SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostic Tests: Algorithm and Field Evaluation From the Near Patient Testing to the Automated Diagnostic Platform

Clinical accuracy of instrument-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen diagnostic tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, antigen diagnostic tests were frequently used for screening, triage, and diagnosis. Novel instrument-based antigen tests (iAg tests) hold the promise of outperforming their instrument-free, visually-read counterparts. Here, we provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 iAg tests' clinical accuracy.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, medRxiv, and bioRxiv for articles published before November 7th, 2022, evaluating the accuracy of iAg tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection. We performed a random effects meta-analysis to estimate sensitivity and specificity and used the QUADAS-2 tool to assess study quality and risk of bias. Sub-group analysis was conducted based on Ct value range, IFU-conformity, age, symptom presence and duration, and the variant of concern.

RESULTS

We screened the titles and abstracts of 20,431 articles and included 114 publications that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Additionally, we incorporated three articles sourced from the FIND website, totaling 117 studies encompassing 95,181 individuals, which evaluated the clinical accuracy of 24 commercial COVID-19 iAg tests. The studies varied in risk of bias but showed high applicability. Of 24 iAg tests from 99 studies assessed in the meta-analysis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity compared to molecular testing of a paired NP swab sample were 76.7% (95% CI 73.5 to 79.7) and 98.4% (95% CI 98.0 to 98.7), respectively. Higher sensitivity was noted in individuals with high viral load (99.6% [95% CI 96.8 to 100] at Ct-level ≤ 20) and within the first week of symptom onset (84.6% [95% CI 78.2 to 89.3]), but did not differ between tests conducted as per manufacturer's instructions and those conducted differently, or between point-of-care and lab-based testing.

CONCLUSION

Overall, iAg tests have a high pooled specificity but a moderate pooled sensitivity, according to our analysis. The pooled sensitivity increases with lower Ct-values (a proxy for viral load), or within the first week of symptom onset, enabling reliable identification of most COVID-19 cases and highlighting the importance of context in test selection. The study underscores the need for careful evaluation considering performance variations and operational features of iAg tests.

Automated antigen assays display a high heterogeneity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including several Omicron sublineages

Diagnostic tests for direct pathogen detection have been instrumental to contain the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Automated, quantitative, laboratory-based nucleocapsid antigen (Ag) tests for SARS-CoV-2 have been launched alongside nucleic acid-based test systems and point-of-care (POC) lateral-flow Ag tests. Here, we evaluated four commercial Ag tests on automated platforms for the detection of different sublineages of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant of concern (VoC) (B.1.1.529) in comparison with "non-Omicron" VoCs. A total of 203 Omicron PCR-positive respiratory swabs (53 BA.1, 48 BA.2, 23 BQ.1, 39 XBB.1.5 and 40 other subvariants) from the period February to March 2022 and from March 2023 were examined. In addition, tissue culture-expanded clinical isolates of Delta (B.1.617.2), Omicron-BA.1, -BF.7, -BN.1 and -BQ.1 were studied. These results were compared to previously reported data from 107 clinical "non-Omicron" samples from the end of the second pandemic wave (February to March 2021) as well as cell culture-derived samples of wildtype (wt) EU-1 (B.1.177), Alpha VoC (B.1.1.7) and Beta VoC (B.1.351)). All four commercial Ag tests were able to detect at least 90.9% of Omicron-containing samples with high viral loads (Ct < 25). The rates of true-positive test results for BA.1/BA.2-positive samples with intermediate viral loads (Ct 25-30) ranged between 6.7% and 100.0%, while they dropped to 0 to 15.4% for samples with low Ct values (> 30). This heterogeneity was reflected also by the tests' 50%-limit of detection (LoD50) values ranging from 44,444 to 1,866,900 Geq/ml. Respiratory samples containing Omicron-BQ.1/XBB.1.5 or other Omicron subvariants that emerged in 2023 were detected with enormous heterogeneity (0 to 100%) for the intermediate and low viral load ranges with LoD50 values between 23,019 and 1,152,048 Geq/ml. In contrast, detection of "non-Omicron" samples was more sensitive, scoring positive in 35 to 100% for the intermediate and 1.3 to 32.9% of cases for the low viral loads, respectively, corresponding to LoD50 values ranging from 6181 to 749,792 Geq/ml. All four assays detected cell culture-expanded VoCs Alpha, Beta, Delta and Omicron subvariants carrying up to six amino acid mutations in the nucleocapsid protein with sensitivities comparable to the non-VoC EU-1. Overall, automated quantitative SARS-CoV-2 Ag assays are not more sensitive than standard rapid antigen tests used in POC settings and show a high heterogeneity in performance for VoC recognition. The best of these automated Ag tests may have the potential to complement nucleic acid-based assays for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics in settings not primarily focused on the protection of vulnerable groups. In light of the constant emergence of new Omicron subvariants and recombinants, most recently the XBB lineage, these tests' performance must be regularly re-evaluated, especially when new VoCs carry mutations in the nucleocapsid protein or immunological and clinical parameters change.

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.

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.

Clinical impact of the rapid molecular detection of RSV and influenza A and B viruses in the emergency department

Introduction

Using respiratory virus rapid diagnostic tests in the emergency department could allow better and faster clinical management. Point-of-care PCR instruments now provide results in less than 30 minutes. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of the use of a rapid molecular diagnostic test, the cobas® Influenza A/B & RSV Assay, during the clinical management of emergency department patients.

Methods

Patients (adults and children) requiring admission or suffering from an underlying condition at risk of respiratory complications were prospectively recruited in the emergency department of four hospitals in the Brussels region. Physicians’ intentions regarding admission, isolation, antibiotic, and antiviral use were collected before and after performing the rapid molecular test. Additionally, a comparison of the analytical performance of this test against antigen rapid tests and viral culture was performed as well as a time-to-result evaluation.

Results

Among the 293 patients recruited, 90 had a positive PCR, whereas 44 had a positive antigen test. PCR yielded a sensitivity of 100% for all targets. Antigen tests yielded sensitivities ranging from 66.7% for influenza B to 83.3% for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). The use of PCR allowed a decrease in the overall need for isolation and treatment by limiting the isolation of negative patients and antibiotic use for positive patients. Meanwhile, antiviral treatments better targeted patients with a positive influenza PCR.

Conclusion

The use of a rapid influenza and RSV molecular test improves the clinical management of patients admitted to the emergency department by providing a fast and reliable result. Their additional cost compared to antigen tests should be balanced with the benefit of their analytical performance, leading to efficient reductions in the need for isolation and antibiotic use.

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.

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.

Pitfalls of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing at emergency department

BACKGROUND

Current method for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is an RT-PCR test on the nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab. Rapid diagnosis is essential for containing viral spread and triage of symptomatic patients presenting to hospital ER departments. As a faster alternative to RT-PCR, we evaluated a SARS-Cov-2 Rapid Antigen test in symptomatic patients presenting to hospital ER departments.

METHODS

We evaluated the diagnostic performance of the Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen test (SD Biosensor) for detection of SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-PCR.

RESULTS

Our study showed inferior performance of the SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen test for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Firstly, because of the lack of specificity, which is potentially life-threatening due to the association of nosocomial-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection. Secondly, with a sensitivity of 45.5%, it is impossible to rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection, resulting in reflex PCR-testing. Comparison of viral load in RT-PCR positive samples with corresponding antigen results showed a significant difference between antigen positive and negative samples. COVID-19 infection will not be detected in patients admitted to the hospital in an early or late phase, typically associated with low viral loads. Sensitivity increases when testing within 5-7 symptomatic days, but the implementation of this cut-off is impractical in ER settings. However, diagnostic performance is better to detect high viral load (> = 5 log10 copies/mL) linked with contagiousness.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed inferior performance of the Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen test (SD Biosensor) for detection of SARS-CoV-2 which limits its use as a diagnostic gatekeeper in ER departments, but is able to differentiate contagious individuals.

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 and Modelling of the Performance of an Automated SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay According to Sample Type, Target Population and Epidemic Trends

The Lumipulse^® G SARS-CoV-2 Ag assay performance was evaluated on prospectively collected saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) of recently ill in- and outpatients and according to the estimated viral load. Performances were calculated using RT-PCR positive NPS from patients with symptoms ≤ 7 days and RT-PCR negative NPS as gold standard. In addition, non-selected positive NPS were analyzed to assess the performances on various viral loads. This assay yielded a sensitivity of 93.1% on NPS and 71.4% on saliva for recently ill patients. For NPS with a viral load > 10³ RNA copies/mL, sensitivity was 96.4%. A model established on our daily routine showed fluctuations of the performances depending on the epidemic trends but an overall good negative predictive value. Lumipulse^® G SARS-CoV-2 assay yielded good performance for an automated antigen detection assay on NPS. Using it for the detection of recently ill patients or to screen high-risk patients could be an interesting alternative to the more expensive RT-PCR.

Leveraging of SARS-CoV-2 PCR Cycle Thresholds Values to Forecast COVID-19 Trends

Introduction: We assessed the usefulness of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR cycle thresholds (Ct) values trends produced by the LHUB-ULB (a consolidated microbiology laboratory located in Brussels, Belgium) for monitoring the epidemic's dynamics at local and national levels and for improving forecasting models.

Methods: SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Ct values produced from April 1, 2020, to May 15, 2021, were compared with national COVID-19 confirmed cases notifications according to their geographical and time distribution. These Ct values were evaluated against both a phase diagram predicting the number of COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care and an age-structured model estimating COVID-19 prevalence in Belgium.

Results: Over 155,811 RT-PCR performed, 12,799 were positive and 7,910 Ct values were available for analysis. The 14-day median Ct values were negatively correlated with the 14-day mean daily positive tests with a lag of 17 days. In addition, the 14-day mean daily positive tests in LHUB-ULB were strongly correlated with the 14-day mean confirmed cases in the Brussels-Capital and in Belgium with coinciding start, peak, and end of the different waves of the epidemic. Ct values decreased concurrently with the forecasted phase-shifts of the diagram. Similarly, the evolution of 14-day median Ct values was negatively correlated with daily estimated prevalence for all age-classes.

Conclusion: We provide preliminary evidence that trends of Ct values can help to both follow and predict the epidemic's trajectory at local and national levels, underlining that consolidated microbiology laboratories can act as epidemic sensors as they gather data that are representative of the geographical area they serve.

Evaluation of the Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs

Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the automated Elecsys® SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay compared to RT-PCR taken as the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 detection.

Methods

225 nasopharyngeal swabs were randomly collected among which 123 were tested positive and 102 negatives for SARS-CoV-2 based on RT-PCR. Antigen dosing were performed on a Cobas 8000 e801 analyzer.

Results

The antigen test diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection status with an overall sensitivity of 65,85% (95% CI 56,76–74,16%), a specificity of 100% (95% CI 96,49–100%) with a Cut-off value ≥ 1. When the cut-off value for the antigen assay was set to > 0,673 COI, the accuracy reached its highest level with a sensitivity of 74,8% (95% CI 66,2 – 82,2%) and a specificity of 97,1% (95% CI 91,6 – 99,4%). Imprecision was estimated in accordance with manufacturer's claims.

Conclusions

We obtained an overall sensitivity of 65,85% (95% CI 56,76–74,16%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI 96,49–100%), slightly higher than the results reported by the manufacturer. Yet, it remains relatively low comparatively to what is generally acceptable for these antigenic assays (a relative sensitivity of 80%). We also noticed that the accuracy could reach its highest level if the cut-off is set above 0,673 which is lower than established by the manufacturer. Thus, our results suggest that the Elecsys® SARS-CoV-2 Antigen assays, should be improved prior to be used in a SARS-Cov-2 screening strategy. However, if one antigenic assay could demonstrate acceptable performance, it might be centralized in clinical laboratories, keeping the RT-PCR in a second phase for confirmation.

Comparison of four commercial, automated antigen tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern

A versatile portfolio of diagnostic tests is essential for the containment of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Besides nucleic acid-based test systems and point-of-care (POCT) antigen (Ag) tests, quantitative, laboratory-based nucleocapsid Ag tests for SARS-CoV-2 have recently been launched. Here, we evaluated four commercial Ag tests on automated platforms and one POCT to detect SARS-CoV-2. We evaluated PCR-positive (n = 107) and PCR-negative (n = 303) respiratory swabs from asymptomatic and symptomatic patients at the end of the second pandemic wave in Germany (February–March 2021) as well as clinical isolates EU1 (B.1.117), variant of concern (VOC) Alpha (B.1.1.7) or Beta (B.1.351), which had been expanded in a biosafety level 3 laboratory. The specificities of automated SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests ranged between 97.0 and 99.7% (Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Fujirebio): 97.03%, Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Roche Diagnostics): 97.69%; LIAISON^® SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Diasorin) and SARS-CoV-2 Ag ELISA (Euroimmun): 99.67%). In this study cohort of hospitalized patients, the clinical sensitivities of tests were low, ranging from 17.76 to 52.34%, and analytical sensitivities ranged from 420,000 to 25,000,000 Geq/ml. In comparison, the detection limit of the Roche Rapid Ag Test (RAT) was 9,300,000 Geq/ml, detecting 23.58% of respiratory samples. Receiver-operating-characteristics (ROCs) and Youden’s index analyses were performed to further characterize the assays’ overall performance and determine optimal assay cutoffs for sensitivity and specificity. VOCs carrying up to four amino acid mutations in nucleocapsid were detected by all five assays with characteristics comparable to non-VOCs. In summary, automated, quantitative SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests show variable performance and are not necessarily superior to a standard POCT. The efficacy of any alternative testing strategies to complement nucleic acid-based assays must be carefully evaluated by independent laboratories prior to widespread implementation.

Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being integrated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix, bioRvix, and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 up until 30 April 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 in comparison to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses, and rated study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 assessment tool. From a total of 14,254 articles, we included 133 analytical and clinical studies resulting in 214 clinical accuracy datasets with 112,323 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 71.2% (95% CI 68.2% to 74.0%) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6% to 99.1%), respectively. Sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.1% to 79.2%) if analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers' instructions. LumiraDx showed the highest sensitivity, with 88.2% (95% CI 59.0% to 97.5%). Of instrument-free Ag-RDTs, Standard Q nasal performed best, with 80.2% sensitivity (95% CI 70.3% to 87.4%). Across all Ag-RDTs, sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, i.e., <20 (96.5%, 95% CI 92.6% to 98.4%) and <25 (95.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 97.8%), in comparison to those with Ct ≥ 25 (50.7%, 95% CI 35.6% to 65.8%) and ≥30 (20.9%, 95% CI 12.5% to 32.8%). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (83.8%, 95% CI 76.3% to 89.2%) compared to testing after 1 week (61.5%, 95% CI 52.2% to 70.0%). The best Ag-RDT sensitivity was found with anterior nasal sampling (75.5%, 95% CI 70.4% to 79.9%), in comparison to other sample types (e.g., nasopharyngeal, 71.6%, 95% CI 68.1% to 74.9%), although CIs were overlapping. Concerns of bias were raised across all datasets, and financial support from the manufacturer was reported in 24.1% of datasets. Our analysis was limited by the included studies' heterogeneity in design and reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study we found that Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2-infected persons within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load. Thus, they can have high utility for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease, making them a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization in conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data.