ABSTRACT
In November 2021, the World Health Organization declared the Omicron variant (B.1.1.519) a variant of concern. Since then, worries have been expressed regarding the ability of usual diagnostic tests to detect the Omicron variant. In addition, some recently published data suggested that the salivary reverse transcription (RT)-PCR might perform better than the current gold standard, nasopharyngeal (NP) RT-PCR. In this study, we aimed to compare the sensitivities of nasopharyngeal and saliva RT-PCR and assess the diagnostic performances of rapid antigen testing (RAT) in nasopharyngeal and saliva samples. We conducted a prospective clinical study among symptomatic health care professionals consulting the occupational health service of our hospital for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) screening and hospitalized patients in internal medicine/intensive care wards screened for SARS-CoV-2 with COVID-19-compatible symptoms. A composite outcome considering NP PCR and/or saliva PCR was used as a reference standard to define COVID-19 cases. A total of 475 paired NP/saliva specimens have been collected with a positivity rate of 40% (n = 192). NP and salivary RT-PCR exhibited sensitivities of 98% (95% CI, 94 to 99%) and 87% (95% CI, 81 to 91%), respectively, for outpatients (n = 453) and 94% (95% CI, 72 to 99%) and 69% (95% CI, 44 to 86%), respectively, for hospitalized patients (n = 22). Nasopharyngeal rapid antigen testing exhibited much lower diagnostic performances (sensitivity of 66% and 31% for outpatients and inpatients, respectively), while saliva RAT showed a sensitivity of less than 5% in both groups. Nasopharyngeal RT-PCR testing remains the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant screening. Salivary RT-PCR can be used as an alternative in case of contraindication to perform NP sampling. The use of RAT should be limited to settings where access to molecular diagnostic methods is lacking. IMPORTANCE The Omicron variant of concern spread rapidly since it was first reported in November 2021 and currently accounts for the vast majority of new infections worldwide. Recent reports suggest that saliva sampling might outweigh nasopharyngeal sampling for the diagnosis of the Omicron variant. Nevertheless, data investigating the best diagnostic strategy specifically for the Omicron variant of concern remain scarce. This study fills this gap in current knowledge and elucidates the question of which strategy to use in which patient. It provides a new basis for further improving COVID-19 screening programs and managing patients suspected to have COVID-19.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: While laboratories have been facing limited supplies of reagents for diagnostic tests throughout the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, national and international health plans, as well as billing costs, have been constantly adjusted in order to optimize the use of resources. We aimed to assess the impact of SARS-CoV-2 test costs and reimbursement tariff adjustments on diagnostic strategies in Switzerland to determine the advantages and disadvantages of different costs and resource saving plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We specifically assessed the cost of diagnostic SARS-COV-2 RT-PCR using five different approaches: i) in-house platform, ii) cobas 6800® (Roche, Basel, Switzerland), iii) GeneXpert® SARS-CoV-2 test (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA), iv) VIASURE SARS-CoV-2 (N1 + N2) Real-Time PCR Detection Kit for BD MAX™ (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lake, NJ, USA), v) cobas® Liat® SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B (Roche, Basel, Switzerland). We compared these costs to the evolution of the reimbursement tariffs. RESULTS: The cost of a single RT-PCR test varied greatly (as did the volume of tests performed), ranging from as high as 180 CHF per test at the beginning of the pandemic (February to April 2020) to as low as 82 CHF per test at the end of 2020. Depending on the time period within the pandemic, higher costs did not necessarily mean greater benefits for the laboratories. The costs of molecular reagents for rapid tests were higher than of those for classic RT-PCR platforms, but the rapid tests had reduced turnaround times (TATs), thus improving patient care and enabling more efficient implementation of isolation measures, as well as reducing the burden of possible nosocomial infections. At the same time, there were periods when the production or distribution of these reagents was insufficient, and only the use of several different molecular platforms allowed us to sustain the high number of tests requested. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-saving plans need to be thoroughly assessed and constantly adjusted according to the epidemiological situation, the clinical context and the national resources in order to always guarantee that the highest performing diagnostic solutions are available. Not all cost-saving strategies guarantee good analytical performance.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Humans , Pandemics , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
During COVID19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests (RATs) were marketed with minimal or no performance data. We aimed at closing this gap by determining technical sensitivities and specificities of 30 RATs prior to market release. We developed a standardized technical validation protocol and assessed 30 RATs across four diagnostic laboratories. RATs were tested in parallel using the Standard Q® (SD Biosensor/Roche) assay as internal reference. We used left-over universal transport/optimum media from nasopharyngeal swabs of 200 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative and 100 PCR-positive tested patients. Transport media was mixed with assay buffer and applied to RATs according to manufacturer instructions. Sensitivities were determined according to viral loads. Specificity of at least 99% and sensitivity of 95%, 90%, and 80% had to be reached for 107, 106, 105 virus copies/mL, respectively. Sensitivities ranged from 43.5% to 98.6%, 62.3% to 100%, and 66.7% to 100% at 105, 106, 107 copies/mL, respectively. Automated assay readers such as ExDia or LumiraDx showed higher performances. Specificities ranged from 88.8% to 100%. Only 15 of 30 (50%) RATs passed our technical validation. Due to the high failure rate of 50%, mainly caused by lack of sensitivity, we recommend a thorough validation of RATs prior to market release.
ABSTRACT
Saliva sampling could serve as an alternative non-invasive sample for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis while rapid antigen tests (RATs) might help to mitigate the shortage of reagents sporadically encountered with RT-PCR. Thus, in the RESTART study we compared antigen and RT-PCR testing methods on nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs and salivary samples. We conducted a prospective observational study among COVID-19 hospitalized patients between 10 December 2020 and 1 February 2021. Paired saliva and NP samples were investigated by RT-PCR (Cobas 6800, Roche-Switzerland, Basel, Switzerland) and by two rapid antigen tests: One Step Immunoassay Exdia® COVID-19 Ag (Precision Biosensor, Daejeon, Korea) and Standard Q® COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche-Switzerland). A total of 58 paired NP-saliva specimens were collected. A total of 32 of 58 (55%) patients were hospitalized in the intensive care unit, and the median duration of symptoms was 11 days (IQR 5-19). NP and salivary RT-PCR exhibited sensitivity of 98% and 69% respectively, whereas the specificity of these RT-PCRs assays was 100%. The NP RATs exhibited much lower diagnostic performance, with sensitivities of 35% and 41% for the Standard Q® and Exdia® assays, respectively, when a wet-swab approach was used (i.e., when the swab was diluted in the viral transport medium (VTM) before testing). The sensitivity of the dry-swab approach was slightly better (47%). These antigen tests exhibited very low sensitivity (4% and 8%) when applied to salivary swabs. Nasopharyngeal RT-PCR is the most accurate test for COVID-19 diagnosis in hospitalized patients. RT-PCR on salivary samples may be used when nasopharyngeal swabs are contraindicated. RATs are not appropriate for hospitalized patients.