Two-factor factorial randomized multi-arm parallel controlled trial of four SARS-CoV-2 surveillance strategies in representative population sample points.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is characterized by a constant risk of a rapid increase in infection burden due to the emergence of new variants with higher transmissibility and immune escape. Monitoring the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has so far mainly relied on passive surveillance, which yields biased epidemiological measures due to the disproportionate number of undetected asymptomatic cases. In contrast, active surveillance could provide more accurate estimates of the true SARS-CoV-2 prevalence that help to forecast the evolution of the pandemic, enabling evidence-based decision-making. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare four different approaches of active SARS-CoV-2 surveillance, focusing on feasibility and epidemiological outcomes. METHODS: The randomized, two-factor factorial, multi-arm parallel trial was conducted in 2020 in a German district with 700,000 inhabitants. The epidemiological outcome comprised the SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and its precision. The four study arms combined two factors: i) individuals versus households, ii) direct testing versus testing conditioned on symptom pre-screening. Individuals seven years and older were eligible. Altogether, 27,908 addresses from general population representative samples of 51 municipalities were randomly allocated to the arms and 15 consecutive recruitment weekdays. Data collection and logistics were highly digitized, a website in five languages enabled low-barrier registration and tracking of results. Gargle sample collection kits were sent by post. Participants collected a gargle sample at home and mailed it to the laboratory. Samples were analyzed with RT-LAMP, positive/weak results were confirmed with RT-qPCR. RESULTS: Recruitment took place between 18 November and 11 December 2020. The response rates in the four arms varied between 34% and 41%. The pre-screening classified 17% as COVID-19 symptomatic. Altogether, 4,232 persons without pre-screening and 7,623 participating in the pre-screening provided 5,351 gargle samples, of which 5,319 (99%) could be analyzed, yielding 17 confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections and a combined prevalence of 0.36% (95% CI [0.14%; 0.59%]) in the arms without, respectively 0.05% (95% CI [0.00%; 0.108%]) with pre-screening (initial contacts only). In more detail, we found a prevalence of 0.31% (95% CI [0.06; 0.58]), respectively 0.35% (95% CI [0.09; 0.6], household members included), and lower estimates with pre-screening (0.07% (95% CI [0.0; 0.15], respectively with household members 0.02 (95% CI [0.0; 0.06]). Asymptomatic infections occurred in 3/11 positive cases with symptom data. The two arms without pre-screening performed best regarding effectiveness and accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown that the combination of postal mailing of gargle sample kits as well as returning home-based self-collected liquid gargle samples and a subsequent analysis with high-sensitivity RT-LAMP is generally a feasible way to conduct active SARS-CoV-2 population surveillance without burdening routine diagnostic testing. Efforts to improve participation rates and to facilitate integration into the public health system may increase the potential to effectively monitor the course of the pandemic. CLINICALTRIAL: The trial was registered (30 November 2020) at the German Clinical Trials Register, registration number DRKS00023271. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT: RR2-10.1186/s13063-021-05619-5.

Field evaluation of specificity and sensitivity of a standard SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic test: A prospective study at a teaching hospital in Northern Ghana

The testing capacity for SARS-CoV-2 in Africa is rather limited. Antigen detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are a cheap and rapid alternative to reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests, but there is little data about their performance under real life conditions in tropical countries. The objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of a standard Ag-RDT in a population of a major hospital in northern Ghana. Prospective, cross-sectional, blinded verification of the performance of the SD Biosensor Standard Q SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT under real life conditions in 135 symptomatic patients and 58 contacts of RT-PCR positives at Tamale Teaching Hospital in February 2021. Nasopharyngeal samples were taken under standard conditions and tested against RT-PCR in the hospital laboratory. 193 participants (median age 35 years, 109 male) were included into the study for which both RT-PCR test and Ag-RDT results were available. A total of 42 (22%) were RT-PCR positive. Of the 42 RT-PCR positives, 27 were Ag-RDT positive, resulting in a sensitivity of 64% (95% CI 49–79). Sensitivity among symptomatic patients was 58% (95% CI 38–78). 123 were identified Ag-RDT negatives of the 151 RT-PCR negatives, resulting in a specificity of 81% (95% CI 75–87). SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs appear to have a rather low sensitivity and particularly a low specificity under real life conditions in Africa. The role of existing Ag-RDTs in countries with high-temperature climates and limited resources still needs more data and discussion.

Early user experience and lessons learned using ultra-portable digital X-ray with computer-aided detection (DXR-CAD) products: A qualitative study from the perspective of healthcare providers.

BACKGROUND: Recent technological and radiological advances have renewed interest in using X-rays to screen and triage people with tuberculosis (TB). The miniaturization of digital X-ray (DXR), combined with automatic interpretation using computer-aided detection (CAD) software can extend the reach of DXR screening interventions for TB. This qualitative study assessed early implementers' experiences and lessons learned when using ultra-portable (UP) DXR systems integrated with CAD software to screen and triage TB. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with project staff and healthcare workers at six pilot sites. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using a framework approach. The themes that emerged were subsequently organized and presented using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). RESULTS: There were 26 interviewees with varying roles: supervisory, clinicians, radiographers, and radiologists. Participants recognized the portability as the main advantage, but criticize that it involves several compromises on throughput, internet dependence, manoeuvrability, and stability, as well as suitability for patients with larger body sizes. Furthermore, compared to using hardware and software from the same supplier and without digital health information systems, complexity increases with interoperability between hardware and software, and between different electronic health information systems. Currently, there is a limited capacity to implement these technologies, especially due to the need for threshold selection, and lack of guidance on radiation protection suitable for UP DXR machines. Finally, the respondents stressed the importance of having protected means of sharing patient medical data, as well as comprehensive support and warranty plans. CONCLUSION: Study findings suggest that UP DXR with CAD was overall well received to decentralize radiological assessment for TB, however, the improved portability involved programmatic compromises. The main barriers to uptake included insufficient capacity and lack of guidance on radiation protection suitable for UP DXR.

Scalable RT-LAMP-based SARS-CoV-2 testing for infection surveillance with applications in pandemic preparedness.

Throughout the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, limited diagnostic capacities prevented sentinel testing, demonstrating the need for novel testing infrastructures. Here, we describe the setup of a cost-effective platform that can be employed in a high-throughput manner, which allows surveillance testing as an acute pandemic control and preparedness tool, exemplified by SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics in an academic environment. The strategy involves self-sampling based on gargling saline, pseudonymized sample handling, automated RNA extraction, and viral RNA detection using a semiquantitative multiplexed colorimetric reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) assay with an analytical sensitivity comparable with RT-qPCR. We provide standard operating procedures and an integrated software solution for all workflows, including sample logistics, analysis by colorimetry or sequencing, and communication of results. We evaluated factors affecting the viral load and the stability of gargling samples as well as the diagnostic sensitivity of the RT-LAMP assay. In parallel, we estimated the economic costs of setting up and running the test station. We performed > 35,000 tests, with an average turnover time of < 6 h from sample arrival to result announcement. Altogether, our work provides a blueprint for fast, sensitive, scalable, cost- and labor-efficient RT-LAMP diagnostics, which is independent of potentially limiting clinical diagnostics supply chains.

Innovative COVID-19 point-of-care diagnostics suitable for tuberculosis diagnosis: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: In 2014, the WHO published high-priority target product profiles (TPPs) for new tuberculosis (TB) diagnostics to align end-user needs with test targets and specifications; nevertheless, no TB test meets these targets to date. The COVID-19-driven momentum in the diagnostics world offers an opportunity to address the long-standing lack of innovation in the field of TB diagnostics. This scoping review aims to summarise point-of-care (POC) molecular and antigen tests for COVID-19 diagnosis that, when applied to TB, potentially meet WHO TPPs. This summary of currently available innovative diagnostic tools will guide the development of novel TB diagnostics toward the WHO-set targets. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension Scoping Reviews recommendations. MEDLINE (via PubMed), bioRxiv, MedRxiv and other publicly available in vitro diagnostic test databases were searched on 23 November 2022. POC antigen or molecular tests developed for SARS-CoV-2 detection that meet the eligibility criteria will be included in the review. Developer description, test description, operation characteristics, pricing information, performance and commercialisation status of diagnostic tests identified will be extracted using a predefined standardised data extraction form. Two reviewers will independently perform the screening and data extraction. A narrative synthesis of the final data will be provided. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required because individual patient data will not be included. The findings will be published in open-access scientific journals.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody-containing plasma improves outcome in patients with hematologic or solid cancer and severe COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial.

Patients with cancer are at high risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with high morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, impaired humoral response renders severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines less effective and treatment options are scarce. Randomized trials using convalescent plasma are missing for high-risk patients. Here, we performed a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial ( https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-001632-10/DE ) in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 (n = 134) within four risk groups ((1) cancer (n = 56); (2) immunosuppression (n = 16); (3) laboratory-based risk factors (n = 36); and (4) advanced age (n = 26)) randomized to standard of care (control arm) or standard of care plus convalescent/vaccinated anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma (plasma arm). No serious adverse events were observed related to the plasma treatment. Clinical improvement as the primary outcome was assessed using a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to discharge and overall survival. For the four groups combined, those receiving plasma did not improve clinically compared with those in the control arm (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.29; P = 0.205). However, patients with cancer experienced a shortened median time to improvement (HR = 2.50; P = 0.003) and superior survival with plasma treatment versus the control arm (HR = 0.28; P = 0.042). Neutralizing antibody activity increased in the plasma cohort but not in the control cohort of patients with cancer (P = 0.001). Taken together, convalescent/vaccinated plasma may improve COVID-19 outcomes in patients with cancer who are unable to intrinsically generate an adequate immune response.

Cost and cost-effectiveness of four different SARS-CoV-2 active surveillance strategies: evidence from a randomised control trial in Germany.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has entered its third year and continues to affect most countries worldwide. Active surveillance, i.e. testing individuals irrespective of symptoms, presents a promising strategy to accurately measure the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to identify the most cost-effective active surveillance strategy for COVID-19 among the four strategies tested in a randomised control trial between 18th November 2020 and 23rd December 2020 in Germany. The four strategies included: (A1) direct testing of individuals; (A2) direct testing of households; (B1) testing conditioned on upstream COVID-19 symptom pre-screening of individuals; and (B2) testing conditioned on upstream COVID-19 symptom pre-screening of households. METHODS: We adopted a health system perspective and followed an activity-based approach to costing. Resource consumption data were collected prospectively from a digital individual database, daily time records, key informant interviews and direct observations. Our cost-effectiveness analysis compared each strategy with the status quo and calculated the average cost-effective ratios (ACERs) for one primary outcome (sample tested) and three secondary outcomes (responder recruited, case detected and asymptomatic case detected). RESULTS: Our results showed that A2, with cost per sample tested at 52,89 EURO, had the lowest ACER for the primary outcome, closely followed by A1 (63,33 EURO). This estimate was much higher for both B1 (243,84 EURO) and B2 (181,06 EURO). CONCLUSION: A2 (direct testing at household level) proved to be the most cost-effective of the four evaluated strategies and should be considered as an option to strengthen the routine surveillance system in Germany and similar settings.

Field evaluation of specificity and sensitivity of a standard SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic test: A prospective study at a teaching hospital in Northern Ghana.

The testing capacity for SARS-CoV-2 in Africa is rather limited. Antigen detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are a cheap and rapid alternative to reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests, but there is little data about their performance under real life conditions in tropical countries. The objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of a standard Ag-RDT in a population of a major hospital in northern Ghana. Prospective, cross-sectional, blinded verification of the performance of the SD Biosensor Standard Q SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT under real life conditions in 135 symptomatic patients and 58 contacts of RT-PCR positives at Tamale Teaching Hospital in February 2021. Nasopharyngeal samples were taken under standard conditions and tested against RT-PCR in the hospital laboratory. 193 participants (median age 35 years, 109 male) were included into the study for which both RT-PCR test and Ag-RDT results were available. A total of 42 (22%) were RT-PCR positive. Of the 42 RT-PCR positives, 27 were Ag-RDT positive, resulting in a sensitivity of 64% (95% CI 49-79). Sensitivity among symptomatic patients was 58% (95% CI 38-78). 123 were identified Ag-RDT negatives of the 151 RT-PCR negatives, resulting in a specificity of 81% (95% CI 75-87). SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs appear to have a rather low sensitivity and particularly a low specificity under real life conditions in Africa. The role of existing Ag-RDTs in countries with high-temperature climates and limited resources still needs more data and discussion.

A Multicenter Clinical Diagnostic Accuracy Study of SureStatus, an Affordable, WHO Emergency Use-Listed, Rapid, Point-Of-Care Antigen-Detecting Diagnostic Test for SARS-CoV-2.

Access to reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) testing, the gold standard for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection, is limited throughout the world, due to restricted resources, available infrastructure, and high costs. Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) overcome some of these barriers, but independent clinical validations in settings of intended use are scarce. To inform the World Health Organization's (WHO) emergency use listing (EUL) procedure and ensure affordable, high-quality Ag-RDTs, we assessed the performance and ease of use of the SureStatus for SARS-CoV-2. For this prospective, multicenter diagnostic accuracy study, we recruited unvaccinated participants with presumed SARS-CoV-2 infection in India and Germany from December 2020 to March 2021, when the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant was predominantly circulating. Paired swabs were performed for (i) routine clinical RT-PCR testing (sampling was either nasopharyngeal [NP] or combined NP and oropharyngeal [NP/OP]) and (ii) Ag-RDT (sampling was NP). Performance of the Ag-RDT was compared to RT-PCR overall and by predefined subgroups, e.g., cycle threshold (CT) value, symptoms, and days from symptom onset. To understand the usability, a system usability scale (SUS) questionnaire and ease-of-use (EoU) assessment were performed. A total of 1,119 participants were included in the analysis, of whom 205 (18.3%) were RT-PCR positive. SureStatus detected 169 out of 205 RT-PCR-positive participants, reporting a sensitivity of 82.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 76.6% to 87.1%) and a specificity of 98.5% (95% CI: 97.4% to 99.1%). In the first 7 days post-symptom onset, the sensitivity was 90.7% (95% CI: 83.5% to 94.9%), when CT values were low and viral loads were high. The test was characterized as easy to use (SUS, 85/100) and considered suitable for point-of-care settings, although quality concerns were raised due to visibly contaminated packaging of swabs included in the test kits. The SureStatus diagnostic test can be considered a reliable test during the first week of SARS-CoV-2 infection, with high sensitivity in combination with excellent usability. IMPORTANCE Our manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study assessed clinical performance in participants presumed to have a SARS-CoV-2 infection at three study sites in two countries. We assessed the accuracy overall and in predefined subgroups (CT values and symptom duration). SureStatus performed with high sensitivity. Its sensitivity was particularly high in the first 3 days after symptom onset and when CT values were low (i.e., the viral load was high). The system usability and ease-of-use assessment complements the accuracy assessment of the test and highlights critical factors to facilitate the widespread use of SureStatus in point-of-care settings. The high sensitivity demonstrated by the evaluated Ag-RDT within the first days of symptoms, when most transmission occurs, supports the role of Ag-RDTs for public health-relevant screening. Evidence from this study was used to inform the World Health Organization Emergency Use Listing procedure.

Highly valued despite burdens: Qualitative implementation research on rapid tests for hospital-based SARS-CoV-2 screening.

Antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 have good reliability and have been repeatedly implemented as part of pandemic response policies, especially for screening in high-risk settings (e.g., hospitals and care homes) where fast recognition of an infection is essential. However, evidence from actual implementation efforts and associated experiences is lacking. We conducted a qualitative study at a large tertiary care hospital in Germany to identify step-by-step processes when implementing RDTs for the screening of incoming patients, as well as stakeholders' implementation experiences. We relied on 30 in-depth interviews with hospital staff (members of the regulatory body, department heads, staff working on the wards, staff training providers on how to perform RDTs, and providers performing RDTs as part of the screening) and patients being screened with RDTs. Despite some initial reservations, RDTs were rapidly accepted and adopted as the best available tool for accessible and reliable screening. Decentralized implementation efforts resulted in different procedures being operationalized across departments. Procedures were continuously refined based on initial experiences (e.g., infrastructural or scheduling constraints), pandemic dynamics (growing infection rates), and changing regulations (e.g., screening of all external personnel). To reduce interdepartmental tension, stakeholders recommended high-level, consistently communicated and enforced regulations. Despite challenges, RDT-based screening for all incoming patients was observed to be feasible and acceptable among implementers and patients, and merits continued consideration in the context of high infection and stagnating vaccination rates.

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.

Rapid comparative evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care antigen tests.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to develop a scalable approach for direct comparison of the analytical sensitivities of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antigen point-of-care tests (AgPOCTs) to rapidly identify poor-performing products. METHODS: We present a methodology for quick assessment of the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 AgPOCTs suitable for quality evaluation of many different products. We established reference samples with high, medium, and low SARS-CoV-2 viral loads along with a SARS-CoV-2 negative control sample. Test samples were used to semi-quantitatively assess the analytical sensitivities of 32 different commercial AgPOCTs in a head-to-head comparison. RESULTS: Among 32 SARS-CoV-2 AgPOCTs tested, we observe sensitivity differences across a broad range of viral loads (9.8 × 108 to 1.8 × 105 SARS-CoV-2 genome copies per ml). 23 AgPOCTs detected the Ct25 test sample (1.6 × 106 copies/ml), while only five tests detected the Ct28 test sample (1.8 × 105 copies/ml). In the low-range of analytical sensitivity, we found three saliva spit tests only delivering positive results for the Ct21 sample (2.7 × 107 copies/ml). Comparison with published data supports our AgPOCT ranking. Importantly, we identified an AgPOCT widely offered, which did not reliably recognize the sample with the highest viral load (Ct16 test sample with 9.8 × 108 copies/ml) leading to serious doubts about its usefulness in SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. CONCLUSION: The results show that the rapid sensitivity assessment procedure presented here provides useful estimations on the analytical sensitivities of 32 AgPOCTs and identified a widely-spread AgPOCT with concerningly low sensitivity.

Accuracy and ease-of-use of seven point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting tests: A multi-centre clinical evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 are important diagnostic tools. We assessed clinical performance and ease-of-use of seven Ag-RDTs in a prospective, manufacturer-independent, multi-centre cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study to inform global decision makers. METHODS: Unvaccinated participants suspected of a first SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited at six sites (Germany, Brazil). Ag-RDTs were evaluated sequentially, with collection of paired swabs for routine reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing and Ag-RDT testing. Performance was compared to RT-PCR overall and in sub-group analyses (viral load, symptoms, symptoms duration). To understandusability a System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire and ease-of-use (EoU) assessment were performed. FINDINGS: 7471 participants were included in the analysis. Sensitivities across Ag-RDTs ranged from 70·4%-90·1%, specificities were above 97·2% for all Ag-RDTs but one (93·1%).Ag-RDTs, Mologic, Bionote, Standard Q, showed diagnostic accuracy in line with WHO targets (> 80% sensitivity, > 97% specificity). All tests showed high sensitivity in the first three days after symptom onset (≥87·1%) and in individuals with viral loads≥ 6 log10SARS-CoV2 RNA copies/mL (≥ 88·7%). Usability varied, with Rapigen, Bionote and Standard Q reaching very good scores; 90, 88 and 84/100, respectively. INTERPRETATION: Variability in test performance is partially explained by variable viral loads in population evaluated over the course of the pandemic. All Ag-RDTs reach high sensitivity early in the disease and in individuals with high viral loads, supporting their role in identifying transmission relevant infections. For easy-to-use tests, performance shown will likely be maintained in routine implementation. FUNDING: Ministry of Science, Research and Arts, State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany, internal funds from Heidelberg University Hospital, University Hospital Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, UK Department of International Development, WHO, Unitaid.

Experiences with opt-in, at-home screening for SARS-CoV-2 at a primary school in Germany: an implementation study.

Background: Over the course of the pandemic, many countries have repeatedly closed schools and shifted schoolchildren to remote learning. However, evidence for negative mental and physiological health consequences of such measures for schoolchildren is increasing, highlighting the need for evidence-based recommendations on how to safely reopen schools. This study aims to assess implementation experiences, acceptability and feasibility of opt-in, at-home SARS-CoV-2 screening using rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) to facilitate safe face-to-face teaching during a pandemic. Methods: We present data from a prospective study implementing an RDT-based screening programme at a primary school in southwest Germany. In addition to quantitative data collected to assess screening diagnostic yield (number of participants, tests handed out to participants, positive RDT results reported), we conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with participating pupils, parents and school stakeholders to elicit implementation experiences and screening perceptions. Results: The screening intervention was highly accepted and appreciated among participants; no screening-associated positive RDT was reported over the duration of the study. Self-testing at home before coming to school was feasible, but more positive consequences of screening participation (eg, easing of mask mandates) besides a personal feeling of safety would have been appreciated across respondent groups. Participants preferred home-based RDTs over some other measures, particularly mask mandates. Despite the RDTs being licensed as self-tests in Germany, additional training can help avoid mistakes, and ensuring intervention ownership and improving pre-implementation communication can facilitate buy-in. Conclusions: Antigen-RDT-based SARS-CoV-2 screening programmes relying on self-testing at home are a feasible and acceptable supplement to the public health toolbox to facilitate a safe return to face-to-face teaching at schools. Trial registration number: DRKS00024845.

The Abbott PanBio WHO emergency use listed, rapid, antigen-detecting point-of-care diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2-Evaluation of the accuracy and ease-of-use.

OBJECTIVES: Diagnostics are essential for controlling the pandemic. Identifying a reliable and fast diagnostic device is needed for effective testing. We assessed performance and ease-of-use of the Abbott PanBio antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT). METHODS: This prospective, multi-centre diagnostic accuracy study enrolled at two sites in Germany. Following routine testing with reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), a second study-exclusive swab was performed for Ag-RDT testing. Routine swabs were nasopharyngeal (NP) or combined NP/oropharyngeal (OP) whereas the study-exclusive swabs were NP. To evaluate performance, sensitivity and specificity were assessed overall and in predefined sub-analyses accordingly to cycle-threshold values, days after symptom onset, disease severity and study site. Additionally, an ease-of-use assessment (EoU) and System Usability Scale (SUS) were performed. RESULTS: 1108 participants were enrolled between Sept 28 and Oct 30, 2020. Of these, 106 (9.6%) were PCR-positive. The Abbott PanBio detected 92/106 PCR-positive participants with a sensitivity of 86.8% (95% CI: 79.0% - 92.0%) and a specificity of 99.9% (95% CI: 99.4%-100%). The sub-analyses indicated that sensitivity was 95.8% in Ct-values <25 and within the first seven days from symptom onset. The test was characterized as easy to use (SUS: 86/100) and considered suitable for point-of-care settings. CONCLUSION: The Abbott PanBio Ag-RDT performs well for SARS-CoV-2 testing in this large manufacturer independent study, confirming its WHO recommendation for Emergency Use in settings with limited resources.

Head-to-head performance comparison of self-collected nasal versus professional-collected nasopharyngeal swab for a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test.

In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended two SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow antigen-detecting rapid diagnostics tests (Ag-RDTs), both initially with nasopharyngeal (NP) sample collection. Independent head-to-head studies are necessary for SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT nasal sampling to demonstrate comparability of performance with nasopharyngeal (NP) sampling. We conducted a head-to-head comparison study of a supervised, self-collected nasal mid-turbinate (NMT) swab and a professional-collected NP swab, using the Panbio™ Ag-RDT (distributed by Abbott). We calculated positive and negative percent agreement between the sampling methods as well as sensitivity and specificity for both sampling techniques compared to the reference standard reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). A SARS-CoV-2 infection could be diagnosed by RT-PCR in 45 of 290 participants (15.5%). Comparing the NMT and NP sampling the positive percent agreement of the Ag-RDT was 88.1% (37/42 PCR positives detected; CI 75.0-94.8%). The negative percent agreement was 98.8% (245/248; CI 96.5-99.6%). The overall sensitivity of Panbio with NMT sampling was 84.4% (38/45; CI 71.2-92.3%) and 88.9% (40/45; CI 76.5-95.5%) with NP sampling. Specificity was 99.2% (243/245; CI 97.1-99.8%) for both, NP and NMT sampling. The sensitivity of the Panbio test in participants with high viral load (> 7 log10 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/mL) was 96.3% (CI 81.7-99.8%) for both, NMT and NP sampling. For the Panbio supervised NMT self-sampling yields comparable results to NP sampling. This suggests that nasal self-sampling could be used for to enable scaled-up population testing.Clinical Trial DRKS00021220.