Multicenter Technical Validation of 30 Rapid Antigen Tests for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 (VALIDATE)

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.

Variable detection of Omicron-BA.1 and -BA.2 by SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests

During 2022, the COVID-19 pandemic has been dominated by the variant of concern (VoC) Omicron (B.1.1.529) and its rapidly emerging subvariants, including Omicron-BA.1 and -BA.2. Rapid antigen tests (RATs) are part of national testing strategies to identify SARS-CoV-2 infections on site in a community setting or to support layman's diagnostics at home. We and others have recently demonstrated an impaired RAT detection of infections caused by Omicron-BA.1 compared to Delta. Here, we evaluated the performance of five SARS-CoV-2 RATs in a single-centre laboratory study examining a total of 140 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive respiratory swab samples, 70 Omicron-BA.1 and 70 Omicron-BA.2, as well as 52 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative swabs collected from March 8th until April 10th, 2022. One test did not meet minimal criteria for specificity. In an assessment of the analytical sensitivity in clinical specimen, the 50% limit of detection (LoD50) ranged from 4.2 × 104 to 9.2 × 105 RNA copies subjected to the RAT for Omicron-BA.1 compared to 1.3 × 105 to 1.5 × 106 for Omicron-BA.2. Overall, intra-assay differences for the detection of Omicron-BA.1-containing and Omicron-BA.2-containing samples were non-significant, while a marked overall heterogeneity among the five RATs was observed. To score positive in these point-of-care tests, up to 22-fold (LoD50) or 68-fold (LoD95) higher viral loads were required for the worst performing compared to the best performing RAT. The rates of true-positive test results for these Omicron subvariant-containing samples in the highest viral load category (Ct values < 25) ranged between 44.7 and 91.1%, while they dropped to 8.7 to 22.7% for samples with intermediate Ct values (25-30). In light of recent reports on the emergence of two novel Omicron-BA.2 subvariants, Omicron-BA.2.75 and BJ.1, awareness must be increased for the overall reduced detection rate and marked differences in RAT performance for these Omicron subvariants.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron on Rapid Antigen Testing Developed for Early-Pandemic SARS-CoV-2 Variants

Rapid antigen tests (RATs) are widely used for point-of-care or self-testing to identify SARS-CoV-2 (SCoV2), but currently circulating Omicron variants may impair detection. In this study, we prospectively evaluated the Roche-SARS-CoV-2-Antigen and Acon-FlowFlex-SARS-CoV-2-Antigen in 150 consecutively collected nasopharyngeal patient swabs (50 SCoV2 RNA undetectable; 100 SCoV2 Omicron BA.1). Omicron BA.1 results were compared to 92 Ct-matched early-pandemic SCoV2 variants (B.1.160 and B.1.177), to 100 Omicron BA.2 positive and to 100 Omicron BA.5 positive samples. For Omicron BA.1, Roche-SARS-CoV-2-Antigen detected 87% of samples having Ct-values <29 reflecting 3.6% lower rates compared to B.1.160 and B.1.177. Acon-FlowFlex-SARS-CoV-2-Antigen was less affected and detected 90% of Omicron BA.1 with Ct-values <29. Omicron BA.2 and BA.5 detection rates were significantly reduced by 20% and 10%, respectively, for the Roche-SARS-CoV-2-Antigen in samples with Ct-values <29 but remained similar for Acon-FlowFlex-SARS-CoV-2-Antigen. RATs need to be continuously evaluated as new SCoV2-variants emerge. Spreading of Omicron-BA.2, and the recently emerged Omicron BA.5 variant, may not only result from escape from postvaccine or postinfection immunity, but also from false-negative RATs misguiding point-of-care and self-testing decisions at times of restricted molecular testing. IMPORTANCE Antigen tests are widely used for rapid identification of SCoV2-positive cases and their increased risk of transmission. At present, there are several FDA- and CE-cleared tests available in North America and Europe. However, their diagnostic performance has been evaluated with early-pandemic variants. This study provides evidence that variation within the nucleocapsid protein as seen in recently emerged and now globally spreading Omicron BA.2 and BA.5 variants significantly impairs detection rates of widely used antigen tests. Consequently, antigen tests need to be reevaluated when new pandemic SCoV2 variants emerge and start to predominate globally.

A nationwide analytical and clinical evaluation of 44 rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR

Background

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has resulted in massive testing by Rapid Antigen Tests (RAT) without solid independent data regarding clinical performance being available. Thus, decision on purchase of a specific RAT may rely on manufacturer-provided data and limited peer-reviewed data.

Methods

This study consists of two parts. In the retrospective analytical part, 33 RAT from 25 manufacturers were compared to RT-PCR on 100 negative and 204 positive deep oropharyngeal cavity samples divided into four groups based on RT-PCR Cq levels. In the prospective clinical part, nearly 200 individuals positive for SARS-CoV-2 and nearly 200 individuals negative for SARS-CoV-2 by routine RT-PCR testing were retested within 72 h for each of 44 included RAT from 26 manufacturers applying RT-PCR as the reference method.

Results

The overall analytical sensitivity differed significantly between the 33 included RAT; from 2.5% (95% CI 0.5–4.8) to 42% (95% CI 35–49). All RAT presented analytical specificities of 100%. Likewise, the overall clinical sensitivity varied significantly between the 44 included RAT; from 2.5% (95% CI 0.5–4.8) to 94% (95% CI 91–97). All RAT presented clinical specificities between 98 and 100%.

Conclusion

The study presents analytical as well as clinical performance data for 44 commercially available RAT compared to the same RT-PCR test. The study enables identification of individual RAT that has significantly higher sensitivity than other included RAT and may aid decision makers in selecting between the included RAT.

Funding

The study was funded by a participant fee for each test and the Danish Regions.

LumiraDX SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test for Diagnosing Acute SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Critical Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

We present here a critical literature review and meta-analysis on the accuracy of the LumiraDX SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test for diagnosing acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. An electronic search was conducted in the Scopus and Medline databases using the keywords “LumiraDX” AND “COVID-19” OR “SARS-CoV-2”, without date (i.e., up to 1 February 2022) or language restrictions, for detecting clinical studies where the diagnostic accuracy of the LumiraDX SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test was compared with reference molecular diagnostic methods. All studies where the rates of true positive, true negative, false positive and false negative cases were available for constructing a 2 × 2 table and providing pooled estimates of diagnostic sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were included in a pooled analysis. The study was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) reporting checklist. Eleven studies (n = 8527 samples) could be included in our pooled analysis, while five additional documents provided diagnostic accuracy data but could not be extracted for construction of a 2 × 2 table. The pooled diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were 0.86 (95%CI, 0.84–0.88) and 0.99 (95%CI, 0.98–0.99), respectively, while the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.974 (95%CI, 0.965–0.983) and the agreement was 96.8% (95%CI, 96.4–97.1%), with kappa statistics of 0.87 (95%CI, 0.85–0.88). In conclusion, the diagnostic performance of the LumiraDX SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test would allow the conclusion that it may be seen as a reliable alternative to molecular testing for the rapid preliminary screening of acute SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Recommendations for the management of COVID-19 in patients with haematological malignancies or haematopoietic cell transplantation, from the 2021 European Conference on Infections in Leukaemia (ECIL 9)

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel virus that spread worldwide from 2019 causing the Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 infection is characterised by an initial viral phase followed in some patients by a severe inflammatory phase. Importantly, immunocompromised patients may have a prolonged viral phase, shedding infectious viral particles for months, and absent or dysfunctional inflammatory phase. Among haematological patients, COVID-19 has been associated with high mortality rate in acute leukaemia, high risk-myelodysplastic syndromes, and after haematopoietic cell transplant and chimeric-antigen-receptor-T therapies. The clinical symptoms and signs were similar to that reported for the overall population, but the severity and outcome were worse. The deferral of immunodepleting cellular therapy treatments is recommended for SARS-CoV-2 positive patient, while in the other at-risk cases, the haematological treatment decisions must be weighed between individual risks and benefits. The gold standard for the diagnosis is the detection of viral RNA by nucleic acid testing on nasopharyngeal-swabbed sample, which provides high sensitivity and specificity; while rapid antigen tests have a lower sensitivity, especially in asymptomatic patients. The prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection is based on strict infection control measures recommended for aerosol-droplet-and-contact transmission. Vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 has shown high efficacy in reducing community transmission, hospitalisation and deaths due to severe COVID-19 disease in the general population, but immunosuppressed/haematology patients may have lower sero-responsiveness to vaccinations. Moreover, the recent emergence of new variants may require vaccine modifications and strategies to improve efficacy in these vulnerable patients. Beyond supportive care, the specific treatment is directed at viral replication control (antivirals, anti-spike monoclonal antibodies) and, in patients who need it, to the control of inflammation (dexamethasone, anti-Il-6 agents, and others). However, the benefit of all these various prophylactic and therapeutic treatments in haematology patients deserves further studies.