

BACKGROUND

Rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) for SARS-CoV-2 testing offer several advantages over molecular tests, but there is little evidence supporting an ideal testing algorithm. We aimed to examine the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) and the effectiveness of different RADT SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies.

METHODS

Following PRISMA DTA guidance, we carried out a living rapid review and meta-analysis. Searches were conducted in Ovid MEDLINE® ALL, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL electronic databases until February 2022. Results were visualized using forest plots and included in random-effects univariate meta-analyses, where eligible.

RESULTS

After screening 8010 records, 18 studies were included. Only one study provided data on incidence outcomes. Seventeen studies were DTA reports with direct comparisons of RADT strategies, using RT-PCR as the reference standard. Testing settings varied, corresponding to original SARS-CoV-2 or early variants. Strategies included differences in serial testing, the individual collecting swabs and swab sample locations. Overall, specificity remained high (>98%) across strategies. Although results were heterogeneous, the sensitivity for healthcare worker-collected samples was greater than for self-collected samples. Nasal samples had comparable sensitivity when compared to paired RADTs with nasopharyngeal samples, but sensitivity was much lower for saliva samples. The limited evidence for serial testing suggested higher sensitivity if RADTs were administered every 3 days compared to less frequent testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional high-quality research is needed to confirm our findings; all studies were judged to be at risk of bias, with significant heterogeneity in sensitivity estimates. Evaluations of testing algorithms in real-world settings are recommended, especially for transmission and incidence outcomes.

Combined Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2: Rapid Antigen Detection as an Adjunct to Nucleic Acid Detection

Coronavirus disease 2019 is a serious threat to human life, and early diagnosis and screening can help control the COVID-19 pandemic. The high sensitivity of reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay is the gold standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19, but there are still some false-negative results. Rapid antigen detection (RAD) is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a screening method for COVID-19. This review analyzed the characteristics of RDT and found that although the overall sensitivity of RAD was not as high as that of RT-PCR, but RAD was more sensitive in COVID-19 patients within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and in COVID-19 patients with Ct ≤ 25. Therefore, RAD can be used as an adjunct to RT-PCR for screening patients with early COVID-19. Finally, this review provides a combined diagnostic protocol for RAD and nucleic acid testing with the aim of providing a feasible approach for COVID-19 screening.

Nasal swab is a good alternative sample for detecting SARS-CoV-2 with rapid antigen test: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We aim to determine if nasal samples have equivalent detection sensitivity to nasopharyngeal swabs for RAT and evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of nasal swabs with RAT.

METHODS

PubMed and Web of Science were searched for eligible studies published before August 23, 2022. A bivariate random effects model was used to perform the quantitative synthesis.

RESULTS

The pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and summary AUC on nasal swabs with RAT were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.77-0.85), 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99-1.00), 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95-0.98), 298.91 (95% CI, 144.71-617.42) and 0.19 (95% CI, 0.15-0.23), respectively. WHO required RAT kits to perform with a sensitivity of 0.80 and a specificity of 0.97, nasal swabs (0.81) achieved the required sensitivity while nasopharyngeal swabs (0.75) did not. The symptomatic population yielded higher pooled sensitivity than the asymptomatic population (0.86 versus 0.71), with a pooled sensitivity of 0.90 for five days of symptom onset.

CONCLUSION

Nasal sampling had a great performance and yielded a high sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2 using RAT, we believe that RAT performed with nasal swabs is a good alternative for detecting SARS-CoV-2, especially early in the onset of symptoms.

Rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2: The gradual boom of lateral flow immunoassay

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is still in an epidemic situation, which poses a serious threat to the safety of people and property. Rapid diagnosis and isolation of infected individuals are one of the important methods to control virus transmission. Existing lateral flow immunoassay techniques have the advantages of rapid, sensitive, and easy operation, and some new options have emerged with the continuous development of nanotechnology. Such as lateral flow immunoassay test strips based on colorimetric-fluorescent dual-mode and gold nanoparticles, Surface Enhanced Raman Scattering, etc., these technologies have played an important role in the rapid diagnosis of COVID-19. In this paper, we summarize the current research progress of lateral flow immunoassay in the field of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 infection diagnosis, analyze the performance of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 lateral flow immunoassay products, review the advantages and limitations of different detection methods and markers, and then explore the competitive CRISPR-based nucleic acid chromatography detection method. This method combines the advantages of gene editing and lateral flow immunoassay and can achieve rapid and highly sensitive lateral flow immunoassay detection of target nucleic acids, which is expected to be the most representative method for community and clinical point-of-care testing. We hope that researchers will be inspired by this review and strive to solve the problems in the design of highly sensitive targets, the selection of detection methods, and the enhancement of CRISPR technology, to truly achieve rapid, sensitive, convenient, and specific detection of novel coronaviruses, thus promoting the development of novel coronavirus diagnosis and contributing our modest contribution to the world's fight against epidemics.

Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac COVID-19 vaccination against asymptomatic and symptomatic infection of SARS-CoV-2 omicron BA.2 in Hong Kong: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 vaccines provide protection against symptomatic infection that might require medical attention and against severe outcomes; however, there is a paucity of evidence regarding the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccines and their booster regimens against asymptomatic or mild omicron infections in the community. We aimed to measure the effectiveness of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccines against asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 omicron infections, during a period of omicron BA.2 predominance in Hong Kong.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study in a population that was generally infection-naive before the large omicron BA.2 wave between January and late May, 2022, we established a public health surveillance platform to monitor the evolving activity of SARS-CoV-2 infections in the community. We recruited a cohort of individuals aged 5 years and older between March 1 and March 7, 2022, from the general population. Individuals were enrolled from all 18 districts of Hong Kong, according to a predefined age-stratified quota, primarily by random digit dialing (generating suitable eight-digit local telephone numbers by randomly picking sets of the first four digits from a sampling frame, and randomly generating the last four digits), and supplemented by our existing cohorts (which included cohorts for studying influenza vaccination from school-based vaccination programmes and cohorts for SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence from the community), to ensure representativeness of the population in Hong Kong. Participants did weekly rapid antigen testing with a self-collected pooled nasal and throat swab, regardless of symptom and exposure status, from March 1 to April 15, 2022. Individuals reporting a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by laboratory PCR testing before enrolment were excluded from the vaccine effectiveness analysis to avoid potential bias due to infection-induced immunity. The primary outcomes of the study were the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, including asymptomatic and symptomatic infections, and the vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccines. The effectiveness of one, two, and three doses of vaccination was estimated with a Cox proportional hazards regression model with time-dependent covariates, allowing for changes in vaccination status over time, after adjustment for demographic factors and pre-existing medical conditions.

FINDINGS

Of the 8636 individuals included in the analysis, 7233 (84%) received at least two doses of vaccine, 3993 (46%) received booster doses, and 903 (10%) reported SARS-CoV-2 infection. Among these infections 589 (65·2%) were symptomatic and 314 (34·8%) were asymptomatic at the time of testing. Statistically significant protection against asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 omicron infection was found only for those who received a BNT162b2 or CoronaVac booster dose, with a vaccine effectiveness of 41·4% (23·2 to 55·2; p=0·0001) and 32·4% (9·0 to 49·8; p=0·0098), respectively. The vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac boosters was further increased to 50·9% (95% CI 31·0-65·0; p<0·0001) and 41·6% (15·0-59·8; p=0·0049), respectively, for symptomatic omicron infections. A similar pattern of vaccine effectiveness (55·8%, 22·9-74·6; p=0·0040) was also conferred after receipt of a BNT162b2 booster by individuals who received a CoronaVac primary vaccination series.

INTERPRETATION

Two doses of either vaccine did not provide significant protection against COVID-19 infection. However, receipt of a BNT162b2 booster or CoronaVac booster was associated with a significantly lower risk of omicron BA.2 infection and symptomatic infection. Our findings confirm the effectiveness of booster doses to protect against mild and asymptomatic infection.

FUNDING

Henry Fok Foundation and Hong Kong Health Bureau.

Clinical Performance of Rapid Antigen Tests for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in the Emergency Department and Community: A Retrospective Study

Background

Rapid antigen tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection have been authorized for emergency use (EUA); however, the performance has not been fully evaluated in clinical contexts. This study aimed to provide evidence regarding the diagnostic performance of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests compared with the real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test in the emergency department (ED) and community.

Methods

Patients who underwent SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests using the VTRUST COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test (TD-4531) and real-time RT-PCR on the same day in the ED or community from May 24, 2021, to June 24, 2021, were examined.

Results

Paired nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from 4022 suspected COVID-19 patients: 800 in the ED and 3222 in the community. Overall, 62 (1.54%) tested positive, 13 tested indeterminate, and 3947 tested negative by real-time RT-PCR. The sensitivity and specificity of the antigen test were 51.61% and 99.44% (overall), 62.50% and 99.61% (ED), and 31.82% and 99.40% (community), respectively. There were 30 false negatives and 22 false positives. Among the false negatives, 16.67% had a cycle threshold (Ct) value of <25.

Conclusion

The VTRUST COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test showed comparable specificity as real-time RT-PCR for the ED and community, but the sensitivity was relatively low, especially when the Ct value was >25. This test can be useful for the rapid identification of infected subjects in an epidemic situation.

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.

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.

Accuracy of rapid point-of-care antigen-based diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression analyzing influencing factors

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive information about the accuracy of antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is essential to guide public health decision makers in choosing the best tests and testing policies. In August 2021, we published a systematic review and meta-analysis about the accuracy of Ag-RDTs. We now update this work and analyze the factors influencing test sensitivity in further detail.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched preprint and peer-reviewed databases for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 until August 31, 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing as a reference. To evaluate factors influencing test sensitivity, we performed 3 different analyses using multivariable mixed-effects meta-regression models. We included 194 studies with 221,878 Ag-RDTs performed. Overall, the pooled estimates of Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 72.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.8 to 74.2) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6 to 99.1). When manufacturer instructions were followed, sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.7 to 78.7). Sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values (97.9% [95% CI 96.9 to 98.9] and 90.6% [95% CI 88.3 to 93.0] for Ct-values <20 and <25, compared to 54.4% [95% CI 47.3 to 61.5] and 18.7% [95% CI 13.9 to 23.4] for Ct-values ≥25 and ≥30) and was estimated to increase by 2.9 percentage points (95% CI 1.7 to 4.0) for every unit decrease in mean Ct-value when adjusting for testing procedure and patients' symptom status. Concordantly, we found the mean Ct-value to be lower for true positive (22.2 [95% CI 21.5 to 22.8]) compared to false negative (30.4 [95% CI 29.7 to 31.1]) results. Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (81.9% [95% CI 77.7 to 85.5]) compared to testing after 1 week (51.8%, 95% CI 41.5 to 61.9). Similarly, sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (76.2% [95% CI 73.3 to 78.9]) compared to asymptomatic (56.8% [95% CI 50.9 to 62.4]) persons. However, both effects were mainly driven by the Ct-value of the sample. With regards to sample type, highest sensitivity was found for nasopharyngeal (NP) and combined NP/oropharyngeal samples (70.8% [95% CI 68.3 to 73.2]), as well as in anterior nasal/mid-turbinate samples (77.3% [95% CI 73.0 to 81.0]). Our analysis was limited by the included studies' heterogeneity in viral load assessment and sample origination.

CONCLUSIONS

Ag-RDTs detect most of the individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2, and almost all (>90%) when high viral loads are present. With viral load, as estimated by Ct-value, being the most influential factor on their sensitivity, they are especially useful to detect persons with high viral load who are most likely to transmit the virus. To further quantify the effects of other factors influencing test sensitivity, standardization of clinical accuracy studies and access to patient level Ct-values and duration of symptoms are needed.

Development of a risk assessment profile tool to determine appropriate use of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen detection tests for different activities and events in Ireland, since October 2021

We describe the development of a risk assessment profile tool that incorporates data from multiple domains to help determine activities and events where rapid antigen detection tests (Ag-RDT) could be used to screen asymptomatic individuals to identify infectious cases as an additional mitigation measure to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The tool aims to stratify, in real time, the overall risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission associated with common activities and events, and this can be matched to an appropriate Ag-RDT testing protocol.