Association between viral load and positivization time of a SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test in routine nasopharyngeal specimens

Improving diagnostic performance of coronavirus disease 2019 rapid antigen testing through computer-based feedback training using open-source experimental psychology software

INTRODUCTION

Rapid antigen testing (RAT) results are visually read as whether colored line is present or absent. The subjective interpretation potentially misses detecting weak lines due to lower analyte concentration in samples tested, requiring training. Although routine test experience has improved the result readout skills, it consumes time and resources. Therefore, we created a computer-based feedback training method using open-source experimental psychology software, wherein participants accumulate RAT result readout experience by repeatedly responding positive/negative to randomly presented pictures showing RAT results; then, they receive feedback on their answers as correct or incorrect and are asked to stare at the pictures again with the knowledge of correct answer. This study aimed to examine the training effects in improving the skills, using coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) RAT.

METHODS

Twenty-two medical technologists were randomly divided into two groups: the feedback-training and test-experience groups. Using several pictures showing positive and negative results of COVID-19 RAT, after examination of their initial result readout skills, feedback-training group received the feedback training, whereas test-experience group performed an equal number of tests without feedback to accumulate test experience, and their skills were examined again. The ratio of "positive" answers to the pictures showing positive results (i.e., hit rate) was statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

The feedback-training group showed a significantly higher hit rate after their training, whereas the test-experience group did not. The feedback training effects were manifested in weak line detection.

CONCLUSIONS

This computer-based feedback training method can be an effective tool for improving RAT result readout skills.

Rapid Antigen Tests during the COVID-19 Era in Korea and Their Implementation as a Detection Tool for Other Infectious Diseases

Rapid antigen tests (RATs) are diagnostic tools developed to specifically detect a certain protein of infectious agents (viruses, bacteria, or parasites). RATs are easily accessible due to their rapidity and simplicity. During the COVID-19 pandemic, RATs have been widely used in detecting the presence of the specific SARS-CoV-2 antigen in respiratory samples from suspected individuals. Here, the authors review the application of RATs as detection tools for COVID-19, particularly in Korea, as well as for several other infectious diseases. To address these issues, we present general knowledge on the design of RATs that adopt the lateral flow immunoassay for the detection of the analyte (antigen). The authors then discuss the clinical utilization of the authorized RATs amidst the battle against the COVID-19 pandemic in Korea and their role in comparison with other detection methods. We also discuss the implementation of RATs for other, non-COVID-19 infectious diseases, the challenges that may arise during the application, the limitations of RATs as clinical detection tools, as well as the possible problem solving for those challenges to maximize the performance of RATs and avoiding any misinterpretation of the test result.

Positivization time of a COVID-19 rapid antigen self-test predicts SARS-CoV-2 viral load: a proof of concept

OBJECTIVES

This proof of concept study was aimed to validate the hypothesis that the time of positivization of SARS-CoV-2 self-performed rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) may reflect the actual viral load in the specimen.

METHODS

A SARS-CoV-2 positive sample with high viral load was diluted and concomitantly assayed with molecular assay (Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2) and RDT (COVID-VIRO ALL IN RDT). The (mean cycle threshold; Ct) values and RDT positivization times of these dilutions were plotted and interpolated by calculating the best fit. The parameters of this equation were then used for converting the positivization times into RDT-estimated SARS-CoV-2 Ct values in routine patient samples.

RESULTS

The best fit between measured and RDT-estimated Ct values could be achieved with a 2-degree polynomial curve. The RDT-estimated Ct values exhibited high correlation (r=0.996) and excellent Deming fit (y=1.01 × x - 0.18) with measured Ct values. In 30 consecutive patients with positive RDT test, the correlation between RDT positivization time and measured Ct value was r=0.522 (p=0.003). The correlation of RDT-estimated and measured Ct values slightly improved to 0.577 (Deming fit: y=0.44 × x + 11.08), displaying a negligible bias (1.0; 95% CI, -0.2 to 2.2; p=0.105). Concordance of RDT-estimated and measured Ct values at the <20 cut-off was 80%, with 0.84 sensitivity and 0.73 specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

This proof of concept study demonstrates the potential feasibility of using RDTs for garnering information on viral load in patients with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.

An overview of the most important preanalytical factors influencing the clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs)

Due to the many technical limitations of molecular biology, the possibility to sustain enormous volumes of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) diagnostic testing relies strongly on the use of antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs). Besides a limited analytical sensitivity, the manually intensive test procedures needed for performing these tests, very often performed by unskilled personnel or by the patients themselves, may contribute to considerably impair their diagnostic accuracy. We provide here an updated overview on the leading preanalytical drawbacks that may impair SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT accuracy, and which encompass lower diagnostic sensitivity in certain age groups, in asymptomatic subjects and those with a longer time from symptoms onset, in vaccine recipients, in individuals not appropriately trained to their usage, in those recently using oral or nasal virucidal agents, in oropharyngeal swabs and saliva, as well as in circumstances when instructions provided by the manufacturers are unclear, incomplete or scarcely readable and intelligible. Acknowledging these important preanalytical limitations will lead the way to a better, more clinically efficient and even safer use of this important technology, which represents an extremely valuable resource for management of the ongoing pandemic.