Diagnostic performance of four lateral flow immunoassays for COVID-19 antibodies in Peruvian population.

Serological assays have been used in seroprevalence studies to inform the dynamics of COVID-19. Lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) tests are a very practical technology to use for this objective; however, one of their challenges may be variable diagnostic performance. Given the numerous available LFIA tests, evaluation of their accuracy is critical before real-world implementation. We performed a retrospective diagnostic evaluation study to independently determine the diagnostic accuracy of 4 different antibody-detection LFIA tests: Now Check (Bionote), CareStart (Access bio), Covid-19 BSS (Biosynex) and OnSite (CTK Biotech). The sample panel was comprised of specimens collected and stored in biobanks; specifically, specimens that were RT-PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2 collected at various times throughout the COVID-19 disease course and those that were collected before the pandemic, during 2018 or earlier, from individuals with upper respiratory symptoms but were negative for tuberculosis. Clinical performance (sensitivity and specificity) was analyzed overall, and subset across individual antibody isotypes, and days from symptoms onset. A very high specificity (98% - 100%) was found for all four tests. Overall sensitivity was variable, ranging from 29% [95% CI: 21%-39%] to 64% [95% CI: 54%-73%]. When considering detection of IgM only, the highest sensitivity was 42% [95% CI: 32%-52%], compared to 57% [95% CI: 47%-66%] for IgG only. When the analysis was restricted to at least 15 days since symptom onset, across any isotype, the sensitivity reached 90% for all four brands. All four LFIA tests proved effective for identifying COVID-19 antibodies when two conditions were met: 1) at least 15 days have elapsed since symptom onset and 2) a sample is considered positive when either IgM or IgG is present. With these considerations, the use of this assays could help in seroprevalence studies or further exploration of its potential uses.

Two-test algorithms for infectious disease diagnosis: Implications for COVID-19

Diagnostic assays for various infectious diseases, including COVID-19, have been challenged for their utility as standalone point-of-care diagnostic tests due to suboptimal accuracy, complexity, high cost or long turnaround times for results. It is therefore critical to optimise their use to meet the needs of users. We used a simulation approach to estimate diagnostic outcomes, number of tests required and average turnaround time of using two-test algorithms compared with singular testing;the two tests were reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and an antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT). A web-based application of the model was developed to visualise and compare diagnostic outcomes for different disease prevalence and test performance characteristics (sensitivity and specificity). We tested the model using hypothetical prevalence data for COVID-19, representing low- and high-prevalence contexts and performance characteristics of RT-PCR and Ag-RDTs. The two-test algorithm when RT-PCR was applied to samples negative by Ag-RDT predicted gains in sensitivity of 27% and 7%, respectively, compared with Ag-RDT and RT-PCR alone. Similarly, when RT-PCR was applied to samples positive by Ag-RDT, specificity gains of 2.9% and 1.9%, respectively, were predicted. The algorithm using Ag-RDT followed by RT-PCR as a confirmatory test for positive patients limited the requirement of RT-PCR testing resources to 16,400 and 3,034 tests when testing a population of 100,000 with an infection prevalence of 20% and 0.05%, respectively. A two-test algorithm comprising a rapid screening test followed by confirmatory laboratory testing can reduce false positive rate, produce rapid results and conserve laboratory resources, but can lead to large number of missed cases in high prevalence setting. The web application of the model can identify the best testing strategies, tailored to specific use cases and we also present some examples how it was used as part of the Access to Covid-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator Diagnostics Pillar.

Head-to-head comparison of nasal and nasopharyngeal sampling using SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing in Lesotho.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the real-world diagnostic performance of nasal and nasopharyngeal swabs for SD Biosensor STANDARD Q COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Test (Ag-RDT). METHODS: Individuals ≥5 years with COVID-19 compatible symptoms or history of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 presenting at hospitals in Lesotho received two nasopharyngeal and one nasal swab. Ag-RDT from nasal and nasopharyngeal swabs were performed as point-of-care on site, the second nasopharyngeal swab used for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as the reference standard. RESULTS: Out of 2198 participants enrolled, 2131 had a valid PCR result (61% female, median age 41 years, 8% children), 84.5% were symptomatic. Overall PCR positivity rate was 5.8%. The sensitivity for nasopharyngeal, nasal, and combined nasal and nasopharyngeal Ag-RDT result was 70.2% (95%CI: 61.3-78.0), 67.3% (57.3-76.3) and 74.4% (65.5-82.0), respectively. The respective specificity was 97.9% (97.1-98.4), 97.9% (97.2-98.5) and 97.5% (96.7-98.2). For both sampling modalities, sensitivity was higher in participants with symptom duration ≤ 3days versus ≤ 7days. Agreement between nasal and nasopharyngeal Ag-RDT was 99.4%. CONCLUSIONS: The STANDARD Q Ag-RDT showed high specificity. Sensitivity was, however, below the WHO recommended minimum requirement of ≥ 80%. The high agreement between nasal and nasopharyngeal sampling suggests that for Ag-RDT nasal sampling is a good alternative to nasopharyngeal sampling.

Strategies for using antigen rapid diagnostic tests to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in low- and middle-income countries: a mathematical modelling study applied to Zambia.

BACKGROUND: Increasing the availability of antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is key to alleviating global SARS-CoV-2 testing inequity (median testing rate in December 2021-March 2022 when the Omicron variant was spreading in multiple countries; high-income countries = 600 tests/100,000 people/day; LMICs = 14 tests/100,000 people/day). However, target testing levels and effectiveness of asymptomatic community screening to impact SARS-CoV-2 transmission in LMICs are unclear. METHODS: We used PATAT, an LMIC-focused agent-based model to simulate COVID-19 epidemics, varying the amount of Ag-RDTs available for symptomatic testing at healthcare facilities and asymptomatic community testing in different social settings. We assumed that testing was a function of access to healthcare facilities and availability of Ag-RDTs. We explicitly modelled symptomatic testing demand from non-SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals and measured impact based on the number of infections averted due to test-and-isolate. RESULTS: Testing symptomatic individuals yields greater benefits than any asymptomatic community testing strategy until most symptomatic individuals who sought testing have been tested. Meeting symptomatic testing demand likely requires at least 200-400 tests/100,000 people/day on average as symptomatic testing demand is highly influenced by non-SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals. After symptomatic testing demand is satisfied, excess tests to proactively screen for asymptomatic infections among household members yields the largest additional infections averted. CONCLUSIONS: Testing strategies aimed at reducing transmission should prioritize symptomatic testing and incentivizing test-positive individuals to adhere to isolation to maximize effectiveness.

SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing rates determine the sensitivity of genomic surveillance programs.

The first step in SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance is testing to identify people who are infected. However, global testing rates are falling as we emerge from the acute health emergency and remain low in many low- and middle-income countries (mean = 27 tests per 100,000 people per day). We simulated COVID-19 epidemics in a prototypical low- and middle-income country to investigate how testing rates, sampling strategies and sequencing proportions jointly impact surveillance outcomes, and showed that low testing rates and spatiotemporal biases delay time to detection of new variants by weeks to months and can lead to unreliable estimates of variant prevalence, even when the proportion of samples sequenced is increased. Accordingly, investments in wider access to diagnostics to support testing rates of approximately 100 tests per 100,000 people per day could enable more timely detection of new variants and reliable estimates of variant prevalence. The performance of global SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance programs is fundamentally limited by access to diagnostic testing.

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.

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.

Two-test algorithms for infectious disease diagnosis: Implications for COVID-19.

Diagnostic assays for various infectious diseases, including COVID-19, have been challenged for their utility as standalone point-of-care diagnostic tests due to suboptimal accuracy, complexity, high cost or long turnaround times for results. It is therefore critical to optimise their use to meet the needs of users. We used a simulation approach to estimate diagnostic outcomes, number of tests required and average turnaround time of using two-test algorithms compared with singular testing; the two tests were reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and an antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT). A web-based application of the model was developed to visualise and compare diagnostic outcomes for different disease prevalence and test performance characteristics (sensitivity and specificity). We tested the model using hypothetical prevalence data for COVID-19, representing low- and high-prevalence contexts and performance characteristics of RT-PCR and Ag-RDTs. The two-test algorithm when RT-PCR was applied to samples negative by Ag-RDT predicted gains in sensitivity of 27% and 7%, respectively, compared with Ag-RDT and RT-PCR alone. Similarly, when RT-PCR was applied to samples positive by Ag-RDT, specificity gains of 2.9% and 1.9%, respectively, were predicted. The algorithm using Ag-RDT followed by RT-PCR as a confirmatory test for positive patients limited the requirement of RT-PCR testing resources to 16,400 and 3,034 tests when testing a population of 100,000 with an infection prevalence of 20% and 0.05%, respectively. A two-test algorithm comprising a rapid screening test followed by confirmatory laboratory testing can reduce false positive rate, produce rapid results and conserve laboratory resources, but can lead to large number of missed cases in high prevalence setting. The web application of the model can identify the best testing strategies, tailored to specific use cases and we also present some examples how it was used as part of the Access to Covid-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator Diagnostics Pillar.

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.

SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Rapid Tests: Valuable Epidemiological Tools in Challenging Settings.

During the last year, mass screening campaigns have been carried out to identify immunological response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and establish a possible seroprevalence. The obtained results gained new importance with the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination campaign, as the lack of doses has persuaded several countries to introduce different policies for individuals who had a history of COVID-19. Lateral flow assays (LFAs) may represent an affordable tool to support population screening in low-middle-income countries, where diagnostic tests are lacking and epidemiology is still widely unknown. However, LFAs have demonstrated a wide range of performance, and the question of which one could be more valuable in these settings still remains. We evaluated the performance of 11 LFAs in detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection, analyzing samples collected from 350 subjects. In addition, samples from 57 health care workers collected at 21 to 24 days after the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine were also evaluated. LFAs demonstrated a wide range of specificity (92.31% to 100%) and sensitivity (50% to 100%). The analysis of postvaccination samples was used to describe the most suitable tests to detect IgG response against S protein receptor binding domain (RBD). Tuberculosis (TB) therapy was identified as a potential factor affecting the specificity of LFAs. This analysis identified which LFAs represent a valuable tool not only for the detection of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection but also for the detection of IgG elicited in response to vaccination. These results demonstrated that different LFAs may have different applications and the possible risks of their use in high-TB-burden settings. IMPORTANCE Our study provides a fresh perspective on the possible employment of SARS-CoV-2 LFA antibody tests. We developed an in-depth, large-scale analysis comparing LFA performance to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) and evaluating their sensitivity and specificity in identifying COVID-19 patients at different time points from symptom onset. Moreover, for the first time, we analyzed samples of patients undergoing treatment for endemic poverty-related diseases, especially tuberculosis, and we evaluated the impact of this therapy on test specificity in order to assess possible performance in TB high-burden countries.

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.

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.