ABSTRACT
BackgroundPerformances of rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) with nasal self-sampling, and oropharyngeal plus nasal (OP-N) self-sampling, in the Omicron period are unknown. MethodsProspective diagnostic accuracy study among 6,497 symptomatic individuals aged >16 years presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing at three test-sites. Participants were sampled for RT-PCR (reference test) and received one Ag-RDT to perform unsupervised with either nasal self-sampling (during the emergence of Omicron, and after Omicron share was >90%, phase-1) or with OP-N self-sampling (in a subsequent phase-2; Omicron share >99%). The evaluated tests were Acon Flowflex (Flowflex; phase-1 only), MP Biomedicals (MPBio), and Siemens-Healthineers Clinitest (Clinitest). FindingsDuring phase-1, 45% of Flowflex, 29% of MPBio, and 35% of Clinitest participants were confirmatory testers (previously tested positive by a self-test at own initiative). Overall sensitivities with nasal self-sampling were 79.0% (95% CI: 74.7-82.8%) for Flowflex, 69.9% (65.1-74.4%) for MPBio, and 70.2% (65.6-74.5%) for Clinitest. Sensitivities were substantially higher in confirmatory testers (93.6%, 83.6%, and 85.7%, respectively) than in those who tested for other reasons (52.4%, 51.5%, and 49.5%, respectively). Sensitivities decreased by 6.1 (p=0.16 by Chi-square test), 7.0 (p=0.60), and 12.8 (p=0.025) percentage points, respectively, when transitioning from 29% to >95% Omicron. During phase-2, 53% of MPBio, and 44% of Clinitest participants were confirmatory testers. Overall sensitivities with OP-N self-sampling were 83.0% (78.8%-86.7%) for MPBio and 77.3% (72.9%-81.2%) for Clinitest. Comparing OP-N to nasal sampling, sensitivities were slightly higher in confirmatory testers (87.4% and 86.1%, respectively), and substantially higher in those testing for other reasons (69.3% and 59.9%, respectively). InterpretatioSensitivities of three Ag-RDTs with nasal self-sampling decreased during Omicron emergence but was only statistically significant for Clinitest. Sensitivities were substantially influenced by the proportion of confirmatory testers. Addition of oropharyngeal to nasal self-sampling improved sensitivities of MPBio and Clinitest. FundingDutch Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport. Research into contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSSARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) require no or minimal equipment, provide a result within 15-30 minutes, and can be used in a range of settings including for self-testing at home. Self-testing may potentially lower the threshold to testing and allows individuals to obtain a test result quickly and at their own convenience, which could support the early detection of infectious cases and reduce community transmission. Real world evidence on the performance of unsupervised nasal and oropharyngeal plus nasal (OP-N) self-sampling in the Omicron variant period is needed to accurately inform end-users and policymakers. Therefore, we conducted a large prospective diagnostic accuracy study of three commercially available Ag-RDTs with self-sampling (the Acon Flowflex test, the MP Biomedicals test, and the Siemens-Healthineers Clinitest) during and after the emergence of Omicron using RT-PCR as the reference standard. Our aims were to evaluate whether the accuracies of Ag-RDTs with nasal self-sampling changed over time with the emergence of Omicron; and to determine whether addition of oropharyngeal to nasal self-sampling with the same swab yielded higher diagnostic accuracies. What this study addsThe large comprehensive study was conducted in almost 6,500 participants with symptoms when presenting for routine SARS-CoV-2 testing at three public health service COVID-19 test-sites in the Netherlands. During the study, conducted between 21 December 2021 and 10 February 2022, the percentage of the Omicron variant in samples from the national SARS-CoV-2 pathogen surveillance increased from 29% in the first week to 99% in the last week of the study. The period during which the Omicron variant was dominant was divided into a nasal sampling phase (phase-1; Omicron present in >90% of surveillance samples) and an OP-N sampling phase (phase-2; Omicron share was >99%). In phase-1, 45% of Flowflex, 29% of MPBio, and 35% of Clinitest participants visited the test-site because of a positive self-test (confirmatory testers). Overall sensitivities with nasal self-sampling were 79.0% (95% CI: 74.7-82.8%) for the Flowflex, 69.9% (65.1-74.4%) for the MPBio, and 70.2% (65.6-74.5%) for the Clinitest Ag-RDT. Sensitivities were 94%, 84%, and 86%, respectively, for confirmatory testers, and 52%, 52%, and 50%, respectively, for those who had other reasons for getting tested. Sensitivities were 87.0% (79.7-92.4%), 83.1% (72.9-90.7%), and 80.0% (51.9-95.7%), respectively, in the first week, and decreased by 6.1 (p=0.16 by Chi-square test), 7.0 (p=0.60), and 12.8 (p=0.025) percentage points in the final week of the study. In Phase-2, 53% of MPBio and 44% of Clinitest participants were confirmatory testers. Overall sensitivities with OP-N self-sampling were 83.0% (78.8%-86.7%) for MPBio and 77.3% (72.9%-81.2%) for Clinitest. When comparing OP-N to nasal sampling, sensitivities were slightly higher in confirmatory testers (87.4% and 86.1%, respectively), and substantially higher in those testing for other reasons (69.3% and 59.9%). Implications of all the available evidenceThe sensitivities of three commercially available Ag-RDTs performed with nasal self-sampling decreased during the emergence of Omicron, but this trend was only statistically significant for Clinitest. Addition of oropharyngeal to nasal self-sampling improved the sensitivity of the MPBio and Clinitest, most notably in individuals who visited the test-site for other reasons than to confirm a positive self-test. Based on these findings, the manufacturers of MPBio and Clinitest may consider extending their instructions for use to include combined oropharyngeal and nasal sampling, and other manufacturers may consider evaluating this as well.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
There is an ongoing debate on airborne transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) as a risk factor for infection. In this study, the level of SARS-CoV-2 in air and on surfaces of SARS-CoV-2 infected nursing home residents was assessed to gain insight in potential transmission routes. During outbreaks, air samples were collected using three different active and one passive air sampling technique in rooms of infected patients. Oropharyngeal swabs (OPS) of the residents and dry surface swabs were collected. Additionally, longitudinal passive air samples were collected during a period of 4 months in common areas of the wards. Presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA was determined using RT-qPCR, targeting the RdRp- and E-genes. OPS, samples of two active air samplers and surface swabs with Ct value [≤]35 were tested for the presence of infectious virus by cell culture. In total, 360 air and 319 surface samples from patient rooms and common areas were collected. In rooms of 10 residents with detected SARS-CoV-2 RNA in OPS, SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 93 of 184 collected environmental samples (50.5%) (lowest Ct 29,5), substantially more than in the rooms of residents with negative OPS on the day of environmental sampling (n=2) (3.6%). SARS-CoV-2 RNA was most frequently present in the larger particle size fractions (>4 m 60% (6/10); 1-4 m 50% (5/10); <1 m 20% (2/10)) (Fischer exact test p=0.076). The highest proportion of RNA-positive air samples on room level was found with a filtration-based sampler 80% (8/10) and the cyclone-based sampler 70% (7/10), and impingement-based sampler 50% (5/10). SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in ten out of twelve (83%) passive air samples in patient rooms. Both high-touch and low-touch surfaces contained SARS-CoV-2 genome in rooms of residents with positive OPS (high 38% (21/55); low 50% (22/44)). In one active air sample, infectious virus in vitro was detected. In conclusion, SARS-CoV-2 is frequently detected in air and on surfaces in the immediate surroundings of room-isolated COVID-19 patients, providing evidence of environmental contamination. The environmental contamination of SARS-CoV-2 and infectious aerosols confirm the potential for transmission via air up to several meters.
Subject(s)
Oropharyngeal Neoplasms , Infections , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome , COVID-19ABSTRACT
BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 self-tests may lower the threshold of testing and produce a result quickly. This could support the early detection of infectious cases and reduce further community transmission. However, the diagnostic accuracy of (unsupervised) self-testing with rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) is mostly unknown. We therefore conducted a large-scale head-to-head comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of a self-performed SARS-CoV-2 saliva and nasal Ag-RDT, each compared to a molecular reference test, in the general population in the Netherlands. MethodsIn this cross-sectional study we consecutively included individuals aged 16 years and older presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing at three Dutch public health service test sites irrespective of their indication for testing, vaccination status, and symptomatology. Participants were sampled for molecular testing at the test site and received two self-tests (the Hangzhou AllTest saliva self-test and the SD Biosensor nasal self-test by Roche Diagnostics) to perform at home within a few hours without knowledge of their molecular test result. Information on presence and type of symptoms, user experiences, and results of both self-tests were collected via an online questionnaire. For each self-test, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were determined with molecular testing as reference standard. FindingsThe SARS-CoV-2 molecular reference test positivity rate was 6.5% in the 2,819 participants. Overall sensitivities with 95% confidence intervals were 46.7% (85/182; 39.3%-54.2%) for the saliva Ag-RDT, and 68.9% (124/180; 61.6%-75.6%) for the nasal Ag-RDT. With a viral load cut-off ([≥]5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL) as a proxy of infectiousness, sensitivities increased to 54.9% (78/142; 46.4%-63.3%) for the saliva Ag-RDT and 83.9% (120/143; 76.9%-89.5%) for the nasal Ag-RDT. For the nasal Ag-RDT, sensitivities were 78.5% [71.1%-84.8%] and 22.6% [9.6%-41.1%] in those with and without symptoms at the time of sampling, which increased to 90.4% (113/125; 83.8%-94.9%) and 38.9% (7/18; 17.3%-64.3%) after applying the viral load cut-off. In those with and without prior confirmed SARS-CoV-2, sensitivities were 36.8% [19/372; 16.3%-61.6%] and 72.7% [161/2437; 65.1%-79.4%] for the nasal Ag-RDT, which increased to 100% (7/7; 59.0%-100%) and 83.1% (113/126; 75.7%-89.0%) after applying the viral load cut-off. The diagnostic accuracy of the nasal Ag-RDT did not differ by COVID-19 vaccination status, sex, and age. Specificities were >99%, positive predictive values >70% and negative predictive values >95%, for the saliva Ag-RDT, and >99%, >90%, and >95% for the nasal Ag-RDT, respectively, in most analyses. Interpreting the results was considered (very) easy for both self-tests. InterpretationThe Hangzhou AllTest self-performed saliva Ag-RDT is not reliable for SARS-CoV-2 infection detection overall nor in the studied subgroups. The SD Biosensor self-performed nasal Ag-RDT had high sensitivity in individuals with symptoms and in those without a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. The overall accuracy in individuals with symptoms was comparable to that found in previous studies with professional sampling for this Ag-RDT. The extremely low sensitivity of the nasal Ag-RDT in asymptomatic individuals and in individuals who had had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection is an important finding and warrants further investigation. FundingDutch Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Severe Acute Respiratory SyndromeABSTRACT
Objective To assess the diagnostic accuracy of three rapid antigen tests (Ag-RDTs) for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population. Design Cross-sectional study with follow-up using pseudonymised record linkage. Setting Three Dutch public health service COVID-19 test sites. Participants Consecutively included individuals aged 16 years and older presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing. Main outcome measures Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of BD-Veritortm System (Becton Dickinson), PanBio (Abbott), and SD-Biosensor (Roche Diagnostics), applying routinely used sampling methods (combined oropharyngeal and nasal [OP-N] or nasopharyngeal [NP] swab), with molecular testing as reference standard. For SDBiosensor, the diagnostic accuracy with OP-N sampling was also assessed. A viral load cutoff ([≥]5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL) served as a proxy of infectiousness. Results SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and overall sensitivities with 95% confidence intervals were 188/1441 (13.0%) and 129/188 (68.6% [61.5%-75.2%]) for BD-Veritor, 173/2056 (8.4%) and 119/173 (68.8% [61.3%-75.6%]) for PanBio, and 215/1769 (12.2%) and 160/215 (74.4% [68.0%-80.1%]) for SD-Biosensor with routine sampling, and 164/1689 (9.7%) and 123/164 (75.0% [67.7%-81.4%]) for SD-Biosensor with OP-N sampling. In those symptomatic or asymptomatic at sampling, sensitivities were 72.2%-83.4% and 54.0%-55.9%, respectively. With a viral load cut-off, sensitivities were 125/146 (85.6% [78.9%-90.9%]) for BD-Veritor, 108/121 (89.3% [82.3%-94.2%]) for PanBio, 160/182 (87.9% [82.3%-92.3%]) for SD-Biosensor with routine sampling, and 118/141 (83.7% [76.5%-89.4%]) with OP-N sampling. Specificities were >99%, and positive and negative predictive values >95%, for all tests in most analyses. 61.3% of false negative Ag-RDT participants returned for testing within 14 days (median of 3 days, interquartile range 3) of whom 90.3% tested positive. Conclusions The overall sensitivities of the three Ag-RDTs were 68.6%-75.0%, increasing to at least 85.6% after the viral load cut-off was applied. For SD-Biosensor, the diagnostic accuracy with OP-N and NP sampling was comparable. Over 55% of false negative Ag-RDT participants tested positive during follow-up.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Sialic Acid Storage DiseaseABSTRACT
IntroductionSelf-testing for COVID-19 infection with lateral flow assay SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen detection tests (RDT), provides rapid results and could enable frequent and extensive testing in the community, thereby improving the control of SARS-CoV-2. The objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of self-testing using RDT without assistance. MethodsParticipants visiting a municipal SARS-CoV-2 testing centre, received self-testing kits containing either the BD Veritor System (BD RDT) or Roche SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection test (Roche RDT). Oro-nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from the participants for qRT-PCR testing. As a proxy for contagiousness, viral culture was performed on a selection of qRT-PCR positive samples to determine the Ct-value at which the chance of a positive culture was dropping below 0.5 (Ct-value cut-off). Sensitivity and specificity of self-testing were compared to qRT-PCR with a Ct-value below the Ct value cut-off. Determinants independently associated with a false-negative self-test result were determined. ResultsA total of 3,215 participants were included (BD RDT n=1604; Roche RDT n=1611). Sensitivity and specificity of self-testing compared to the qRT-PCR results with Ct-value below the Ct-value cut-off was 78.0% (95% CI:72.5-82.8) and 99.4% (95%CI: 99.0-99.6) respectively. Determinants independently associated with a false-negative self-testing results were: higher age, low viral load and finding self-testing difficult. DiscussionSelf-testing using currently available RDTs has a high specificity and relatively high sensitivity to identify individuals with a high probability of contagiousness. The performance of two tests were comparable. This application has the potential for frequent and extensive testing which may be an aid to lift restrictions to society while controlling the spread of SARS-CoV-2.