Reduced Relative Sensitivity of the Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay in Saliva Compared to Nasopharyngeal Swabs

Rapid, Multiplexed, and Enzyme-Free Nucleic Acid Detection Using Programmable Aptamer-Based RNA Switches

Rapid, simple, and low-cost diagnostic technologies are crucial tools for combatting infectious disease. We describe a class of aptamer-based RNA switches or aptaswitches that recognize target nucleic acid molecules and initiate folding of a reporter aptamer. Aptaswitches can detect virtually any sequence and provide an intense fluorescent readout without intervening enzymes, generating signals in as little as 5 minutes and enabling detection by eye with minimal equipment. Aptaswitches can be used to regulate folding of seven fluorogenic aptamers, providing a general means of controlling aptamers and an array of multiplexable reporter colors. Coupling isothermal amplification reactions with aptaswitches, we reach sensitivities down to 1 RNA copy/μL in one-pot reactions. Application of multiplexed all-in-one reactions against RNA from clinical saliva samples yields an overall accuracy of 96.67% for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in 30 minutes. Aptaswitches are thus versatile tools for nucleic acid detection that are readily integrated into rapid diagnostic assays.

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.

COVID-19 on Oral Health: A New Bilateral Connection for the Pandemic

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and transmission are generally known to be produced by respiratory droplets and aerosols from the oral cavity (O.C.) of infected subjects, as stated by the World Health Organization. Saliva also retains the viral particles and aids in the spread of COVID-19. Angiotensin-converting enzyme Type 2 (ACE2) and transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2) are two of the numerous factors that promote SARS-CoV-2 infection, expressed by O.C. structures, various mucosa types, and the epithelia of salivary glands. A systemic SARS-CoV-2 infection might result from viral replication in O.C. cells. On the other hand, cellular damage of different subtypes in the O.C. might be associated with various clinical signs and symptoms. Factors interfering with SARS-CoV-2 infection potential might represent fertile ground for possible local pharmacotherapeutic interventions, which may confine SARS-CoV-2 virus entry and transmission in the O.C., finally representing a way to reduce COVID-19 incidence and severity.

Rapid and Multiplexed Nucleic Acid Detection using Programmable Aptamer-Based RNA Switches

Rapid, simple, and low-cost diagnostic technologies are crucial tools for combatting infectious disease. Here, we describe a class of aptamer-based RNA switches called aptaswitches that recognize specific target nucleic acid molecules and respond by initiating folding of a reporter aptamer. Aptaswitches can detect virtually any sequence and provide a fast and intense fluorescent readout, generating signals in as little as 5 minutes and enabling detection by eye with minimal equipment. We demonstrate that aptaswitches can be used to regulate folding of six different fluorescent aptamer/fluorogen pairs, providing a general means of controlling aptamer activity and an array of different reporter colors for multiplexing. By coupling isothermal amplification reactions with aptaswitches, we reach sensitivities down to 1 RNA copy/μL in one-pot reactions. Application of multiplexed one-pot reactions against RNA extracted from clinical saliva samples yields an overall accuracy of 96.67% for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in 30 minutes. Aptaswitches are thus versatile tools for nucleic acid detection that can be readily integrated into rapid diagnostic assays.

Evaluation of Non-Invasive Gargle Lavage Sampling for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Using rRT-PCR or Antigen Assay

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused considerable disruption worldwide. For efficient SARS-CoV-2 detection, new methods of rapid, non-invasive sampling are needed. This study aimed to investigate the stability of SARS-CoV-2 in a novel medium for gargle-lavage (GL) self-sampling and to compare the performance of SARS-CoV-2 detection in paired self-collected GL and clinician-obtained nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples. The stability study for SARS-CoV-2 preservation in a novel medium was performed over 14 days (4 °C, 24-27 °C, and 37 °C). In total, 494 paired GL and NPS samples were obtained at the University Hospital in Olomouc in April 2021. SARS-CoV-2 detection in paired samples was performed with a SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Detection Kit (Zybio, Chongqing Municipality, Chongqing, China), an Elecsys^® SARS-CoV-2 Antigen assay (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany), and a SARS-CoV-2 Antigen ELISA (EUROIMMUN, Lübeck, Germany). The stability study demonstrated excellent SARS-CoV-2 preservation in the novel medium for 14 days. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 55.7% of NPS samples and 55.7% of GL samples using rRT-PCR, with an overall agreement of 91.9%. The positive percent agreement (PPA) of the rRT-PCR in the GL samples was 92.7%, and the negative percent agreement (NPA) was 90.9%, compared with the NPS samples. The PPA of the rRT-PCR in the NPS and GL samples was 93.2% when all positive tests were used as the reference standard. Both antigen detection assays showed poor sensitivity compared to rRT-PCR (33.2% and 36.0%). rRT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 detection in self-collected GL samples had a similar PPA and NPA to that of NPSs. GL self-sampling offers a suitable and more comfortable alternative for SARS-CoV-2 detection.

Investigation of the diagnostic performance of the SARS-CoV-2 saliva antigen test: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Rapid identification and isolation of patients with COVID-19 are critical strategies to contain COVID-19. The saliva antigen test has the advantages of noninvasiveness and decreased transmission risk to health-care professionals. This meta-analysis investigated the diagnostic accuracy of the saliva antigen test for SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

We searched for relevant studies in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Biomed Central. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of saliva antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 were included. The data of the included studies were used to construct a 2 × 2 table on a per patient basis. The overall sensitivity and specificity of saliva antigen tests were determined using a bivariate random-effects model.

RESULTS

Nine studies enrolling 9842 patients were included. The meta-analysis generated a pooled sensitivity of 65.3% and a pooled specificity of 99.7%. A subgroup analysis of the studies performing the chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLEIA) for participants from airports and public health centers revealed a pooled sensitivity of 93.6%.

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrated that the saliva antigen test performed using CLEIA exhibited higher sensitivity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, the saliva antigen test performed using CLEIA might be an effective and noninvasive screening tool for SARS-CoV-2.

Evaluating the role of a fully automated SARS-CoV-2 antigen ECLIA immunoassay in the management of the SARS COV 2 pandemic on general population

OBJECTIVES

Chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) automated assays (fourth-generation antigen test) for SARS-CoV-2 detection are promising because of their analytical productivity, but have lower sensitivity and specificity than rt-PCR assays. The authors of this paper evaluated a recent immunoassay implemented on Siemens Atellica IM, investigating how much this could affect the actual feasibility of this diagnostic during the pandemic.

METHODS

From the three-day routine 134 positive and 241 negative swab samples by rt-PCR test were evaluated, selected as 1/3 positive - 2/3 negative.

RESULTS

Using rt-PCR as gold standard, the specificity of immunoassay was 96.7%, while sensitivity was 68.0%. Sensitivity is inversely proportional to the viral load: 100% for cycles threshold (CT) values from 14 to 29, 95% until 30 CT, then 85, 74, 72, 68%, for 31-35 CT respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms the reliability of the fourth-generation antigen assay in recognizing negative samples. Conversely, sensitivity appears to be less reliable (68.0%) than reported in the literature. This could be due to a non-randomized study group: many swab samples were taken from patients with expected low viral load (hospitalized for COVID for more than 10-12 days or asymptomatic patients for epidemiological surveillance). The strong correlation of sensitivity and viral load could prove significant to track the infectiousness of infected people, as previous studies reported that a viral load of at least 10E6 copies of RNA/mL, corresponding to 25 CT, is the threshold of transmission of the disease.

Guidelines for COVID-19 Laboratory Testing for Emergency Departments From the New Diagnostic Technology Team of the Taiwan Society of Emergency Medicine

COVID-19 tests have different turnaround times (TATs), accuracy levels, and limitations, which emergency physicians should be aware of. Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) can be divided into standard high throughput tests and rapid molecular diagnostic tests at the point of care (POC). The standard NAAT has the advantages of high throughput and high accuracy with a TAT of 3-4 hours. The POC molecular test has the same advantages of high accuracy as standard high throughput PCR, but can be done in 13-45 minutes. Roche cobas Liat is the most commonly used machine in Taiwan, displaying 99%-100% sensitivity and 100% specificity, respectively. Abbott ID NOW is an isothermal PCR-based POC machine with a sensitivity of 79% and a specificity of 100%. A high rate of false positives and false negatives is associated with rapid antigen testing. Antibody testing is mostly used as part of public health surveys and for testing for immunity.

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.

Diagnostic performance of the fully automated Roche Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 antigen electrochemiluminescence immunoassay: a pooled analysis

OBJECTIVES

Among the diagnostic tests that have recently become commercially available for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the fully-automated Roche Elecsys severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) is one of the most widespread for its adaptability within a system of laboratory automation, rapidity and high-throughput. This article is aimed to provide the results of the first pooled analysis of its accuracy for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infections.

CONTENT

We carried out an electronic search in Scopus and Medline, without language or date restrictions (i.e., up to January 18, 2022), to identify articles where the diagnostic performance of Roche Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 antigen ECLIA was compared with that of reference molecular diagnostic techniques.

SUMMARY

Overall, 11 studies were identified, 10 of which (n=6,095 swabs) provided necessary data for inclusion in a pooled analysis. The pooled diagnostic sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC) in nasopharyngeal samples were 0.68 (95%CI, 0.66-0.70), 0.99 (95%CI, 0.99-0.99) and 0.958 (95%CI, 0.936-0.980), respectively. The cumulative observed agreement with reference molecular assays was 89.5% and the kappa statistic was 0.735 (95%CI, 0.716-0.754). The pooled diagnostic sensitivity in samples with high viral load (i.e., cycle threshold values <28-30) was 0.95 (95%CI, 0.92-0.97).

OUTLOOK

The results of this pooled analysis confirm that the fully-automated Roche Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 antigen ECLIA has high diagnostic specificity and optimal diagnostic sensitivity for identifying nasopharyngeal samples with higher viral load, thus making it a reliable technique for mass screening and for supporting strategies based on shorten isolation and/or quarantine.

Saliva as a diagnostic specimen for SARS-CoV-2 detection: a scoping review

Objectives

This scoping review aims to summarize the diagnostic value of saliva assessed from current studies that (1) compare its performance in reverse transcriptase‐polymerase chain reaction testing to nasopharyngeal swabs, (2) evaluate its performance in rapid and point‐of‐care COVID‐19 diagnostic tests, and (3) explore its use as a specimen for detecting anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies.

Materials and Methods

A systematic search was performed on the following databases: Medline and Embase (Ovid), World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Global Health (Ovid) from January 2019 to September 2021. Of the 657 publications identified from the searches, n = 146 articles were included in the final scoping review.

Results

Our findings showcase that salivary samples exceed nasopharyngeal swabs in detecting SARS‐CoV‐2 using reverse transcriptase‐polymerase chain reaction testing in several studies. A select number of rapid antigen and point‐of‐care tests from the literature were also identified capable of high detection rates using saliva. Moreover, anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies have been shown to be detectable in saliva through biochemical assays.

Conclusion

We highlight the potential of saliva as an all‐rounded specimen in detecting SARS‐CoV‐2. However, future large‐scale clinical studies will be needed to support its widespread use as a non‐invasive clinical specimen for COVID‐19 testing.