Detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population by three prevailing rapid antigen tests: cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy 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.

The epidemiological impact of digital and manual contact tracing on the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in the Netherlands: Empirical evidence

The Dutch government introduced the CoronaMelder smartphone application for digital contact tracing (DCT) to complement manual contact tracing (MCT) by Public Health Services (PHS) during the 2020-2022 SARS-CoV-2 epidemic. Modelling studies showed great potential but empirical evidence of DCT and MCT impact is scarce. We determined reasons for testing, and mean exposure-testing intervals by reason for testing, using routine data from PHS Amsterdam (1 December 2020 to 31 May 2021) and data from two SARS-CoV-2 rapid diagnostic test accuracy studies at other PHS sites in the Netherlands (14 December 2020 to 18 June 2021). Throughout the study periods, notification of DCT-identified contacts was via PHS contact-tracers, and self-testing was not yet widely available. The most commonly reported reason for testing was having symptoms. In asymptomatic individuals, it was having been warned by an index case. Only around 2% and 2-5% of all tests took place after DCT or MCT notification, respectively. About 20-36% of those who had received a DCT or MCT notification had symptoms at the time of test request. Test positivity after a DCT notification was significantly lower, and exposure-test intervals after a DCT or MCT notification were longer, than for the above-mentioned other reasons for testing. Our data suggest that the impact of DCT and MCT on the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in the Netherlands was limited. However, DCT impact might be enlarged if app use coverage is improved, contact-tracers are eliminated from the digital notification process to minimise delays, and DCT is combined with self-testing.

Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of two point-of-care tests for COVID-19 when used in symptomatic patients in community settings in the UK primary care COVID diagnostic accuracy platform trial (RAPTOR-C19)

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Point-of-care lateral flow device antigen testing has been used extensively to identify individuals with active SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of two point-of-care tests (POCTs) for SARS-CoV-2 in routine community care.

METHODS

Adults and children with symptoms consistent with suspected current COVID-19 infection were prospectively recruited from 19 UK general practices and two COVID-19 testing centres between October 2020 and October 2021. Participants were tested by trained healthcare workers using at least one of two index POCTs (Roche-branded SD Biosensor Standard™ Q SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test and/or BD Veritor™ System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2). The reference standard was laboratory triplex reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-PCR) using a combined nasal/oropharyngeal swab. Diagnostic accuracy parameters were estimated, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), overall, in relation to RT-PCR cycle threshold and in pre-specified subgroups.

RESULTS

Of 663 participants included in the primary analysis, 39.2% (260/663, 95% CI 35.5% to 43.0%) had a positive RT-PCR result. The SD Biosensor POCT had sensitivity 84.0% (178/212, 78.3% to 88.6%) and specificity 98.5% (328/333, 96.5% to 99.5%), and the BD Veritor POCT had sensitivity 76.5% (127/166, 69.3% to 82.7%) and specificity 98.8% (249/252, 96.6% to 99.8%) compared with RT-PCR. Sensitivity of both devices dropped substantially at cycle thresholds ≥30 and in participants more than 7 days after onset of symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Both POCTs assessed exceed the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency target product profile's minimum acceptable specificity of 95%. Confidence intervals for both tests include the minimum acceptable sensitivity of 80%. In symptomatic patients, negative results on these two POCTs do not preclude the possibility of infection. Tests should not be expected to reliably detect disease more than a week after symptom onset, when viral load may be reduced.

REGISTRATION

ISRCTN142269.

Regional Evaluation of Two SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests in East Africa

The clinical performance of two rapid antigen tests for the diagnosis of Severe Acute Respiratory Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) were regionally evaluated in East African populations. Swabs were collected from 1,432 individuals from five Partner States of the East African Community (Tanzania, Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda and South Sudan). The two rapid antigen tests (Bionote NowCheck COVID-19 Ag and SD Biosensor STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag) were evaluated against the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by the Reverse Transcription PCR (RT-PCR) gold standard. Of the concordant results with both RT-PCR and rapid antigen test data (862 for Bionote and 852 for SD Biosensor), overall clinical sensitivity was 60% and 50% for the Bionote NowCheck and the SD Biosensor STANDARD Q, respectively. Stratification by viral load, including samples with RT-PCR cycle thresholds (Ct) of <25, improved sensitivity to 90% for both rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs). Overall specificity was good at 99% for both antigen tests. Taken together, the clinical performance of both Ag-RDTs in real world settings within the East African target population was lower than has been reported elsewhere and below the acceptable levels for sensitivity of >80%, as defined by the WHO. Therefore, the rapid antigen test alone should not be used for diagnosis but could be used as part of an algorithm to identify potentially infectious individuals with high viral load. IMPORTANCE Accurate diagnostic tests are essential to both support the management and containment of outbreaks, as well as inform appropriate patient care. In the case of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests (Ag-RDTs) played a major role in this function, enabling widespread testing by untrained individuals, both at home and within health facilities. In East Africa, a number of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs are available; however, there remains little information on their true test performance within the region, in the hands of the health workers routinely carrying out SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. This study contributes test performance data for two commonly used SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs in East Africa, which will help inform the use of these RDTs within the region.

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.

Head-to-head comparison of the accuracy of saliva and nasal rapid antigen SARS-CoV-2 self-testing: cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The diagnostic accuracy of unsupervised self-testing with rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) is mostly unknown. We studied the diagnostic accuracy of a self-performed SARS-CoV-2 saliva and nasal Ag-RDT in the general population.

METHODS

This large cross-sectional study consecutively included unselected individuals aged ≥ 16 years presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing at three public health service test sites. Participants underwent molecular test sampling and received two self-tests (the Hangzhou AllTest Biotech saliva self-test and the SD Biosensor nasal self-test by Roche Diagnostics) to perform themselves at home. Diagnostic accuracy of both self-tests was assessed with molecular testing as reference.

RESULTS

Out of 2819 participants, 6.5% had a positive molecular test. Overall sensitivities were 46.7% (39.3-54.2%) for the saliva Ag-RDT and 68.9% (61.6-75.6%) for the nasal Ag-RDT. With a viral load cut-off (≥ 5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL) as a proxy of infectiousness, these sensitivities increased to 54.9% (46.4-63.3%) and 83.9% (76.9-89.5%), respectively. For the nasal Ag-RDT, sensitivities were 78.5% (71.1-84.8%) and 22.6% (9.6-41.1%) in those symptomatic and asymptomatic at the time of sampling, which increased to 90.4% (83.8-94.9%) and 38.9% (17.3-64.3%) after applying the viral load cut-off. In those with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, sensitivities were 36.8% (16.3-61.6%) and 72.7% (65.1-79.4%). Specificities were > 99% and > 99%, positive predictive values > 70% and > 90%, and negative predictive values > 95% and > 95%, for the saliva and nasal Ag-RDT, respectively, in most analyses. Most participants considered the self-performing and result interpretation (very) easy for both self-tests.

CONCLUSIONS

The Hangzhou AllTest Biotech saliva self Ag-RDT is not reliable for SARS-CoV-2 detection, overall, and in all studied subgroups. The SD Biosensor nasal self Ag-RDT had high sensitivity in individuals with symptoms and in those without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection but low sensitivity in asymptomatic individuals and those with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection which warrants further investigation.

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.

Diagnostic accuracy of covid-19 rapid antigen tests with unsupervised self-sampling in people with symptoms in the omicron period: cross sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the performance of rapid antigen tests with unsupervised nasal and combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling during the omicron period.

DESIGN

Prospective cross sectional diagnostic test accuracy study.

SETTING

Three public health service covid-19 test sites in the Netherlands, 21 December 2021 to 10 February 2022.

PARTICIPANTS

6497 people with covid-19 symptoms aged ≥16 years presenting for testing.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants had a swab sample taken for reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR, reference test) and received one rapid antigen test to perform unsupervised using either nasal self-sampling (during the emergence of omicron, and when omicron accounted for >90% of infections, phase 1) or with combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling in a subsequent (phase 2; when omicron accounted for >99% of infections). The evaluated tests were Flowflex (Acon Laboratories; phase 1 only), MPBio (MP Biomedicals), and Clinitest (Siemens-Healthineers).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of each self-test, with RT-PCR testing as the reference standard.

RESULTS

During phase 1, 45.0% (n=279) of participants in the Flowflex group, 29.1% (n=239) in the MPBio group, and 35.4% ((n=257) in the Clinitest group were confirmatory testers (previously tested positive by a self-test at own initiative). Overall sensitivities with nasal self-sampling were 79.0% (95% confidence interval 74.7% to 82.8%) for Flowflex, 69.9% (65.1% to 74.4%) for MPBio, and 70.2% (65.6% to 74.5%) for Clinitest. Sensitivities were substantially higher in confirmatory testers (93.6%, 83.6%, and 85.7%, respectively) than in those who tested for other reasons (52.4%, 51.5%, and 49.5%, respectively). Sensitivities decreased from 87.0% to 80.9% (P=0.16 by χ² test), 80.0% to 73.0% (P=0.60), and 83.1% to 70.3% (P=0.03), respectively, when transitioning from omicron accounting for 29% of infections to >95% of infections. During phase 2, 53.0% (n=288) of participants in the MPBio group and 44.4% (n=290) in the Clinitest group were confirmatory testers. Overall sensitivities with combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling were 83.0% (78.8% to 86.7%) for MPBio and 77.3% (72.9% to 81.2%) for Clinitest. When combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling was compared with nasal self-sampling, sensitivities were found to be slightly higher in confirmatory testers (87.4% and 86.1%, respectively) and substantially higher in those testing for other reasons (69.3% and 59.9%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Sensitivities of three rapid antigen tests with nasal self-sampling decreased during the emergence of omicron but was only statistically significant for Clinitest. Sensitivities appeared to be substantially influenced by the proportion of confirmatory testers. Sensitivities of MPBio and Clinitest improved after the addition of oropharyngeal to nasal self-sampling. A positive self-test result justifies prompt self-isolation without the need for confirmatory testing. Individuals with a negative self-test result should adhere to general preventive measures because a false negative result cannot be ruled out. Manufacturers of MPBio and Clinitest may consider extending their instructions for use to include combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling, and other manufacturers of rapid antigen tests should consider evaluating this as well.

Diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Panbio™ rapid antigen diagnostic tests in a 4,440-case clinical follow-up

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) Rapid Antigen Detection Testing (RADT) has been subjected to several evaluations in reference to diagnostic accuracy, ranging from small scale up to large population studies including nation-wide community-based studies. All confirmed the diagnostic accuracy of the tests which were strongly dependent upon the infection's population prevalence. In our retrospective study, parallel SARS-CoV-2 Panbio™ RADT assay, including real-time reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) tests, were aimed to evaluate diagnostic performance regarding the rapid antigen diagnostic testing. Out of 4,440 paired tests, 609 samples tested positive using RT-qPCR, resulting in a prevalence of 13.7%. Panbio detected 251 (5.7%) positive tested samples. Overall sensitivity was 41.2% (95% CI 37.4-45.2%) and overall specificity was 99.7% (95% CI 99.4-99.8%). Positive predictive value (PPV) was 95.1% (95% CI 91.8-97.1%) and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 91.4% (95% CI 90.5-92.2%). RADT sensitivity increased with stratification in reference to the results according to PCR Cycle threshold (Ct) and presence of the symptoms considerably influenced PPV and NPV. Sensitivity in the group of Ct values ≤ 20 was 91.2%, 68.6% within the Ct range of 20-25, 47.9% in the group of Ct values between 25 and 30, and 12.6% in the group of Ct values between 30 and 35. A follow-up of the positive cases aligned with RT-qPCR testing and comparison of the general population enrolled in the testing in which the fatal cases occurred enabled us to estimate real clinical diagnostic performance regarding the SARS-CoV-2 Panbio RADT. Based upon our results, we recommend the SARS-CoV-2 Panbio RADT tests be carried out as the primary test, without parallel PCR testing, only among high population prevalence rates of the infection and to be used for symptomatic individuals with average or low severe disease developmental risk. In the case of high risk regarding the development of severe infection complications, a parallel SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR is needed to be carried out to attain proper diagnostic accuracy and avoid delaying appropriate medical care.