Screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection in asymptomatic individuals using the Panbio COVID-19 antigen rapid test (Abbott) compared with RT-PCR: a prospective cohort study

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.

Impact of COVID-19 on football attacking players' match technical performance: a longitudinal study

This study examined the impact of COVID-19 on 28 indicators of match technical performance (MTP) for football attacking players upon their return to play. Analyzing data from 100 players in the Big Five European football leagues, covering 1500 matches each before and after COVID-19 over 3 years (2020-2023), revealed significant differences in 76% of players' MTP indicators. Notably, 14 indicators, particularly the five indicators linked to scoring, significantly decreased post-COVID-19. On average, players needed 3.09 matches to regain pre-infection MTP levels. The impact varied across player groups, with those in the elite group showing a milder effect; they required an average of 2.64 matches for recovery, compared to the control group's 3.55 matches. We found that, with increasing age, the majority of players' MTP indicators did not exhibit significant changes, both before and after they contracted COVID-19. In conclusion, the study highlighted the negative impact of COVID-19 on football attacking players' MTP. Players in the elite group experienced fewer adverse effects than those in the control group. This insight assisted coaches and managers in evaluating the impact of COVID-19 and similar virus-induced illnesses on players' MTP, enabling them to formulate training regimens for recovery and specific match tactics upon players' return to play.

Engineering Innovative Interfaces for Point-of-Care Diagnostics

The ongoing Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic illustrates the need for sensitive and reliable tools to diagnose and monitor diseases. Traditional diagnostic approaches rely on centralized laboratory tests that result in long wait times to results and reduce the number of tests that can be given. Point-of-care tests (POCTs) are a group of technologies that miniaturize clinical assays into portable form factors that can be run both in clinical areas --in place of traditional tests-- and outside of traditional clinical settings --to enable new testing paradigms. Hallmark examples of POCTs are the pregnancy test lateral flow assay and the blood glucose meter. Other uses for POCTs include diagnostic assays for diseases like COVID-19, HIV, and malaria but despite some successes, there are still unsolved challenges for fully translating these lower cost and more versatile solutions. To overcome these challenges, researchers have exploited innovations in colloid and interface science to develop various designs of POCTs for clinical applications. Herein, we provide a review of recent advancements in lateral flow assays, other paper based POCTs, protein microarray assays, microbead flow assays, and nucleic acid amplification assays. Features that are desirable to integrate into future POCTs, including simplified sample collection, end-to-end connectivity, and machine learning, are also discussed in this review.

The Diagnostic Accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Nasal Rapid Antigen Self-Test: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a disease that quickly spread into a pandemic. As such, management of the COVID-19 pandemic is deemed necessary, and it can be achieved by using reliable diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2. The gold standard for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 is a molecular detection test using the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction technique (rt-PCR), which is characterized by various disadvantages in contrast with the self-taken nasal rapid antigen tests that produce results faster, have lower costs and do not require specialized personnel. Therefore, the usefulness of self-taken rapid antigen tests is indisputable in disease management, facilitating both the health system and the examinees. Our systematic review aims to access the diagnostic accuracy of the self-taken nasal rapid antigen tests.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. All the studies included in this systematic review were found after searching the two databases, Scopus and PubΜed. All but original articles were excluded from this systematic review, while all the studies concerning self-taken rapid antigen tests with a nasal sample and using rt-PCR as a reference test were included. Meta-analysis results and plots were obtained using RevMan software and the MetaDTA website.

RESULTS

All 22 studies included in this meta-analysis demonstrated a specificity of self-taken rapid antigen tests greater than 98%, which exceeds the minimum required yield for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, according to the WHO. Notwithstanding, the sensitivity varies (from 40% to 98.7%), which makes them in some cases unsuitable for the diagnosis of positive cases. In the majority of the studies, the minimum required performance set by the WHO was achieved, which is 80% compared with rt-PCR tests. The pooled sensitivity of self-taken nasal rapid antigen tests was calculated as 91.1% and the pooled specificity was 99.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, self-taken nasal rapid antigen tests have many advantages over rt-PCR tests, such as those related to the rapid reading of the results and their low cost. They also have considerable specificity and some self-taken rapid antigen test kits also have remarkable sensitivity. Consequently, self-taken rapid antigen tests have a wide range of utility but are not able to completely replace rt-PCR tests.

Evaluating the Value of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody-Based Tests for COVID-19 Diagnosis

BACKGROUND

The early detection of COVID-19 patients is fundamental for containing the pandemic. A reverse-transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), which detects SARS-CoV-2 RNA, is the gold standard diagnostic test, although it can contribute to false-negative results. Consequently, supplementary diagnostic tests are urgently needed.

METHODS

To assess the value of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody-based tests for confirming COVID-19, a retrospective study was conducted on 3120 inbound overseas travelers who underwent a 14-day government quarantine in Xiamen from August 2020 to October 2020. The diagnostic accuracy of the total antibody that detected the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody and the RT-PCR that detected SARS-CoV-2 RNA was determined in comparison to the clinical diagnosis.

RESULTS

The COVID-19 positive rate was 3.14% (98/3120). The sensitivity and specificity of the RT-PCR test on the first day of quarantine were 14.29% and 100%, respectively, and the sensitivity and specificity of the total antibody were 93.88% and 99.40%, respectively. The kappa value between an RT-PCR on the first day of quarantine and a clinical diagnosis was 0.24 (95% CI, 0.14-0.35), indicating poor consistency. The kappa value between total antibodies and a clinical diagnosis was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.83-0.93), indicating perfect consistency. There were no differences in the positive rates of an RT-PCR in symptomatic COVID-19 (7.41% (2/27)) and asymptomatic COVID-19 (16.90 (12/71) (p = 0.338). Similarly, the positive rate of the total antibody tests showed no difference in symptomatic COVID-19 (96.30% (26/27)) and asymptomatic COVID-19 (92.96% (66/71)) (p = 0.676).

CONCLUSION

SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are developed by the body in response to an infection or after vaccination; this can easily lead to a missed diagnosis. In the context of low sensitivity for an RT-PCR, SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection is an effective adjunct to RT-PCR detection, which can improve the diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 and provide an effective complement to the false-negative results of an RT-PCR.

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.

Meta-analysis of COVID-19 prevalence during preoperative COVID-19 screening in asymptomatic patients

OBJECTIVES

Patients with COVID-19 may be asymptomatic and are able to transmit COVID-19 during a surgical procedure, resulting in increased pressure on healthcare and reduced control of COVID-19 spread. There remains uncertainty about the implementation of preoperative screening for COVID-19 in asymptomatic surgical patients. Therefore, this study aims to determine the prevalence of preoperative COVID-19, confirmed by reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR), in asymptomatic patients.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Pubmed and Embase databases were searched through 20 February 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All COVID-19 articles including preoperative asymptomatic patients were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analysis was performed to determine the prevalence of COVID-19 with 95% CI. Moreover, estimated positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, false-positives (FP) and false-negatives were calculated for preoperative asymptomatic patients.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies containing 27 256 asymptomatic preoperative screened patients were included, of which 431 were positive for COVID-19 by RT-PCR test. In addition, the meta-analysis revealed a pooled COVID-19 prevalence of 0.76% (95% CI 0.36% to 1.59%). The calculated PPV for this prevalence is 40.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

The pooled COVID-19 prevalence in asymptomatic patients tested preoperatively was 0.76%, with low corresponding PPV. Consequently, nearly three-quarters of postponed surgical procedures in asymptomatic preoperative patients may be FP. In the event of similar pandemics, modification of preoperative mandatory RT-PCR COVID-19 testing in asymptomatic patients may be considered.

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.

Rapid screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection: Good performance of nasopharyngeal and Nasal Mid-Turbinate swab for antigen detection among symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals

Although the nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of the SARS-CoV-2 infection, the Nasal Mid-Turbinate swab (NMTS) is often used due to its higher tolerance among patients. We compared the diagnostic performance of the NPS and the NMTS for the Panbio™ COVID-19 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT). Two hundred and forty-three individuals were swabbed three times by healthcare professionals: a NMTS and a NPS specimen for the Ag-RDT and an oropharyngeal swab for real time RT-PCR. Forty-nine participants were RNA-SARS-CoV-2 positive by real time RT-PCR: 45 and 40 were positive by the Ag-RDT with NPS and NMTS, respectively. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 91.8% (95% CI: 83.2–100.0) and 99.5% (95% CI: 98.2–100.0) for Ag-RDT with NPS, and 81.6% (95% CI: 69.8–93.5) and 100.0% (95% CI: 99.7–100.0) for the Ag-RDT with NMTS. The Cohen’s kappa index was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.85–0.98). Among asymptomatic individuals, the Ag-RDT with both sampling techniques showed a high sensitivity [100.0% (95% CI: 95.5–100.0) with NPS; 90.9% (95% CI: 69.4–100.0) with NMTS], while the performance of the test decreased in samples with Ct≥ 30 and in patients tested after the first 7 days from symptom onset. Although the NMTS yielded a lower sensitivity compared to NPS, it might be considered a reliable alternative, as it presents greater adherence among patients, enabling scaling of antigen testing strategies, particularly in countries with under-resourced health systems.

Comparison between Nasal and Nasopharyngeal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Detection in an Asymptomatic Population, and Direct Confirmation by RT-PCR from the Residual Buffer

Containment measures employed during the COVID-19 pandemic included prompt recognition of cases, isolation, and contact tracing. Bilateral nasal (NA) swabs applied to a commercial antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) offer a simpler and more comfortable alternative to nasopharyngeal (NP) collection; however, little is known about the sensitivity of this method in an asymptomatic population. Participants in community-based asymptomatic testing sites were screened for SARS-CoV-2 using an Ag-RDT with NP sampling. Positive individuals returned for confirmatory molecular testing and consented to repeating the Ag-RDT using a bilateral NA swab for comparison. Residual test buffer (RTB) from Ag-RDTs was subjected to real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR). Of 123,617 asymptomatic individuals, 197 NP Ag-RDT-positive participants were included, with 175 confirmed positive by RT-PCR. Of these cases, 154 were identified from the NA swab collection with Ag-RDT, with a sensitivity of 88.0% compared to the NP swab collection. Stratifying results by RT-PCR cycle threshold demonstrated that sensitivity of the nasal collection method varied based on the cycle threshold (C_T) value of the paired RT-PCR sample. RT-PCR testing on the RTB from the Ag-RDT using NP and NA swab collections resulted in 100.0% and 98.7% sensitivity, respectively. NA swabs provide an adequate alternative to NP swab collection for use with Ag-RDT, with the recognition that the test is most sensitive in specimens with high viral loads. With the high sensitivity of RT-PCR testing on RTB from Ag-RDT, a more streamlined approach to confirmatory testing is possible without recollection or use of paired collections strategies.

IMPORTANCE Nasal swabbing for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) comes with many benefits but is slightly less sensitive than traditional nasopharyngeal swabbing; however, confirmatory lab-based testing could be performed directly from the residual buffer from either sample type.

Olfactory Dysfunction in COVID-19 Patients Who Do Not Report Olfactory Symptoms: A Pilot Study with Some Suggestions for Dentists

BACKGROUND

Smell and taste dysfunction are frequently reported by SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. The degree of olfactory and gustatory dysfunction varies from a very mild reduction to their complete loss. Several studies have been performed to determine their prevalence in COVID-19 patients, mostly using subjective measurement methods. The literature lacks long-term studies regarding duration and recovery.

METHODS

We assessed olfactory performance, using the Sniffin' Sticks olfactory test, in a group of patients who had not reported olfactory dysfunction, around 131 days after their COVID-19 diagnosis.

RESULTS

11 out of 20 subjects showed no olfactory reduction (65%), while 9 subjects showed reduced TDI score (45%). A total of 13 subjects (65%) scored above the cutoff point for Threshold, 16 subjects (80%) scored above the cutoff point for discrimination and 13 subjects (65%) scored above the cutoff point for identification.

CONCLUSION

Objective measurement methods of olfactory performance show a higher prevalence of olfactory reduction compared to patients' self-reported questionnaires. Olfactory dysfunction can last even months after its onset and because of its high prevalence, it could be a screening symptom for suspect COVID-19 cases.