Analytical Performance of Quantitative DiaSorin Liaison SARS-COV-2 Antigen Test for the Asymptomatic Population

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 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.

Comparison of performance of LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay with RT-PCR during the Omicron wave

Due to the newly emerging Omicron variant, there is a need to re-evaluate the performance of automated antigen tests. Our study aim was to evaluate the performance of the automated Liaison SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay against reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in samples with Omicron variant.A prospective study was performed on 373 combined oro-nasopharyngeal samples (NPS) randomly collected from symptomatic patients. NPS were tested with Liaison SARS-CoV-2 Ag test (DiaSorin, Italy) and DS Coronex COVID-19 Multiplex RT-PCR Diagnosis Kit (DS BioTechnology, Ankara, Turkey).Of 373 samples, 124 (33.2%) were found to be RT-PCR positive and 249 (66.8%) RT-PCR negative. Taking RT-PCR as a reference, the sensitivity and specificity of the Liaison SARS-CoV-2 Ag assay were found as 84.6% (95%CI 77.3%-90%) and 100% (95%CI 98.5%-100%), respectively. For samples with a cycle threshold (Ct) value <25 (high viral load), the sensitivity increased to 100%. When antigen concentration and Ct values were compared, a strong negative correlation between antigen and Ct values was determined (P < 0.001).The Liaison antigen test met the performance criteria recommended by the WHO for samples with the Omicron variant. In addition, it showed excellent sensitivity and specificity in patients with high viral load. Therefore, Liaison antigen test can be a reliable and useful alternative in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly in resource-constrained laboratories.

Systematic Review of Diagnostic Accuracy of DiaSorin Liaison SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Immunoassay

Background

Quantification of SARS-CoV-2 antigens by means of rapid, high-throughput and fully-automated techniques has been proposed as a feasible alternative to overcome the current shortage of resources for routine molecular diagnostics. To this end, we provide here a systematic review of diagnostic accuracy of DiaSorin Liaison SARS-CoV-2 antigen immunoassay.

Methods

An electronic search was conduced in Medline and Scopus, with no language or date restrictions (up to January 20, 2022), for identifying all published studies articles in which the diagnostic performance of the DiaSorin Liaison SARS-CoV-2 antigen immunoassay was compared with molecular diagnostic techniques.

Results

The electronic search identified a final number of 11 studies, totalling 4449 oro- and naso-pharyngeal specimens. The pooled diagnostic sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC) of the Liaison SARS-CoV-2 antigen immunoassay in all samples were 0.51 (95%CI, 0.49-0.54), 1.00 (95%CI, 1.00-1.00) and 0.994 (95%CI, 0.990-0.998), respectively, whilst the overall concordance with molecular diagnostics was 82.1%. The pooled diagnostic sensitivity, specificity and AUC of the Liaison SARS-CoV-2 antigen immunoassay in specimens with high viral load (i.e., cycle threshold values <25-30) were 0.79 (95%CI, 0.75-0.82), 1.00 (95%CI, 0.99-1.00) and 0.911 (95%CI, 0.879-0.943), respectively, whilst the overall concordance with molecular diagnostics in such samples increased to 94.2%.

Conclusion

The results of this systematic literature review suggest that there is sufficient accuracy of the DiaSorin Liaison SARS-CoV-2 antigen immunoassay in samples with high viral loads that would enable its reliable usage for identifying superspreaders, who are responsible for the vast majority of transmission events.