Diagnostic accuracy of antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for diagnosis of COVID-19 in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Ensuring diagnostic testing accuracy for patient care and public health- COVID-19 testing scale-up from an EQA provider's perspective

In response to the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) and scale up of diagnostic testing, the Canadian Microbiology Proficiency Testing program created a new proficiency testing (PT) program for the molecular and antigen detection of SARS-CoV-2. The program was geared to point of care testing (POCT) sites located in each of the eight provincial Health Authorities across British Columbia, Canada, with the intention to monitor testing quality. The PT program consisted of 6 shipments in a year, each containing a set of 4 samples either positive for SARS-CoV-2 virus or negative. The program began with initial 23 sites enrolling in March 2021, expanding to >100 participants by December 2021. After the first two surveys, it was observed that testing performance (accuracy) was consistently acceptable for sites using nucleic acid technology (NAT), however performance by sites using rapid antigen detection (RAD) methods was poor, especially when testing the weakly positive samples. A root cause investigation of poor testing performance revealed gaps in the execution of testing methods and also in results interpretation. These quality issues were most commonly associated with new testers who lacked experience with diagnostic testing. Tester training and mentoring was reinforced as was retraining of personnel; sample processing instructions were modified, and a training video was also created for testing sites. As a result of these interventions, sites improved their testing accuracy and the performance of POCT sites using RAD methods came to more closely match the performance of sites utilizing NAT. Overall, the PT program was highly successfully and improved quality of testing in the province. This work demonstrates the critical value of an external quality assessment (EQA) partner towards improving patient and public health and safety, especially when testing is conducted outside of an accredited medical laboratory setting.

Factors Associated with COVID-19 Death in a High-Altitude Peruvian Setting during the First 14 Months of the Pandemic: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study in Hospitalized Patients

Risk factors for COVID-19 death in high-altitude populations have been scarcely described. This study aimed to describe risk factors for COVID-19 death in three referral hospitals located at 3399 m in Cusco, Peru, during the first 14 months of the pandemic. A retrospective multicenter cohort study was conducted. A random sample of ~50% (1225/2674) of adult hospitalized patients who died between 1 March 2020 and 30 June 2021 was identified. Of those, 977 individuals met the definition of death by COVID-19. Demographic characteristics, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, invasive respiratory support (IRS), disease severity, comorbidities, and clinical manifestation at hospital admission were assessed as risk factors using Cox proportional-hazard models. In multivariable models adjusted by age, sex, and pandemic periods, critical disease (vs. moderate) was associated with a greater risk of death (aHR: 1.27; 95%CI: 1.14–1.142), whereas ICU admission (aHR: 0.39; 95%CI: 0.27–0.56), IRS (aHR: 0.37; 95%CI: 0.26–0.54), the ratio of oxygen saturation (ROX) index ≥ 5.3 (aHR: 0.87; 95%CI: 0.80–0.94), and the ratio of SatO2/FiO2 ≥ 122.6 (aHR: 0.96; 95%CI: 0.93–0.98) were associated with a lower risk of death. The risk factors described here may be useful in assisting decision making and resource allocation.

Evaluation of Various Alternative Economical and High Throughput SARS-CoV-2 Testing Methods within Resource-Limited Settings

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak posed a challenge for diagnostic laboratories worldwide, with low-middle income countries (LMICs) being the most affected. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is the gold standard method for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, the challenge with this method is that it is expensive, which has resulted in under-testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection in many LMICs. Hence, this study aimed to compare and evaluate alternative methods for the mass testing of SARS-CoV-2 infection in laboratories with limited resources to identify cost-effective, faster, and accurate alternatives to the internationally approved kits. A total of 50 residual nasopharyngeal swab samples were used for evaluation and comparison between internationally approved kits (Thermo Fisher PureLink™ RNA Isolation Kit and Thermo Fisher TaqPath™ COVID-19 Assay Kit) and alternative methods (three RNA extraction and four commercial SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay kits) in terms of the cost analysis, diagnostic accuracy, and turnaround time. In terms of performance, all of the alternative RNA extraction methods evaluated were comparable to the internationally approved kits but were more cost-effective (Lucigen QuickExtract™ RNA Extraction Kit, Bosphore EX-Tract Dry Swab RNA Solution and Sonicator method) and four commercial SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay kits (Nucleic Acid COVID-19 Test Kit (SARS-CoV-2), abTES^TM COVID-19 qPCR I Kit, PCL COVID19 Speedy RT-PCR Kit, and PCLMD nCoV One-Step RT-PCR Kit) with a sensitivity range of 76-100% and specificity of 96-100%. The cost per sample was reduced by more than 50% when compared to internationally approved kits. When compared to the Thermo Fisher PureLink™ Kit and Thermo Fisher TaqPath™ COVID-19 Assay Kit, the alternative methods had a faster turnaround time, indicating that laboratories with limited resources may be able to process more samples in a day. The above-mentioned cost-effective, fast, and accurate evaluated alternative methods can be used in routine diagnostic laboratories with limited resources for mass testing for SARS-CoV-2 because these were comparable to the internationally approved kits, Thermo Fisher PureLink™ Kit and Thermo Fisher TaqPath™ COVID-19 Assay Kit. The implementation of alternative methods will be the most cost-effective option for testing SARS-CoV-2 infection in LMICs.