Multicenter Diagnostic Evaluation of OnSite COVID-19 Rapid Test (CTK Biotech) among Symptomatic Individuals in Brazil and the United Kingdom.

The COVID-19 pandemic has given rise to numerous commercially available antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs). To generate and to share accurate and independent data with the global community requires multisite prospective diagnostic evaluations of Ag-RDTs. This report describes the clinical evaluation of the OnSite COVID-19 rapid test (CTK Biotech, CA, USA) in Brazil and the United Kingdom. A total of 496 paired nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs were collected from symptomatic health care workers at Hospital das Clínicas in São Paulo, Brazil, and 211 NP swabs were collected from symptomatic participants at a COVID-19 drive-through testing site in Liverpool, United Kingdom. Swabs were analyzed by Ag-RDT, and results were compared to quantitative reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-qPCR). The clinical sensitivity of the OnSite COVID-19 rapid test in Brazil was 90.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.1 to 96.7%) and in the United Kingdom was 75.3% (95% CI, 64.6 to 83.6%). The clinical specificity in Brazil was 99.4% (95% CI, 98.1 to 99.8%) and in the United Kingdom was 95.5% (95% CI, 90.6 to 97.9%). Concurrently, analytical evaluation of the Ag-RDT was assessed using direct culture supernatant of SARS-CoV-2 strains from wild-type (WT), Alpha, Delta, Gamma, and Omicron lineages. This study provides comparative performance of an Ag-RDT across two different settings, geographical areas, and populations. Overall, the OnSite Ag-RDT demonstrated a lower clinical sensitivity than claimed by the manufacturer. The sensitivity and specificity from the Brazil study fulfilled the performance criteria determined by the World Health Organization, but the performance obtained from the UK study failed to do. Further evaluation of Ag-RDTs should include harmonized protocols between laboratories to facilitate comparison between settings. IMPORTANCE Evaluating rapid diagnostic tests in diverse populations is essential to improving diagnostic responses as it gives an indication of the accuracy in real-world scenarios. In the case of rapid diagnostic testing within this pandemic, lateral flow tests that meet the minimum requirements for sensitivity and specificity can play a key role in increasing testing capacity, allowing timely clinical management of those infected, and protecting health care systems. This is particularly valuable in settings where access to the test gold standard is often restricted.

Diagnostic performance of GENEDIA W and ActiveXpress+ COVID-19 antigens tests among symptomatic individuals in Peru and The United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: In order to generate independent performance data regarding accuracy of COVID-19 antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs), prospective diagnostic evaluation studies across multiple sites are required to evaluate their performance in different clinical settings. This report describes the clinical evaluation the GENEDIA W COVID-19 Ag Device (Green Cross Medical Science Corp., Chungbuk, Korea) and the ActiveXpress+ COVID-19 Complete Testing Kit (Edinburgh Genetics Ltd, UK), in two testing sites Peru and the United Kingdom. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal swabs collected from 456 symptomatic patients at primary points of care in Lima, Peru and 610 symptomatic participants at a COVID-19 Drive-Through testing site in Liverpool, England were analyzed by Ag-RDT and compared to RT-PCR. Analytical evaluation of both Ag-RDTs was assessed using serial dilutions of direct culture supernatant of a clinical SARS-CoV-2 isolate from the B.1.1.7 lineage. RESULTS: For GENEDIA brand, the values of overall sensitivity and specificity were 60.4% [95% CI 52.4-67.9%], and 99.2% [95% CI 97.6-99.7%] respectively; and for Active Xpress+ the overall values of sensitivity and specificity were 66.2% [95% CI 54.0-76.5%], and 99.6% [95% CI 97.9-99.9%] respectively. The analytical limit of detection was determined at 5.0 x 102 pfu/ml what equals to approximately 1.0 x 104 gcn/ml for both Ag-RDTs. The UK cohort had lower median Ct values compared to that of Peru during both evaluations. When split by Ct, both Ag-RDTs had optimum sensitivities at Ct<20 (in Peru; 95% [95% CI 76.4-99.1%] and 100.0% [95% CI 74.1-100.0%] and in the UK; 59.2% [95% CI 44.2-73.0%] and 100.0% [95% CI 15.8-100.0%], for the GENDIA and the ActiveXpress+, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Whilst the overall clinical sensitivity of the Genedia did not meet WHO minimum performance requirements for rapid immunoassays in either cohort, the ActiveXpress+ did so for the small UK cohort. This study illustrates comparative performance of Ag-RDTs across two global settings and considers the different approaches in evaluation methods.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection by saliva and nasopharyngeal sampling in frontline healthcare workers: An observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has caused an unprecedented strain on healthcare systems worldwide, including the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS). We conducted an observational cohort study of SARS-CoV-2 infection in frontline healthcare workers (HCW) working in an acute NHS Trust during the first wave of the pandemic, to answer emerging questions surrounding SARS-CoV-2 infection, diagnosis, transmission and control. METHODS: Using self-collected weekly saliva and twice weekly combined oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal (OP/NP) samples, in addition to self-assessed symptom profiles and isolation behaviours, we retrospectively compared SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-qPCR of saliva and OP/NP samples. We report the association with contemporaneous symptoms and isolation behaviour. RESULTS: Over a 12-week period from 30th March 2020, 40·0% (n = 34/85, 95% confidence interval 31·3-51·8%) HCW had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection by surveillance OP/NP swab and/or saliva sample. Symptoms were reported by 47·1% (n = 40) and self-isolation by 25·9% (n = 22) participants. Only 44.1% (n = 15/34) participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection reported any symptoms within 14 days of a positive result and only 29·4% (n = 10/34) reported self-isolation periods. Overall agreement between paired saliva and OP/NP swabs was 93·4% (n = 211/226 pairs) but rates of positive concordance were low. In paired samples with at least one positive result, 35·0% (n = 7/20) were positive exclusively by OP/NP swab, 40·0% (n = 8/20) exclusively by saliva and in only 25·0% (n = 5/20) were the OP/NP and saliva result both positive. CONCLUSIONS: HCW are a potential source of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in hospitals and symptom screening will identify the minority of infections. Without routine asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 screening, it is likely that HCW with SARS-CoV-2 infection would continue to attend work. Saliva, in addition to OP/NP swab testing, facilitated ascertainment of symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. Combined saliva and OP/NP swab sampling would improve detection of SARS-CoV-2 for surveillance and is recommended for a high sensitivity strategy.

Multicenter Diagnostic Evaluation of a Novel Coronavirus Antigen Lateral Flow Test among Symptomatic Individuals in Brazil and the United Kingdom.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the commercialization of many antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs), requiring independent evaluations. This report describes the clinical evaluation of the Novel Coronavirus 2019-nCoV Antigen Test (Colloidal Gold) (Beijing Hotgen Biotech Co., Ltd.), at two sites within Brazil and one in the United Kingdom. The collected samples (446 nasal swabs from Brazil and 246 nasopharyngeal samples from the UK) were analyzed by the Ag-RDT and compared to reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR). Analytical evaluation of the Ag-RDT was performed using direct culture supernatants of SARS-CoV-2 strains from the wild-type (B.1), Alpha (B.1.1.7), Delta (B.1.617.2), Gamma (P.1), and Omicron (B.1.1.529) lineages. An overall sensitivity and specificity of 88.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 81.3 to 93.3) and 100.0% (95% CI, 99.1 to 100.0), respectively, were obtained for the Brazilian and UK cohorts. The analytical limit of detection was determined as 1.0 × 103 PFU/mL (Alpha), 2.5 × 102 PFU/mL (Delta), 2.5 × 103 PFU/mL (Gamma), and 1.0 × 103 PFU/mL (Omicron), giving a viral copy equivalent of approximately 2.1 × 104 copies/mL, 9.0 × 105 copies/mL, 1.7 × 106 copies/mL, and 1.8 × 105 copies/mL for the Ag-RDT, respectively. Overall, while a higher sensitivity was claimed by the manufacturers than that found in this study, this evaluation finds that the Ag-RDT meets the WHO minimum performance requirements for sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 Ag-RDTs. This study illustrates the comparative performance of the Hotgen Ag-RDT across two global settings and considers the different approaches in evaluation methods. IMPORTANCE Since the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we have witnessed growing numbers of antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) being brought to market. In the United Kingdom, this was somewhat controlled indirectly as the government offered free tests from a small number of companies. However, as this has now ceased, individuals are responsible for their own acquisition of test kits. Similarly in Brazil, as of January 2022, pharmacies and other health care retailers are permitted to sell Ag-RDTs directly to the community. Many of these Ag-RDTs have not been externally evaluated, and results are not readily available to the public. Thus, there is now a need for a transparent evaluation of Ag-RDTs with both analytical and clinical evaluation. We present an independent review of the Novel Coronavirus 2019-nCoV Antigen Test (Colloidal Gold) (Beijing Hotgen Biotech Co., Ltd.), at two sites within Brazil and one in the United Kingdom.

A prospective diagnostic evaluation of accuracy of self-taken and healthcare worker-taken swabs for rapid COVID-19 testing.

BACKGROUND: Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) developed for point of care detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen are recommended by WHO to use trained health care workers to collect samples. We hypothesised that self-taken samples are non-inferior for use with RDTs to diagnose COVID-19. We designed a prospective diagnostic evaluation comparing self-taken and healthcare worker (HCW)-taken throat/nasal swabs to perform RDTs for SARS-CoV-2, and how these compare to RT-PCR. METHODS: Eligible participants 18 years or older with symptoms of COVID-19. 250 participants recruited at the NHS Test and Trace drive-through community PCR testing site (Liverpool, UK); one withdrew before analysis. Self-administered throat/nasal swab for the Covios® RDT, a trained HCW taken throat/nasal sample for PCR and HCW comparison throat/nasal swab for RDT were collected. RDT results were compared to RT-PCR, as the reference standard, to calculate sensitivity and specificity. FINDINGS: Seventy-five participants (75/249, 30.1%) were positive by RT-PCR. RDTs with self-taken swabs had a sensitivity of 90.5% (67/74, 95% CI: 83.9-97.2), compared to 78.4% (58/74, 95% CI: 69.0-87.8) for HCW-taken swabs (absolute difference 12.2%, 95% CI: 4.7-19.6, p = 0.003). Specificity for self-taken swabs was 99.4% (173/174, 95% CI: 98.3-100.0), versus 98.9% (172/174, 95% CI: 97.3-100.0) for HCW-taken swabs (absolute difference 0.6%, 95% CI: 0.5-1.7, p = 0.317). The PPV of self-taken RDTs (98.5%, 67/68, 95% CI: 95.7-100.0) and HCW-taken RDTs (96.7%, 58/60, 95% CI 92.1-100.0) were not significantly different (p = 0.262). However, the NPV of self-taken swab RDTs was significantly higher (96.1%, 173/180, 95% CI: 93.2-98.9) than HCW-taken RDTs (91.5%, 172/188, 95% CI 87.5-95.5, p = 0.003). INTERPRETATION: In conclusion, self-taken swabs for COVID-19 testing offer an accurate alternative to healthcare worker taken swabs for use with RDTs. Our results demonstrate that, with no training, self-taken throat/nasal samples can be used by lay individuals as part of rapid testing programmes for symptomatic adults. This is especially important where the lack of trained healthcare workers restricts access to testing.

Streptococcus pneumoniae colonization associates with impaired adaptive immune responses against SARS-CoV-2.

BackgroundAlthough recent epidemiological data suggest that pneumococci may contribute to the risk of SARS-CoV-2 disease, cases of coinfection with Streptococcus pneumoniae in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during hospitalization have been reported infrequently. This apparent contradiction may be explained by interactions of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and pneumococci in the upper airway, resulting in the escape of SARS-CoV-2 from protective host immune responses.MethodsHere, we investigated the relationship of these 2 respiratory pathogens in 2 distinct cohorts of health care workers with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection identified by systematic screening and patients with moderate to severe disease who presented to the hospital. We assessed the effect of coinfection on host antibody, cellular, and inflammatory responses to the virus.ResultsIn both cohorts, pneumococcal colonization was associated with diminished antiviral immune responses, which primarily affected mucosal IgA levels among individuals with mild or asymptomatic infection and cellular memory responses in infected patients.ConclusionOur findings suggest that S. pneumoniae impair host immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and raise the question of whether pneumococcal carriage also enables immune escape of other respiratory viruses and facilitates reinfection.Trial registrationISRCTN89159899 (FASTER study) and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03502291 (LAIV study).

Twelve lateral flow immunoassays (LFAs) to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

BACKGROUND: There are an abundance of commercially available lateral flow assays (LFAs) that detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Whilst these are usually evaluated by the manufacturer, externally performed diagnostic accuracy studies to assess performance are essential. Herein we present an evaluation of 12 LFAs. METHODS: Sera from 100 SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) positive participants were recruited through the FASTER study. A total of 105 pre-pandemic sera from participants with other infections were included as negative samples. RESULTS: At presentation sensitivity against RT-PCR ranged from 37.4 to 79% for IgM/IgG, 30.3-74% for IgG, and 21.2-67% for IgM. Sensitivity for IgM/IgG improved ≥ 21 days post symptom onset for 10/12 tests. Specificity ranged from 74.3 to 99.1% for IgM/IgG, 82.9-100% for IgG, and 75.2-98% for IgM. Compared to the EuroImmun IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), sensitivity and specificity ranged from 44.6 to 95.4% and 85.4-100%, respectively. CONCLUSION: There are many LFAs available with varied sensitivity and specificity. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of these tests will be vital as we come to rely more on the antibody status of a person moving forward, and as such manufacturer-independent evaluations are crucial.

Limit of detection in different matrices of 19 commercially available rapid antigen tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

In the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic there has been an increase of the use of antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT). The performance of Ag-RDT vary greatly between manufacturers and evaluating their analytical limit of detection (LOD) has become high priority. Here we describe a manufacturer-independent evaluation of the LOD of 19 marketed Ag-RDT using live SARS-CoV-2 spiked in different matrices: direct culture supernatant, a dry swab, and a swab in Amies. Additionally, the LOD using dry swab was investigated after 7 days' storage at - 80 °C of the SARS-CoV-2 serial dilutions. An LOD of ≈ 5.0 × 102 pfu/ml (1.0 × 106 genome copies/ml) in culture media is defined as acceptable by the World Health Organization. Fourteen of 19 Ag-RDTs (ActiveXpress, Espline, Excalibur, Innova, Joysbio, Mologic, NowCheck, Orient, PanBio, RespiStrip, Roche, Standard-F, Standard-Q and Sure-Status) exceeded this performance criteria using direct culture supernatant applied to the Ag-RDT. Six Ag-RDT were not compatible with Amies media and a decreased sensitivity of 2 to 20-fold was observed for eleven tests on the stored dilutions at - 80 °C for 7 days. Here, we provide analytical sensitivity data to guide appropriate test and sample type selection for use and for future Ag-RDT evaluations.

Prevalence of neutralising antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in acute infection and convalescence: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop neutralising antibodies. We investigated the proportion of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies after infection and how this proportion varies with selected covariates. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the proportion of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies after infection and how these proportions vary with selected covariates. Three models using the maximum likelihood method assessed these proportions by study group, covariates and individually extracted data (protocol CRD42020208913). A total of 983 reports were identified and 27 were included. The pooled (95%CI) proportion of individuals with neutralising antibodies was 85.3% (83.5-86.9) using the titre cut off >1:20 and 83.9% (82.2-85.6), 70.2% (68.1-72.5) and 54.2% (52.0-56.5) with titres >1:40, >1:80 and >1:160, respectively. These proportions were higher among patients with severe COVID-19 (e.g., titres >1:80, 84.8% [80.0-89.2], >1:160, 74.4% [67.5-79.7]) than those with mild presentation (56.7% [49.9-62.9] and 44.1% [37.3-50.6], respectively) and lowest among asymptomatic infections (28.6% [17.9-39.2] and 10.0% [3.7-20.1], respectively). IgG and neutralising antibody levels correlated poorly. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: 85% of individuals with proven SARS-CoV-2 infection had detectable neutralising antibodies. This proportion varied with disease severity, study setting, time since infection and the method used to measure antibodies.

Self-sampling of capillary blood for SARS-CoV-2 serology.

Serological testing is emerging as a powerful tool to progress our understanding of COVID-19 exposure, transmission and immune response. Large-scale testing is limited by the need for in-person blood collection by staff trained in venepuncture, and the limited sensitivity of lateral flow tests. Capillary blood self-sampling and postage to laboratories for analysis could provide a reliable alternative. Two-hundred and nine matched venous and capillary blood samples were obtained from thirty nine participants and analysed using a COVID-19 IgG ELISA to detect antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Thirty eight out of thirty nine participants were able to self-collect an adequate sample of capillary blood (≥ 50 µl). Using plasma from venous blood collected in lithium heparin as the reference standard, matched capillary blood samples, collected in lithium heparin-treated tubes and on filter paper as dried blood spots, achieved a Cohen's kappa coefficient of > 0.88 (near-perfect agreement, 95% CI 0.738-1.000). Storage of capillary blood at room temperature for up to 7 days post sampling did not affect concordance. Our results indicate that capillary blood self-sampling is a reliable and feasible alternative to venepuncture for serological assessment in COVID-19.

IgG Seroconversion and Pathophysiology in Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection.

We investigated the dynamics of seroconversion in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. During March 29-May 22, 2020, we collected serum samples and associated clinical data from 177 persons in London, UK, who had SARS-CoV-2 infection. We measured IgG against SARS-CoV-2 and compared antibody levels with patient outcomes, demographic information, and laboratory characteristics. We found that 2.0%-8.5% of persons did not seroconvert 3-6 weeks after infection. Persons who seroconverted were older, were more likely to have concurrent conditions, and had higher levels of inflammatory markers. Non-White persons had higher antibody concentrations than those who identified as White; these concentrations did not decline during follow-up. Serologic assay results correlated with disease outcome, race, and other risk factors for severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serologic assays can be used in surveillance to clarify the duration and protective nature of humoral responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Saliva Alternative to Upper Respiratory Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Diagnosis.

PCR of upper respiratory specimens is the diagnostic standard for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. However, saliva sampling is an easy alternative to nasal and throat swabbing. We found similar viral loads in saliva samples and in nasal and throat swab samples from 110 patients with coronavirus disease.