Clinical Performance of the Standard Q COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test and Simulation of its Real-World Application in Korea

Clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic test using SERS-based lateral flow immunoassay

Background

'ACROSIS COVID-19 Ag (NPS)' kit (SG Medical, Seoul, Korea) is a newly developed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen-detection rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) using surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS)-based lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA). We evaluated its clinical performance compared with STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag (SD Biosensor, Suwon, Korea), a previously approved Ag-RDT.

Methods

A total of 286 nasopharyngeal swab specimens were collected: 104 positive and 182 negative specimens in SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse-transcription polymerase-chain-reaction (rRT-PCR). SARS-CoV-2-positive specimens were divided according to the cycle threshold (Ct) value in rRT-PCR. The clinical performance of ACROSIS was compared with that of STANDARD Q.

Results

ACROSIS showed significantly higher sensitivity than STANDARD Q (92.3% vs. 85.6%, P = 0.02), especially in specimens with 25 ≤ Ct < 30 (78.6% vs. 42.9%). The Ct values of RdRp/S genes for 95% detection rates by ACROSIS and STANDARD Q were 25.8 and 23.0, respectively.

Conclusions

This is the first study that evaluated the performance of ACROSIS compared with STANDARD Q. The overall clinical performance of ACROSIS was superior to that of STANDARD Q, especially in specimens with 25 ≤ Ct < 30. ACROSIS could be useful for SARS-CoV-2 Ag detection even in relatively low viral load specimens.

Field evaluations of four SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests during SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant wave in South Africa

BACKGROUND

Rapid antigen tests detecting SARS-CoV-2 were shown to be a useful tool in managing the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we report on the results of a prospective diagnostic accuracy study of four SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests in a South African setting.

METHODS

Rapid antigen test evaluations were performed through drive-through testing centres in Durban, South Africa, from July to December 2021. Two evaluation studies were performed: nasal Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device (Abbott) was evaluated in parallel with the nasopharyngeal Espline SARS-CoV-2 Ag test (Fujirebio), followed by the evaluation of nasal RightSign COVID-19 Antigen Rapid test Cassette (Hangzhou Biotest Biotech) in parallel with the nasopharyngeal STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag test (SD Biosensor). The Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay was used as a reference test.

RESULTS

Evaluation of Panbio and Espline Ag tests was performed on 494 samples (31% positivity), while the evaluation of Standard Q and RightTest Ag tests was performed on 539 samples (13.17% positivity). The overall sensitivity for all four tests ranged between 60 and 72% with excellent specificity values (> 98%). Sensitivity increased to > 80% in all tests in samples with cycle number value < 20. All four tests performed best in samples from patients presenting within the first week of symptom onset.

CONCLUSIONS

All four evaluated tests detected a majority of the cases within the first week of symptom onset with high viral load.

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.

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.

ATR-FTIR spectrum analysis of plasma samples for rapid identification of recovered COVID-19 individuals

The development of fast, cheap and reliable methods to determine seroconversion against infectious agents is of great practical importance. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, an important issue is to study the rate of formation of the immune layer in the population of different regions, as well as the study of the formation of post-vaccination immunity in individuals after vaccination. Currently, the main method for this kind of research is enzyme immunoassay (ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay). This technique is sufficiently sensitive and specific, but it requires significant time and material costs. We investigated the applicability of attenuated total reflection (ATR) Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy associated with machine learning in blood plasma to detect seroconversion against SARS-CoV-2. The study included samples of 60 patients. Clear spectral differences in plasma samples from recovered COVID-19 patients and conditionally healthy donors were identified using multivariate and statistical analysis. The results showed that ATR-FTIR spectroscopy, combined with principal components analysis (PCA) and linear discriminant analysis (LDA) or artificial neural network (ANN), made it possible to efficiently identify specimens from recovered COVID-19 patients. We built classification models based on PCA associated with LDA and ANN. Our analysis led to 87% accuracy for PCA-LDA model and 91% accuracy for ANN, respectively. Based on this proof-of-concept study, we believe this method could offer a simple, label-free, cost-effective tool for detecting seroconversion against SARS-CoV-2. This approach could be used as an alternative to ELISA.

Real-World Accuracy of a SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Diagnostic Tests in the Republic of Korea

Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) became the most important tool for the diagnosis of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), however there have been very few evaluations of the accuracy of the RDTs in actual use. In this study, we investigated the performance accuracy of the RDT, the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag (STANDARD Q), in the Republic of Korea. We collected a total of 5,792 results that underwent both RDT and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction simultaneously, and overall sensitivity and specificity of the STANDARD Q were 57.6% and 99.9%, respectively. With binomial logistic regression analysis, we estimated that about half of the COVID-19 patients with a cycle threshold value of 25 for E and RdRP were RDT-negative. These results suggest that the clinical sensitivity of RDTs against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is considerably low in a real-world setting, and we recommend that limitations of RDTs should be considered when setting up COVID-19 test strategies.

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.

Update of Guidelines for Laboratory Diagnosis of COVID-19 in Korea

Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine and the Korea Disease Prevention and Control Agency have announced guidelines for diagnosing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in clinical laboratories in Korea. With the ongoing pandemic, we propose an update of the previous guidelines based on new scientific data. This update includes recommendations for tests that were not included in the previous guidelines, including the rapid molecular test, antigen test, antibody test, and self-collected specimens, and a revision of the previous recommendations. This update will aid clinical laboratories in performing laboratory tests for diagnosing COVID-19.

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.

Performance evaluation of STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag home test for the diagnosis of COVID-19 during early symptom onset

BACKGROUND

Surveillance and control of SARS-CoV-2 outbreak through gold standard detection, that is, real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), become a great obstacle, especially in overwhelming outbreaks. In this study, we aimed to analyze the performance of rapid antigen home test (RAHT) as an alternative detection method compared with RT-PCR.

METHODS

In total, 79 COVID-19-positive and 217 COVID-19-negative patients confirmed by RT-PCR were enrolled in this study. A duration from symptom onset to COVID-19 confirmation of <5 days was considered a recruiting criterion for COVID-19-positive cases. A nasal cavity specimen was collected for the RAHT, and a nasopharyngeal swab specimen was collected for RT-PCR.

RESULTS

Sensitivity of the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Home Test (SD Biosensor, Korea), compared with RT-PCR, was 94.94% (75/79) (95% [confidence interval] CI, 87.54%-98.60%), and specificity was 100%. Sensitivity was significantly higher in symptomatic patients (98.00%) than in asymptomatic (89.66%) patients (p-value = 0.03). There was no difference in sensitivity according to the duration of symptom onset to confirmation (100% for 0-2 days and 96.97% for 3-5 days, respectively) (p-value = 1.00). The RAHT detected all 51 COVID-19 patients whose Ct values were ≤25 (100%), whereas sensitivity was 73.33% (11/15) among patients with Ct values >25 (p-value = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The RAHT showed an excellent sensitivity for COVID-19-confirmed cases, especially for those with symptoms. There was a decrease in sensitivity when the Ct value is over 25, indicating that RAHT screening may be useful during the early phase of symptom onset, when the viral numbers are higher and it is more transmissible.

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.

SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Testing Intervals: Twice or Thrice a Week?

Antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 has become an increasingly prominent screening tool in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and can be performed multiple times a week. However, the optimal weekly frequency of antigen testing is unclear; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends 1-3 times a week, while some experts support testing 2-3 times a week. In our own laboratory, all staff (n = 161) underwent twice- and thrice-weekly antigen tests during different periods from August 2021 to the present as part of routine COVID-19 surveillance of healthcare workers. No cases of COVID-19 were detected with either regimen. While more frequent SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing may allow antigen testing to be an important surrogate for RT-PCR testing, performing SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests twice or thrice a week shows no inferiority to each other in screening for COVID-19.

Pandemic in between waves

Aim - The aim of this study was to assess the epidemiological & clinical characteristics of patients attending covid-19 screening centre in-between the first & second wave. The study period falls between receding first wave to beginning of second wave. Materials and method - The medical records and data from screening area of Government Medical Collage Datia, with confirmed Covid-19 cases, as reported between 1st October 2020 to 8th February 2021, were collected. Covid-19 symptoms were diagnosed on the basis of the WHO interim guidelines. A confirmed case of Covid-19 was defined as a positive result on real-time RAT assay of nasal swab. The RAT were performed by Standard Q Covid-19 Ag by SD BIOSENSOR. The procedure for collecting nasal swabs entails swabbing at least three times separately using a nylon-flocked swab. The entire procedure was in strict accordance with the standard protocol. Epidemiological data of all the patients with clinical findings and positivity rate was recorded in detail. Result - In our study, the total number of patients tested was 4427 of which 1987 were males & 2440 were females. Out of 1987 male suspects, 211 tested positive whereas out of 2440 female suspects, 64 tested positive. 

Evaluation of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Nasal Cavity and Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Detection via Rapid Antigen Test According to Specimen Collection Timing and Viral Load

The rapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 is an essential aspect in the detection and control of the spread of COVID-19. We evaluated the accuracy of the rapid antigen test (RAT) using samples from the nasal cavity and nasopharynx based on sample collection timing and viral load. We enrolled 175 patients, of which 71 patients and 104 patients had tested positive and negative, respectively, based on real time-PCR. Nasal cavity and nasopharyngeal swab samples were tested using STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag tests (Q Ag, SD Biosensor, Korea). The sensitivity of the Q Ag test was 77.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67.8−87.2%) for the nasal cavity and 81.7% (95% [CI, 72.7−90.7%) for the nasopharyngeal specimens. The RAT results showed a substantial agreement between the nasal cavity and nasopharyngeal specimens (Cohen’s kappa index = 0.78). The sensitivity of the RAT for nasal cavity specimens exceeded 89% for <5 days after symptom onset (DSO) and 86% for Ct of E and RdRp < 25. The Q Ag test performed fairly well, especially in the early DSO when a high viral load was present, and the nasal cavity swab can be considered an alternative site for the rapid diagnosis of COVID-19.

Analysis of the Efficacy of Universal Screening of Coronavirus Disease with Antigen-Detecting Rapid Diagnostic Tests at Point-or-Care Settings and Sharing the Experience of Admission Protocol—A Pilot Study

Aims: To introduce the admission protocol of a COVID-19 specialized hospital outlined by the government, including the assessment of reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), low dose chest computed tomography (CT) and antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) for patient screening. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of 646 patients who were admitted between December 2020, and February 2021, during the third wave of COVID-19 in Korea. Ag-RDT and RT-PCR were routinely performed on all patients who required admission, and low-dose chest CT was performed on high-risk patients with associated symptoms. Any patients with high-risk COVID-19 infection according to the Ag-RDT test were quarantined alone in a negative pressured room, and those with low-risk COVID-19 infection remained in the preemptive quarantine room with or without negative pressure. The diagnostic values of the Ag-RDT test and associated cycle threshold (Ct) values of the RT-PCR test were subsequently evaluated. Results: In terms of the diagnostic value, the Ag-RDT for COVID-19 had a sensitivity of 68.3%, specificity of 99.5%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 90.3%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.9%. For the 355 symptomatic patients with low-dose chest CT, the diagnostic values of combined evaluations had a sensitivity of 90.2%, specificity of 99.0%, PPV of 86.1%, and NPV of 99.3%. The cut-off Ct value for positive Ag-RDT was ≤25.67 for the N gene (sensitivity: 89.3%, specificity: 100%), which was regarded as a high viable virus in cell culture. There were no patients or medical staff who had COVID-19 in the hospital. Conclusion: Appropriate patient care was possible by definitive triage of the area, according to the symptoms and using diagnostic tests. Screening protocols, including the Ag-RDT test and low-dose chest CT, could be helpful in emergency point-of-care settings.

Clinical Evaluation of the Rapid STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test for the Screening of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2

Standard tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detect the presence of viral RNA using real-time reverse transcription (rRT)-PCR. Recently, convenient, rapid, and relatively inexpensive SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Ag) detection methods have been developed. The STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag test (SD Biosensor, Inc., Suwon, Korea) is a rapid immunochromatography test that qualitatively detects the nucleocapsid protein of SARS-CoV-2 using gold conjugated antibodies. We evaluated its performance in comparison with that of Allplex 2019-nCoV Assay (Seegene, Seoul, Korea) in a retrospective case-control study using residual samples. The sensitivity and specificity of the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag test were 89.2% (58/65) and 96.0% (96/100), respectively. Cycle threshold (Ct) values for the three target SARS-CoV-2 genes (envelope, RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, and nucleocapsid genes) included in Allplex 2019-nCoV Assay were significantly lower in Ag test-positive patients than in Ag test-negative patients (P<0.001). The Ag test sensitivity was higher in samples with Ct≤30 and those collected one to five days post symptom onset. In conclusion, the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag test can serve as an alternative in high-prevalence settings, when the low sensitivity is compensated or when rRT-PCR tests are limited.

Limited Sensitivity of a Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection Assay for Surveillance of Asymptomatic Individuals in Thailand

COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and is a global pandemic. Therefore, rapid and accurate tests for SARS-CoV-2 screening are urgently needed to expedite disease prevention and control especially in community transmission. Since late December 2020, Thailand has faced a new wave of COVID-19 outbreaks. The Thai National Disease Control program at the Ministry of Public Health has identified suitable measure for mass screening. A SARS-CoV-2 antigen-based assay is a surveillance option for active cases. Here, we evaluated the feasibility and test performance of a rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen test during our field activities in 1,100 asymptomatic individuals in Samut Sakhon, Thailand, during the second wave COVID-19 outbreak (December 26-30, 2020). The results showed that the rapid antigen test had a sensitivity of 47.97% (95% CI: 36.10-59.96%) and a specificity of 99.71% (95% CI: 99.15-99.94%) versus standard reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. The rapid test performed better in cases with higher viral loads determined by the cycle threshold value. In real-world setting, the test performance can be compromised by several factors including viral loads, logistic chains, temperature, technical expertise of the operators, validity, and accuracy of the testing itself. Our study highlights a prerequisite for reevaluation of any given testing before implementing it at the national level.

Evaluation of a Rapid Antigen Test To Detect SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Identify Potentially Infectious Individuals

The identification and isolation of highly infectious SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals is an important public health strategy. Rapid antigen detection tests (RADT) are promising tools for large-scale screenings due to timely results and feasibility for on-site testing. Nonetheless, the diagnostic performance of RADT in detecting infectious individuals is not yet fully determined. In this study, RT-qPCR and virus culture of RT-qPCR-positive samples were used to evaluate and compare the performance of the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test in detecting SARS-CoV-2-infected and possibly infectious individuals. To this end, two combined oro- and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected at a routine SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic center. A total of 2,028 samples were tested, and 118 virus cultures were inoculated. SARS-CoV-2 infection was detected in 210 samples by RT-qPCR, representing a positive rate of 10.36%. The Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test yielded a positive result in 92 (4.54%) samples resulting in an overall sensitivity and specificity of 42.86 and 99.89%, respectively. For adjusted C_T values of <20 (n = 14), <25 (n = 57), and <30 (n = 88), the RADT reached sensitivities of 100, 98.25, and 88.64%, respectively. All 29 culture-positive samples were detected by the RADT. Although the overall sensitivity was low, the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test reliably detected patients with high RNA loads. In addition, negative RADT results fully corresponded with the lack of viral cultivability in Vero E6 cells. These results indicate that RADT can be a valuable tool for the detection of individuals with high RNA loads that are likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2.