Five Antigen Tests for SARS-CoV-2: Virus Viability Matters

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen tests for COVID19 compared to the viral genetic test in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the currently available and upcoming point-of-care rapid antigen tests (RATs) used in primary care settings relative to the viral genetic real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test as a reference for diagnosing COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 in adults.

INTRODUCTION

Accurate COVID-19 point-of-care diagnostic tests are required for real-time identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection in individuals. Real-time RT-PCR is the accepted gold standard for diagnostic testing, requiring technical expertise and expensive equipment that are unavailable in most primary care locations. RATs are immunoassays that detect the presence of a specific viral protein, which implies a current infection with SARS-CoV-2. RATs are qualitative or semi-quantitative diagnostics that lack thresholds that provide a result within a short time frame, typically within the hour following sample collection. In this systematic review, we synthesized the current evidence regarding the accuracy of RATs for detecting SARS-CoV-2 compared with RT-PCR.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Studies that included nonpregnant adults (18 years or older) with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of symptomology or disease severity, were included. The index test was any available SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care RAT. The reference test was any commercially distributed RT-PCR-based test that detects the RNA genome of SARS-CoV-2 and has been validated by an independent third party. Custom or in-house RT-PCR tests were also considered, with appropriate validation documentation. The diagnosis of interest was COVID-19 disease and SARS-CoV-2 infection. This review considered cross-sectional and cohort studies that examined the diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 infection where the participants had both index and reference tests performed.

METHODS

The keywords and index terms contained in relevant articles were used to develop a full search strategy for PubMed and adapted for Embase, Scopus, Qinsight, and the WHO COVID-19 databases . Studies published from November 2019 to July 12, 2022, were included, as SARS-CoV-2 emerged in late 2019 and is the cause of a continuing pandemic. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were critically appraised using QUADAS-2. Using a customized tool, data were extracted from included studies and were verified prior to analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive, and negative predictive values were calculated and presented with 95% CIs. When heterogeneity was observed, outlier analysis was conducted, and the results were generated by removing outliers.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis was performed on 91 studies of 581 full-text articles retrieved that provided true-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative values. RATs can identify individuals who have COVID-19 with high reliability (positive predictive value 97.7%; negative predictive value 95.2%) when considering overall performance. However, the lower level of sensitivity (67.1%) suggests that negative test results likely need to be retested through an additional method.

CONCLUSIONS

Most reported RAT brands had only a few studies comparing their performance with RT-PCR. Overall, a positive RAT result is an excellent predictor of a positive diagnosis of COVID-19. We recommend that Roche's SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test and Abbott's BinaxNOW tests be used in primary care settings, with the understanding that negative results need to be confirmed through RT-PCR. We recommend adherence to the STARD guidelines when reporting on diagnostic data.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020224250.

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.

Comparison between the Sofia SARS Antigen FIA Test and the PCR Test in Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Infection

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare Quidel's rapid antigen test Sofia SARS antigen Fluorescent Immunoassay (FIA) (Sofia) with the real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) test.

METHODS

Two samples were taken from each test subject-1 for testing with the Sofia test and 1 for testing with the rRT-PCR test. In total, swabs were taken from 146 subjects who presented symptoms of infection (group 1) and 672 subjects who were tested regardless of symptoms (group 2).

RESULTS

In group 1, the sensitivity of the antigen test was 90.0% and its specificity 97.5%. In group 2, however, the sensitivity of the antigen test was 81.4% and the specificity 98.9%. In addition to asymptomatic patients, false-negative results of rapid antigen tests also occurred in subjects with high threshold values (cycle threshold > 30).

CONCLUSION

Our results show that the Sofia test meets the standards for diagnostic tests according to the criteria of the World Health Organization, as they show high sensitivity and specificity, and perhaps most importantly, a high negative predictive value (> 95%).

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis by rapid antigen detection kit with RT-qPCR in a tertiary care setup in North Eastern India

PURPOSE

Real time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is still considered a gold standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19. However, due to several limitations, use of RT-qPCR is limited in a resource poor setting like North East India. Rapid antigen detection testing kit has revolutionized the diagnosis and management of COVID-19 in India. However, conflicting reports exist regarding the efficacy of the kits for diagnosis of COVID-19. This study aims to highlight the performance of Standard Q COVID-19® Antigen detection kit (SD Biosensor) compared with RT-qPCR in the setup of North East India.

METHODS

Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab samples were collected from consenting patients attending the flu clinic in the period from 1st July to December 31, 2020. Samples were transferred to Viral Research and Diagnostic Laboratory (VRDL) for RT-qPCR test. Antigen detection from the patient samples were undertaken using Standard Q ® COVID-19 antigen detection kit (SD Biosensor, Republic of Korea). Data were then analyzed for comparison between RT-qPCR and antigen kit results.

RESULTS

During the study period, 189 samples were collected, out of which 119 were positive by RT-qPCR. Out of 119 positive samples, calculated sensitivity and specificity of the rapid antigen kit was 63% and 100% respectively. Sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy increases in symptomatic patients as compared to asymptomatic patients. Cohen's Kappa coefficient showed a moderate association (0.6) between the kit and RT-qPCR test. The kit performed optimally at a CT value of ≤32.5 for N gene with a predicted sensitivity of 77.3% and specificity of 93.3%.

CONCLUSION

The study shows an overall acceptable sensitivity and specificity of the testing kit, with a better performance in symptomatic patients. The association of the kit result is moderate with the results obtained in RT-qPCR. In this study, the rapid antigen test kit performed optimally at N gene qRT PCR cut off value of ≤32.5.

Analysis of diagnostic performance and factors causing nonspecific reactions in SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen detection tests

INTRODUCTION

Early diagnosis and appropriate infection control are important to prevent the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In this study, we aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen detection (RAD) tests and the factors that cause nonspecific reactions.

METHODS

Nasopharyngeal swab specimens (n = 100), sputum specimens (n = 10), and lithium-heparin plasma samples (n = 100) were collected. We evaluated Espline®SARS-CoV-2 (Espline) and SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test that also known as STANDARD Q® (STANDARD Q), with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and Lumipulse® Presto SARS-CoV-2 Ag as reference tests. In addition, we investigated the effects of inadequate pretreatment methods and five potential causes of nonspecific reactions.

RESULTS

The sensitivities of Espline and STANDARD Q were 60% and 57%, respectively, and their specificity was 100%. It was confirmed that the judgment line for the positive insufficiently mixed specimens was faint. A false-positive result was observed with STANDARD Q when sputum was used as a specimen to investigate judgment the effect of viscosity.

CONCLUSIONS

Espline and STANDARD Q show good sensitivity for specimens with Ct values less than 25, but specimens collected within 9 days of symptom onset may still give false negatives. The test should be performed carefully, and the results should be judged comprehensively, taking into account clinical symptoms and patient background.

Surveillance and Correlation of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Viral RNA, Antigen, Virus Isolation, and Self-Reported Symptoms in a Longitudinal Study With Daily Sampling

The novel coronavirus pandemic incited unprecedented demand for assays that detect viral nucleic acids, viral proteins, and corresponding antibodies. The 320 molecular diagnostics in receipt of US Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization mainly focus on viral detection; however, no currently approved test can be used to infer infectiousness, that is, the presence of replicable virus. As the number of tests conducted increased, persistent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA positivity by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in some individuals led to concerns over quarantine guidelines. To this end, we attempted to design an assay that reduces the frequency of positive test results from individuals who do not shed culturable virus. We describe multiplex quantitative RT-PCR assays that detect genomic RNA (gRNA) and subgenomic RNA (sgRNA) species of SARS-CoV-2, including spike, nucleocapsid, membrane, envelope, and ORF8. Viral RNA abundances calculated from these assays were compared with antigen presence, self-reported symptoms, and culture outcome (virus isolation) using samples from a 14-day longitudinal household transmission study. By characterizing the clinical and molecular dynamics of infection, we show that sgRNA detection has higher predictive value for culture outcome compared to detection of gRNA alone. Our findings suggest that sgRNA presence correlates with active infection and may help identify individuals shedding culturable virus.

Trace Determination of Grouper Nervous Necrosis Virus in Contaminated Larvae and Pond Water Samples Using Label-Free Fiber Optic Nanoplasmonic Biosensor

We developed a fast (<20 min), label-free fiber optic particle plasmon resonance (FOPPR) immunosensing method to detect nervous necrosis virus (NNV), which often infects high-value economic aquatic species, such as grouper. Using spiked NNV particles in a phosphate buffer as samples, the standard calibration curve obtained was linear (R2 = 0.99) and the limit of detection (LOD) achieved was 2.75 × 104 TCID50/mL, which is superior to that obtained using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). By using an enhancement method called fiber optic nanogold-linked immunosorbent assay (FONLISA), the LOD can be further improved to <1 TCID50/mL, which is comparable to that found by the conventional qPCR method. Employing the larvae homogenate samples of NNV-infected grouper, the results obtained by the FOPPR biosensor agree with those obtained by the quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) method. We also examined pond water samples from an infected container in an indoor aquaculture facility. The lowest detectable level of NNV coat protein was found to be 0.17 μg/mL, which is one order lower than the LOD reported by ELISA. Therefore, we demonstrated the potential of the FOPPR biosensor as an outbreak surveillance tool, which is able to give warning indication even when the trend of larvae death toll increment is still not clear.

COVID-19 isolation strategies: What have we learned

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, infection prevention and control policies have significantly differed between different public health organization and have been complicated by the emergence of new data on Variants of Concern (VOC). Here, we try to highlight the different strategies for isolating patients with COVID-19 and point-out the evolution of such strategies over time, mainly for mildly or moderately severe SARS-CoV-2 infected patients.

A SARS-CoV-2 Negative Antigen Rapid Diagnostic in RT-qPCR Positive Samples Correlates With a Low Likelihood of Infectious Viruses in the Nasopharynx

Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) transmission occurs even among fully vaccinated individuals; thus, prompt identification of infected patients is central to control viral circulation. Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are highly specific, but sensitivity is variable. Discordant RT-qPCR vs. Ag-RDT results are reported, raising the question of whether negative Ag-RDT in positive RT-qPCR samples could imply the absence of infectious viruses. To study the relationship between negative Ag-RDT results with virological, molecular, and serological parameters, we selected a cross-sectional and a follow-up dataset and analyzed virus culture, subgenomic RNA quantification, and sequencing to determine infectious viruses and mutations. We demonstrated that RT-qPCR positive while SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT negative discordant results correlate with the absence of infectious virus in nasopharyngeal samples. A decrease in sgRNA detection together with an expected increase in detectable anti-S and anti-N IgGs was also verified in these samples. The data clearly demonstrate that a negative Ag-RDT sample is less likely to harbor infectious SARS-CoV-2 and, consequently, has a lower transmissible potential.

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.

Diagnostic Performance of Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests, Chest Computed Tomography, and Lung Point-of-Care-Ultrasonography for SARS-CoV-2 Compared with RT-PCR Testing: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: The comparative performance of various diagnostic methods for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the comparison of the 3 index test performances of rapid antigen diagnostic tests (RDTs), chest computed tomography (CT), and lung point-of-care-ultrasonography (US) with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), the reference standard, to provide more evidence-based data on the appropriate use of these index tests. (2) Methods: We retrieved data from electronic literature searches of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE from 1 January 2020, to 1 April 2021. Diagnostic performance was examined using bivariate random-effects diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) models. (3) Results: Of the 3992 studies identified in our search, 118 including 69,445 participants met our selection criteria. Among these, 69 RDT, 38 CT, and 15 US studies in the pairwise meta-analysis were included for DTA with NMA. CT and US had high sensitivity of 0.852 (95% credible interval (CrI), 0.791-0.914) and 0.879 (95% CrI, 0.784-0.973), respectively. RDT had high specificity, 0.978 (95% CrI, 0.960-0.996). In accuracy assessment, RDT and CT had a relatively higher than US. However, there was no significant difference in accuracy between the 3 index tests. (4) Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that, compared with the reference standard RT-PCR, the 3 index tests (RDTs, chest CT, and lung US) had similar and complementary performances for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. To manage and control COVID-19 effectively, future large-scale prospective studies could be used to obtain an optimal timely diagnostic process that identifies the condition of the patient accurately.

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.

The Usefulness of Antigen Testing in Predicting Contagiousness in COVID-19

Increasing the diagnostic capacity for COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 infection) is required to improve case detection, reduce COVID-19 expansion, and boost the world economy. Rapid antigen detection tests are less expensive and easier to implement, but their diagnostic performance has been questioned compared to reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR). Here, we evaluate the performance of the Standard Q COVID-19 antigen test for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection and predicting contagiousness compared to RT-PCR and viral culture, respectively. The antigen test was 100.0% specific but only 40.9% sensitive for diagnosing infection compared to RT-PCR. Interestingly, SARS-CoV-2 contagiousness is highly unlikely with a negative antigen test since it exhibited a negative predictive value of 99.9% compared to viral culture. Furthermore, a cycle threshold (CT) value of 18.1 in RT-PCR was shown to be the one that best predicts contagiousness (area under the curve [AUC], 97.6%). Thus, screening people with antigen testing is a good approach to prevent SARS-CoV-2 contagion and allow returning to daily activities. IMPORTANCE The importance of our results is the excellent agreement between the Standard Q COVID-19 antigen test and the viral culture, indicating that it is important as a marker of contagiousness. Due to its high positive predictive value in situations of a high prevalence of infection, positive results do not require confirmation with another test. Likewise, its high negative predictive value for contagiousness makes possible to use this test as a criterion to discharge patients in isolation and screen people moving into environments that could facilitate the transmission of the virus. Screening people with antigen testing is a good approach to prevent SARS-CoV-2 contagion and allow returning to daily activities.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19 Detection: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

Introduction

Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to detect SARS-CoV-2 is time-consuming and sometimes not feasible in developing nations. Rapid antigen test (RAT) could decrease the load of diagnosis. However, the efficacy of RAT is yet to be investigated comprehensively. Thus, the current systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of RAT against RT-PCR methods as the reference standard.

Methods

We searched the MEDLINE/Pubmed and Embase databases for the relevant records. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. Diagnostic accuracy measures [i.e., sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratios (PLR), negative likelihood ratios (NLR), and the area under the curve (AUC)] were pooled with a random-effects model. All statistical analyses were performed with Meta-DiSc (Version 1.4, Cochrane Colloquium, Barcelona, Spain).

Results

After reviewing retrieved records, we identified 60 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the rapid antigen tests against the reference test (the real-time PCR) were 69% (95% CI: 68–70) and 99% (95% CI: 99–99). The PLR, NLR, DOR and the AUC estimates were found to be 72 (95% CI: 44–119), 0.30 (95% CI: 0.26–0.36), 316 (95% CI: 167–590) and 97%, respectively.

Conclusion

The present study indicated that using RAT kits is primarily recommended for the early detection of patients suspected of having COVID-19, particularly in countries with limited resources and laboratory equipment. However, the negative RAT samples may need to be confirmed using molecular tests, mainly when the symptoms of COVID-19 are present.

Evaluation of FAST COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test Kit for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Respiratory Samples from Mildly Symptomatic or Asymptomatic Patients

Molecular tests are the gold standard to diagnose severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection but are associated with a diagnostic delay, while antigen detection tests can generate results within 20 min even outside a laboratory. In order to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of the FAST COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test Kit (Ag-RDT), two respiratory swabs were collected simultaneously from 501 patients, with mild or no coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related symptoms, and analyzed with both the Reverse Transcriptase-quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-qPCR) and the FAST COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test. Results were then compared to determine clinical performance in a screening setting. We measured a precision of 97.41% (95% CI 92.42–99.15%) and a recall of 98.26% (95% CI 93.88–99.25%), with a specificity of 99.22% (95% CI 97.74–99.74%), a negative predictive value of 99.48% (95% CI 97.98–99.87%), and an overall accuracy of 99.00% (95% CI 97.69–99.68%). Concordance was described by a Kappa coefficient of 0.971 (95% CI 0.947–0.996). Considering short lead times, low cost, and opportunities for decentralized testing, the Ag-RDT test can enhance the efforts to control SARS-CoV-2 spread in several settings.

Development, Analytical, and Clinical Evaluation of Rapid Immunochromatographic Antigen Test for SARS-CoV-2 Variants Detection

The antigen rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) is a useful diagnostic tool for the detection and management of COVID-19 spread. Global SARS-CoV-2 variant outbreaks have highlighted the need for a test capable of detecting SARS-CoV-2 variants with high sensitivity and a low limit of detection. This study aimed to develop and evaluate, both analytically and clinically, an antigen rapid diagnostic test (the KestrelTM COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test) for professional use. A lateral flow immunoassay-based diagnostic test kit was developed, and various aspects of its analytical performance were evaluated. This test kit was clinically evaluated by two independent laboratories and showed closely related results of 96.49% and 98.33% of sensitivity, 100% and 100% of specificity, and 99.01% and 99.44% of accuracy, respectively. A limit of detection was observed at values as low as 0.156 ng/mL for recombinant SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein. Moreover, the test kit successfully detected the recombinant SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (NP) of wild-type, Alpha-, Beta-, Gamma-, Delta-, Epsilon-, Kappa-, and Omicron-variants as positive results. Therefore, the KestrelTM COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test may have potential use for effective COVID-19 screening, surveillance, and infection control in a variety of global SARS-CoV-2 variant outbreaks.

SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing in the healthcare sector: A clinical prediction model for identifying false negative results

OBJECTIVES

SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests (RAT) provide fast identification of infectious patients when RT-PCR results are not immediately available. We aimed to develop a prediction model for identification of false negative (FN) RAT results.

METHODS

In this multicenter trial, patients with documented paired results of RAT and RT-PCR between October 1st 2020 and January 31st 2021 were retrospectively analyzed regarding clinical findings. Variables included demographics, laboratory values and specific symptoms. Three different models were evaluated using Bayesian logistic regression.

RESULTS

The initial dataset contained 4,076 patients. Overall sensitivity and specificity of RAT was 62.3% and 97.6%. 2,997 cases with negative RAT results (FN: 120; true negative: 2,877; reference: RT-PCR) underwent further evaluation after removal of cases with missing data. The best-performing model for predicting FN RAT results containing 10 variables yielded an area under the curve of 0.971. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for 0.09 as cut-off value (probability for FN RAT) were 0.85, 0.99, 0.7 and 0.99.

CONCLUSION

FN RAT results can be accurately identified through ten routinely available variables. Implementation of a prediction model in addition to RAT testing in clinical care can provide decision guidance for initiating appropriate hygiene measures and therefore helps avoiding nosocomial infections.

COVID-19 Testing and Diagnostics: A Review of Commercialized Technologies for Cost, Convenience and Quality of Tests

Population-scale and rapid testing for SARS-CoV-2 continues to be a priority for several parts of the world. We revisit the in vitro technology platforms for COVID-19 testing and diagnostics—molecular tests and rapid antigen tests, serology or antibody tests, and tests for the management of COVID-19 patients. Within each category of tests, we review the commercialized testing platforms, their analyzing systems, specimen collection protocols, testing methodologies, supply chain logistics, and related attributes. Our discussion is essentially focused on test products that have been granted emergency use authorization by the FDA to detect and diagnose COVID-19 infections. Different strategies for scaled-up and faster screening are covered here, such as pooled testing, screening programs, and surveillance testing. The near-term challenges lie in detecting subtle infectivity profiles, mapping the transmission dynamics of new variants, lowering the cost for testing, training a large healthcare workforce, and providing test kits for the masses. Through this review, we try to understand the feasibility of universal access to COVID-19 testing and diagnostics in the near future while being cognizant of the implicit tradeoffs during the development and distribution cycles of new testing platforms.

Performance of Seven SARS-CoV-2 Self-Tests Based on Saliva, Anterior Nasal and Nasopharyngeal Swabs Corrected for Infectiousness in Real-Life Conditions: A Cross-Sectional Test Accuracy Study

Many studies reported good performance of nasopharyngeal swab-based antigen tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals; however, studies independently evaluating the quality of antigen tests utilizing anterior nasal swabs or saliva swabs are still rare, although such tests are widely used for mass testing. In our study, sensitivities, specificities and predictive values of seven antigen tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2 (one using nasopharyngeal swabs, two using anterior nasal swabs and four using saliva) were evaluated. In a setting of a high-capacity testing center, nasopharyngeal swabs for quantitative PCR (qPCR) were taken and, at the same time, antigen testing was performed in accordance with manufacturers' instructions for the respective tests. In samples where qPCR and antigen tests yielded different results, virus culture was performed to evaluate the presence of the viable virus. Sensitivities and specificities of individual tests were calculated using both qPCR and qPCR corrected for viability as the reference. In addition, calculations were also performed for data categorized according to the cycle threshold and symptomatic status. The test using nasopharyngeal swabs yielded the best results (sensitivity of 80.6% relative to PCR and 91.2% when corrected for viability) while none of the remaining tests (anterior nasal swab or saliva-based tests) came even close to the WHO criteria for overall sensitivity. Hence, we advise caution when using antigen tests with alternative sampling methods without independent validation.

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.

Test it earlier, result it faster, makes us stronger: how rapid viral diagnostics enable therapeutic success

The COVID-19 pandemic has entailed simultaneous revolutions in virology diagnostics, clinical trials management, and antiviral therapy and vaccinology. Over the past year, SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing has moved from highly centralized laboratories to at-home and even over the-counter. This transition has been lionized for its potential public health impact via isolation, but has been less examined for its effect on individual health and therapeutics. Since early initiation of antiviral therapy routinely has been associated with greater treatment efficacy for viral infections, these diagnostic testing innovations offer new opportunities for both clinical testing as well as clinical trials for antiviral therapy. Given a rapidly growing antiviral therapeutic pipeline and the profound impact of individual beneficiary outcomes on sculpting reimbursement policy, the therapeutic benefits associated with rapid viral testing may lead to significant adoption beyond potential public health impacts.