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.

Pooling sputum for Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra testing during the Covid-19 pandemic in Lao People's Democratic Republic

The global Covid-19 pandemic has limited access to molecular TB diagnostics and National Programmes are struggling to maintain essential services. The pooling method (testing several samples together) could reduce the number of cartridges and staff time needed for TB diagnosis but has not been tested within the pandemic. We conducted two independent cross-sectional surveys. Pools composed of four sputum samples were tested using either Xpert-MTB/RIF or Xpert-Ultra. Pooled and individual results were compared to determine the level of agreement. Each survey included 840 participants and 210 pools. In the Xpert MTB/RIF survey, 77/81 (sensitivity 95.1%, 95%CI 87.8%-98.6%) pools containing ≥1 positive sample tested MTB-positive and 4/81 (4.9%, 95%CI 1.4%-12.2%) tested MTB-negative. All 129/129 pools containing MTB-negative samples tested MTB-negative (specificity 100%, 95%CI 97.2%-100%), with 98.1% agreement (Kappa: 0.959). In the Xpert-Ultra survey, 70/70 (sensitivity 100%, 95%CI 94.9%-100%) pools containing ≥ 1 MTB-positive sample tested MTB-positive and 140/140 (specificity 100%, 95%CI 97.4%-100%) pools containing only MTB-negative samples tested MTB-negative, with 100% agreement (Kappa: 1). Pooled testing with Xpert-MTB/RIF and Xpert-Ultra saved 38.3% and 41.7% (322/840 and 350/840, respectively) in cartridge costs alone. The pooling method with Xpert-MTB/RIF and Xpert-Ultra has similar performance to individual testing and can reduce the number of cartridges needed. These efficiencies can facilitate maintenance of stocks and sustain essential services as countries face difficulties for laboratory procurement during the pandemic and will provide cost and time savings post-pandemic.

Pooling of sputum samples to increase tuberculosis diagnostic capacity in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed whether combining (pooling) four individual's samples and testing with Xpert Ultra has the same accuracy as testing samples individually as a more efficient testing method. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of individuals with presumptive tuberculosis attending primary health care or general hospital facilities in Alagoas, Brazil. The sputum samples of four consecutive individuals were pooled and the pool and individual samples were tested with Xpert Ultra. The agreement of the tests was compared using kappa statistics. We estimated the sensitivity and specificity of pooling using the individual test as the reference standard and potential cartridge savings. RESULTS: A total of 396 participants were tested. A total of 95 (24.0%) individual samples were Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB)-positive, 300 (75.8%) "MTB not detected", including 20 "MTB trace", and one reported an error. A total of 99 pools of four samples were tested, of which 62 (62.6%) had MTB detected and 37 (37.4%) MTB not detected, including six (6.1%) with MTB trace. The agreement between individual and pooled testing was 96.0%. Pooling had a sensitivity of 95.0% (95% confidence interval 86.9-99%), specificity of 97.1% (95% confidence interval 85.1-99.9%), and kappa of 0.913. The method saved 12.4% of cartridge costs. CONCLUSION: The pooled testing of specimens had a high level of agreement with individual testing. The pooling of samples for testing improves the efficiency of testing, potentially enabling the screening and testing of larger numbers of individuals more cost-effectively.

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.

Analytical evaluation of thirty-two severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 lateral flow antigen tests demonstrates sensitivity remains with the SARS-CoV-2 Gamma lineage.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of variants of concern (VOCs) requires an ongoing assessment of the performance of antigen lateral flow tests (Ag-RDTs). The limit of detection (LOD) of 32 Ag-RDTs was evaluated using the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Gamma variant. METHODS: Ag-RDTs were performed according to the manufacturer's instructions with a clinical isolate of the Gamma variant. RESULTS: Twenty-eight of the 32 Ag-RDTs exceeded the World Health Organization criteria. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive analytical evaluation of Ag-RDTs demonstrated that the test performance was maintained with Gamma VOC.

Pooling sputum for Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra testing during the Covid-19 pandemic in Lao People's Democratic Republic.

The global Covid-19 pandemic has limited access to molecular TB diagnostics and National Programmes are struggling to maintain essential services. The pooling method (testing several samples together) could reduce the number of cartridges and staff time needed for TB diagnosis but has not been tested within the pandemic. We conducted two independent cross-sectional surveys. Pools composed of four sputum samples were tested using either Xpert-MTB/RIF or Xpert-Ultra. Pooled and individual results were compared to determine the level of agreement. Each survey included 840 participants and 210 pools. In the Xpert MTB/RIF survey, 77/81 (sensitivity 95.1%, 95%CI 87.8%-98.6%) pools containing ≥1 positive sample tested MTB-positive and 4/81 (4.9%, 95%CI 1.4%-12.2%) tested MTB-negative. All 129/129 pools containing MTB-negative samples tested MTB-negative (specificity 100%, 95%CI 97.2%-100%), with 98.1% agreement (Kappa: 0.959). In the Xpert-Ultra survey, 70/70 (sensitivity 100%, 95%CI 94.9%-100%) pools containing ≥ 1 MTB-positive sample tested MTB-positive and 140/140 (specificity 100%, 95%CI 97.4%-100%) pools containing only MTB-negative samples tested MTB-negative, with 100% agreement (Kappa: 1). Pooled testing with Xpert-MTB/RIF and Xpert-Ultra saved 38.3% and 41.7% (322/840 and 350/840, respectively) in cartridge costs alone. The pooling method with Xpert-MTB/RIF and Xpert-Ultra has similar performance to individual testing and can reduce the number of cartridges needed. These efficiencies can facilitate maintenance of stocks and sustain essential services as countries face difficulties for laboratory procurement during the pandemic and will provide cost and time savings post-pandemic.

Pooled testing of sputum with Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra during tuberculosis active case finding campaigns in Lao People's Democratic Republic.

INTRODUCTION: Active case finding (ACF) of individuals with tuberculosis (TB) is a key intervention to find the 30% of people missed every year. However, ACF requires screening large numbers of individuals who have a low probability of positive results, typically <5%, which makes using the recommended molecular tests expensive. METHODS: We conducted two ACF surveys (in 2020 and 2021) in high TB burden areas of Lao PDR. Participants were screened for TB symptoms and received a chest X-ray. Sputum samples of four consecutive individuals were pooled and tested with Xpert Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB)/rifampicin (RIF) (Xpert-MTB/RIF) (2020) or Xpert-Ultra (2021). The agreement of the individual and pooled samples was compared and the reasons for discrepant results and potential cartridge savings were assessed. RESULTS: Each survey included 436 participants, which were tested in 109 pools. In the Xpert-MTB/RIF survey, 25 (sensitivity 89%, 95% CI 72.8% to 96.3%) of 28 pools containing MTB-positive samples tested positive and 81 pools containing only MTB-negative samples tested negative (specificity 100%, 95% CI 95.5% to 100%). In the Xpert-Ultra survey, all 32 (sensitivity 100%, 95% CI 89.3% to 100%) pools containing MTB-positive samples tested positive and all 77 (specificity 100%, 95% CI 95.3% to 100%) containing only MTB-negative samples tested negative. Pooling with Xpert-MTB/RIF and Xpert-Ultra saved 52% and 46% (227/436 and 199/436, respectively) of cartridge costs alone. CONCLUSION: Testing single and pooled specimens had a high level of agreement, with complete concordance when using Xpert-Ultra. Pooling samples could generate significant cartridge savings during ACF campaigns.

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.

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.

Systematic Review of Pooling Sputum as an Efficient Method for Xpert MTB/RIF Tuberculosis Testing during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

GeneXpert-based testing with Xpert MTB/RIF or Ultra assays is essential for tuberculosis diagnosis. However, testing may be affected by cartridge and staff shortages. More efficient testing strategies could help, especially during the coronavirus disease pandemic. We searched the literature to systematically review whether GeneXpert-based testing of pooled sputum samples achieves sensitivity and specificity similar to testing individual samples; this method could potentially save time and preserve the limited supply of cartridges. From 6 publications, we found 2-sample pools using Xpert MTB/RIF had 87.5% and 96.0% sensitivity (average sensitivity 94%; 95% CI 89.0%-98.0%) (2 studies). Four-sample pools averaged 91% sensitivity with Xpert MTB/RIF (2 studies) and 98% with Ultra (2 studies); combining >4 samples resulted in lower sensitivity. Two studies reported that pooling achieved 99%-100% specificity and 27%-31% in cartridge savings. Our results show that pooling may improve efficiency of GeneXpert-based testing.

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.