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

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.

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.

Association Between Rapid Antigen Detection Tests and Real-Time Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

Objectives: We aimed to assess the association between rapid antigen detection tests and real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction assay for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and the Web of Science from their inception to 31 May 2023. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate false positives in the RADTs group, relative to those in the RT-PCR group, and subgroup analyses were conducted based on the different Ct value cut-offs (<40 or ≥40). We performed this study in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Results: Fifty-one studies were included and considered to be of moderate quality. We found a satisfactory overall false positive rate (0.01, 95% CI: 0.00-0.01) for the RADTs compared to RT-PCR. In the stratified analysis, we also found that the false positive rates of the RADTs did not increase when Ct values of RT-PCR (Ct < 40, 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00-0.01; Ct ≥ 40, 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00-0.01). Conclusion: In conclusion, the best available evidence supports an association between RADTs and RT-PCR. When Ct-values were analyzed using cut-off <40 or ≥40, this resulted in an estimated false positive rate of only 1%.

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.

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.

Evaluation of the Diagnostic Performance of a SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza A/B Combo Rapid Antigen Test in Respiratory Samples

This study aimed to evaluate the performance characteristics of a rapid antigen test developed to detect SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), influenza A virus (IAV), and influenza B virus (IBV) (flu) compared with those of the real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) method. One hundred SARS-CoV-2, one hundred IAV, and twenty-four IBV patients whose diagnoses were confirmed by clinical and laboratory methods were included in the patient group. Seventy-six patients, who were negative for all respiratory tract viruses, were included as the control group. The Panbio™ COVID-19/Flu A&B Rapid Panel test kit was used in the assays. The sensitivity values of the kit were 97.5%, 97.9%, and 33.33% for SARS-CoV-2, IAV, and IBV, respectively, in samples with a viral load below 20 Ct values. The sensitivity values of the kit were 16.7%, 36.5%, and 11.11% for SARS-CoV-2, IAV, and IBV, respectively, in samples with a viral load above 20 Ct. The kit's specificity was 100%. In conclusion, this kit demonstrated high sensitivity to SARS-CoV-2 and IAV for viral loads below 20 Ct values, but the sensitivity values were not compatible with PCR positivity for lower viral loads over 20 Ct values. Rapid antigen tests may be preferred as a routine screening tool in communal environments, especially in symptomatic individuals, when diagnosing SARS-CoV-2, IAV, and IBV with high caution.

Clinical Evaluation of an Antigen Home Test Using Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy and Stacking Pad for SARS-CoV-2 Screening with Nasal and Salivary Swab Samples

This prospective study aimed to evaluate the performance of the InstaView COVID-19 (coronavirus diseases 2019) Antigen Home Test (InstaView AHT) which detects severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigens. In this test kit, surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy was used, a stacking pad was inserted, and nasal swab and salivary swab samples were used simultaneously to improve performance. The clinical performance of the InstaView AHT was compared to that of RT-PCR using nasopharyngeal samples. The participants without any prior training were recruited and performed the sample collection, testing, and interpretation of the results by themselves. Of the 91 PCR-positive patients, 85 had positive InstaView AHT results. The sensitivity and specificity of the InstaView AHT were 93.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 86.2-97.5) and 99.4% (95% CI: 98.2-99.9). The sensitivity of the InstaView AHT was above 90% for all samples obtained from patients with Ct ≤ 20, 20 < Ct ≤ 25, and 25 < Ct ≤ 30 (100%, 95.1%, and 92.0%, respectively). The InstaView AHT can be used as an alternative to RT-PCR testing because of its relatively high sensitivity and specificity, especially when SARS-CoV-2 prevalence is high, and the availability of RT-PCR testing is limited.

Evaluation of Four Rapid Antigen Tests for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Infection with Nasopharyngeal Swabs

Owing to the high transmissibility of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants, the capacity of testing systems based on the gold standard real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) is limited. Rapid antigen tests (RATs) can substantially contribute to the prevention of community transmission, but their further assessment is required. Here, using 1503 nasopharyngeal swabs, we compared the diagnostic performance of four RAT kits (Abbott Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test, SD Biosensor Standard™ Q COVID-19 Ag Test, Humasis COVID-19 Ag Test, and SG Medical Acrosis COVID-19 Ag Test) to the cycle threshold (Ct) values obtained from rRT-PCR. The precision values, area under the curve values, SARS-CoV-2 variant detection ability, and non-SARS-CoV-2 specificity of all four kits were similar. An assay using the Acrosis kit had a significantly better positive detection rate with a higher recall value and cut-off value than that using the other three RAT kits. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, the Acrosis kit is an effective tool to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in communities.

Direct Nasal Swab for Rapid Test and Saliva as an Alternative Biological Sample for RT-PCR in COVID-19 Diagnosis

Accurate and early diagnoses are prerequisites for prompt treatment. For coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), it is even more crucial. Currently, choice of methods include rapid diagnostic tests and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) using samples mostly of respiratory origin and sometimes saliva. We evaluated two rapid diagnostic tests with three specimen types using viral transport medium (VTM) containing naso-oropharyngeal (NOP) swabs, direct nasal and direct nasopharyngeal (NP) samples from 428 prospective patients. We also performed RT-PCR for 428 NOP VTM and 316 saliva samples to compare results. The sensitivity of the SD Biosensor Standard Q COVID-19 antigen (Ag) test kit drastically raised from an average of 65.55% (NOP VTM) to 85.25% (direct nasal samples), while RT-PCR was the gold standard. For the CareStart kit, the sensitivity was almost similar for direct NP swabs; the average was 84.57%. The specificities were ≥95% for both SD Biosensor Standard Q and CareStart COVID-19 Ag tests in all platforms. The kits were also able to detect patients with different variants as well. Alternatively, RT-PCR results from saliva and NOP VTM samples showed high sensitivities of 96.45% and 95.48% with respect to each other as standard. The overall results demonstrated high performance of the rapid tests, indicating the suitability for regular surveillance at clinical facilities when using direct nasal or direct NP samples rather than NOP VTM. Additionally, the analysis also signifies not showed that RT-PCR of saliva can be used as an choice of method to RT-PCR of NOP VTM, providing an easier, non-invasive sample collection method. IMPORTANCE There are several methods for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and the choice of methods depends mostly on the resources and level of sensitivity required by the user and health care providers. Still, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has been chosen as the best method using direct naso-oropharyngeal swabs. There are also other methods of fast detection, such as rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), which offer result within 15 to 20 min and have become quite popular for self-testing and in the clinical setting. The major drawback of the currently used RT-PCR method is compliance, as it may cause irritation, and patients often refuse to test in such a way. RDTs, although inexpensive, suffer from low sensitivity due to technical issues. In this article, we propose saliva as a noninvasive source for RT-PCR samples and evaluate various specimen types at different times after infection for the best possible output from COVID-19 rapid tests.

Positivity of Rapid Antigen Testing for SARS-CoV-2 With Serial Followed-up Nasopharyngeal Swabs in Hospitalized Patients due to COVID-19

Despite the accuracy of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs), rapid antigen tests (RATs) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 are widely used as point-of-care tests. A total of 282 pairs of reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction and Standard Q COVID-19 Ag tests were serially conducted for 68 patients every 3-4 days until their discharge. Through a field evaluation of RATs using direct nasopharyngeal swabs, the sensitivities were 84.6% and 87.3% for E and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) genes, respectively, for specimens with cycle thresholds (Cts) < 25. The Ct values of E and RdRp genes for 95% detection rates by RATs were 16.9 and 18.1, respectively. The sensitivity of RAT was 48.4% after the onset of symptoms, which was not sufficient. RAT positivity gradually decreased with increased time after symptom onset and had continuously lower sensitivity than NAATs.

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.

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.