SARS-CoV-2 Omicron detection by antigen tests using saliva.

The Omicron emerged in November 2021 and became the predominant SARS-CoV-2 variant globally. It spreads more rapidly than ancestral lineages and its rapid detection is critical for the prevention of disease outbreaks. Antigen tests such as immunochromatographic assay (ICA) and chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLEIA) yield results more quickly than standard polymerase chain reaction (PCR). However, their utility for the detection of the Omicron variant remains unclear. We herein evaluated the performance of ICA and CLEIA in saliva from 51 patients with Omicron and 60 PCR negative individuals. The sensitivity and specificity of CLEIA were 98.0% (95%CI: 89.6-100.0%) and 100.0% (95%CI: 94.0-100.0%), respectively, with fine correlation with cycle threshold (Ct) values. The sensitivity and specificity of ICA were 58.8% (95%CI: 44.2-72.4%) and 100.0% (95%CI: 94.0-100.0%), respectively. The sensitivity of ICA was 100.0% (95%CI: 80.5-100.0%) when PCR Ct was less than 25. The Omicron can be efficiently detected in saliva by CLEIA. ICA also detects high viral load Omicron using saliva.

Potential usage of anterior nasal sampling in clinical practice with three rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2

Introduction: Anterior nasal sampling (AN) might be more convenient for patients than NP sampling to diagnose coronavirus disease. This study investigated the feasibility of rapid antigen tests for AN sampling, and the factors affecting the test accuracy. Methods: This single-center prospective study evaluated one qualitative (ESP) and two quantitative (LUMI and LUMI-P) rapid antigen tests using AN and NP swabs. Symptomatic patients aged 20 years or older, who were considered eligible for reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction using NP samples within 9 days of onset were recruited. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative concordance rates between AN and NP samples were assessed for the rapid antigen tests. We investigated the characteristics that affected the concordance between AN and NP sampling results. Results: A total of 128 cases were recruited, including 28 positive samples and 96 negative samples. The sensitivity and specificity of AN samples using ESP were 0.81 and 1.00, while those of NP samples were 0.94 and 1.00. The sensitivity of AN and NP samples was 0.91 and 0.97, respectively, and specificity was 1.00, for both LUMI and LUMI-P. The positive concordance rates of AN to NP sampling were 0.87, 0.94, and 0.85 for ESP, LUMI, and LUMI-P, respectively. No factor had a significant effect on the concordance between the sampling methods. Conclusions: ESP, LUMI, and LUMI-P showed practical diagnostic accuracy for AN sampling compared to NP sampling. There was no significant factor affecting the concordance between AN and NP sampling for these rapid antigen tests. © 2022 Japanese Society of Chemotherapy and The Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases

New insights into SARS-CoV-2 Lumipulse G salivary antigen testing: accuracy, safety and short TAT enhance surveillance.

OBJECTIVES: The rapid, accurate and safe detection of SARS-CoV-2 is the key to improving surveillance and infection containment. The aim of the present study was to ascertain whether, after heat/chemical inactivation, SARS-CoV-2 N antigen chemiluminescence (CLEIA) assay in saliva remains a valid alternative to molecular testing. METHODS: In 2022, 139 COVID-19 inpatients and 467 healthcare workers were enrolled. In 606 self-collected saliva samples (Salivette), SARS-CoV-2 was detected by molecular (TaqPath rRT-PCR) and chemiluminescent Ag assays (Lumipulse G). The effect of sample pre-treatment (extraction solution-ES or heating) on antigen recovery was verified. RESULTS: Salivary SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay was highly accurate (AUC=0.959, 95% CI: 0.943-0.974), with 90% sensitivity and 92% specificity. Of the 254 antigen positive samples, 29 were false positives. We demonstrated that heterophilic antibodies could be a cause of false positive results. A significant antigen concentration decrease was observed after ES treatment (p=0.0026), with misclassification of 43 samples. Heat had a minimal impact, after treatment the correct classification of cases was maintained. CONCLUSIONS: CLEIA SARS-CoV-2 salivary antigen provides accurate, timely and high-throughput results that remain accurate also after heat inactivation, thus ensuring a safer work environment. This supports the use of salivary antigen detection by CLEIA in surveillance programs.

Potential usage of anterior nasal sampling in clinical practice with three rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2

Introduction Anterior nasal sampling (AN) might be more convenient for patients than NP sampling to diagnose coronavirus disease. This study investigated the feasibility of rapid antigen tests for AN sampling, and the factors affecting the test accuracy. Methods This single-center prospective study evaluated one qualitative (ESP) and two quantitative (LUMI and LUMI-P) rapid antigen tests using AN and NP swabs. Symptomatic patients aged 20 years or older, who were considered eligible for reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction using NP samples within 9 days of onset were recruited. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative concordance rates between AN and NP samples were assessed for the rapid antigen tests. We investigated the characteristics that affected the concordance between AN and NP sampling results. Results A total of 128 cases were recruited, including 28 positive samples and 100 negative samples. The sensitivity and specificity of AN samples using ESP were 0.81 and 1.00, while those of NP samples were 0.94 and 1.00. The sensitivity of AN and NP samples was 0.91 and 0.97, respectively, and specificity was 1.00, for both LUMI and LUMI-P. The positive concordance rates of AN to NP sampling were 0.87, 0.94, and 0.85 for ESP, LUMI, and LUMI-P, respectively. No factor had a significant effect on the concordance between the sampling methods. Conclusions ESP, LUMI, and LUMI-P showed practical diagnostic accuracy for AN sampling compared to NP sampling. There was no significant factor affecting the concordance between AN and NP sampling for these rapid antigen tests.

A rapid and cost-effective diagnostic algorithm for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the emergency area by combining highly sensitive antigenic test and RT-PCR.

A diagnostic algorithm for SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients admitted to the emergency area, based on a combination of rapid antigen and molecular testing, has been evaluated with 3070 nasopharyngeal swabs. Compared to molecular test alone, the proposed algorithm allowed to significantly reduce costs and average time to results.

Direct comparison of Xpert Xpress, FilmArray Respiratory Panel, Lumipulse antigen test, and RT-qPCR in 165 nasopharyngeal swabs.

BACKGROUND: The nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) and antigen test are approved diagnostic tests for COVID-19. In this study, we aimed to investigate the assay performance of two NAATs (Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 and FilmArray Respiratory Panel) and a quantitative antigen test (Lumipulse). METHODS: One hundred and sixty-five nasopharyngeal swabs were subjected to Xpert, FilmArray, Lumipulse, and RT-qPCR assays. RESULTS: Of 165 samples, RT-qPCR showed 100 positives and 65 negatives. The Xpert had an overall agreement of 99.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 96.7-99.4%), sensitivity of 99% (95% CI: 96.8-99%), and specificity of 100% (95% CI: 96.6-100%). FilmArray had an overall agreement of 98.8% (95% CI: 95.9-98.8%), sensitivity of 98% (95% CI: 95.6-98%), and specificity of 100% (95% CI: 96.3-100%). Lumipulse had an overall agreement of 95.5% (95% CI: 91.8-95.5%), sensitivity of 92.3% (95% CI: 89.2-92.3%), and specificity of 100% (95% CI: 95.5-100%). The κ coefficient showed excellent agreement between each test and RT-qPCR. There was a high correlation between Xpert Ct values, RT-qPCR Ct values, viral loads and antigen level. CONCLUSIONS: Xpert Xpress and FilmArray Respiratory Panel exhibited an equivalent performance. The Lumipulse antigen test was slightly less sensitive than the NAATs, but showed high assay performance except for samples with low viral load. The Xpert Xpress, FilmArray Respiratory Panel and Lumipulse antigen tests offer rapid sample-to-answer data, allowing random access detection on automated devices.

Comparison of Allplex™ SARS-CoV-2 Assay, Easy SARS-CoV-2 WE and Lumipulse quantitative SARS-CoV-2 antigen test performance using automated systems for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

Diagnostic methods based on SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection are a promising alternative to SARS-CoV-2 RNA amplification. We evaluated the automated chemiluminescence-based Lumipulse® G SARS-CoV-2 Ag assay as compared to real time assays (combined results from RT-PCR Allplex™ SARS-CoV-2 assay and Easy SARS-CoV-2 WE kit) on 513 nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS). Among these, 53.6% resulted positive to RT-PCR, considered as the reference test. Compared to the reference test, overall sensitivity and specificity of Lumipulse® G SARS-CoV-2 Ag assay were 84.0%, and 89.1%, respectively, and overall agreement between the antigen and molecular assays was substantial (κ = 0.727). When stratifying samples into groups based on ranges of RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct), the antigen test sensitivity was >95% for samples with Ct <30. Linear regression analysis showed strong and highly significant correlation between the Lumipulse Ag concentrations and the RT-PCR Ct values (RdRp gene), irrespective of whether the Ct values from molecular test were combined in a unique regression analysis or analysed separately. Overall, chemiluminescence-based antigen assay may be reliably applied to NPS samples to identify individuals with high viral loads, more likely to transmit the virus.

Performance of Qualitative and Quantitative Antigen Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Using Saliva.

The rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 is critical for the prevention of disease outbreaks. Antigen tests such as immunochromatographic assay (ICA) and chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLEIA) can yield results more quickly than PCR. We evaluated the performance of ICA and CLEIA using 34 frozen PCR-positive (17 saliva samples and 17 nasopharyngeal swabs [NPS]) and 309 PCR-negative samples. ICA detected SARS-CoV-2 in only 14 (41%) samples, with positivity rates of 24% in saliva and 59% in NPS. Notably, ICA detected SARS-CoV-2 in 5 of 6 samples collected within 4 days after symptom onset. CLEIA detected SARS-CoV-2 in 31 (91%) samples, with a positivity of 82% in saliva and 100% in NPS. These results suggest that the use of ICA should be limited to an earlier time after symptom onset and CLEIA is more sensitive and can be used in situations where quick results are required.

Time-course evaluation of the quantitative antigen test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2: The potential contribution to alleviating isolation of COVID-19 patients.

INTRODUCTION: The automated quantitative antigen test (QAT), which detects severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is suitable for mass screening. However, its diagnostic capability differentiated by time from onset and potential contribution to infectivity assessment have not been fully investigated. METHODS: A retrospective, observational study using nasopharyngeal swab specimens from coronavirus disease (COVID-19) inpatients was conducted using LumipulseⓇ SARS-CoV-2 antigen test. Diagnostic accuracy was examined for the early (up to 10 days after onset) and late (over 10 days after onset) stages. Time-course QAT changes and reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction tests results were displayed as locally estimated scatterplot smoothing curve, and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was used to determine the appropriate cutoff value for differentiating the early and late stages. RESULTS: We obtained 100 specimens from 68 COVID-19 patients, including 51 early-stage and 49 late-stage specimens. QAT sensitivity and specificity were 0.82 (0.72-0.90) and 0.95 (0.75-0.99) for all periods, 0.93 (0.82-0.98) and 1.00 (0.39-1.00) for the early stage, and 0.66 (0.48-0.82) and 0.93 (0.69-0.99) for the late stage, respectively. The ROC analysis indicated an ideal cutoff value of 6.93 pg/mL for distinguishing early-from late-stage specimens. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for predicting the late stage were 0.76 (0.61-0.87), 0.76 (0.63-0.87), 0.76 (0.61-0.87), and 0.76 (0.63-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: QAT has favorable diagnostic accuracy in the early COVID-19 stages. In addition, an appropriate cutoff point can potentially facilitate rapid identification of noncontagious patients.

Comparison of Roche and Lumipulse quantitative SARS-CoV-2 antigen test performance using automated systems for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to spread worldwide. Here, we evaluated the performance of two quantitative antigen (Ag) tests, the Roche and Lumipulse Ag tests, using automated platforms. METHODS: We collected 637 nasopharyngeal swab samples from 274 individuals. Samples were subjected to quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR), the Roche Ag test and Lumipulse Ag test. RESULTS: When RT-qPCR was used as a reference, the overall concordance rate of the Roche Ag test was 77.1% (491/637) with 70.0% (341/487) sensitivity and 100% specificity (150/150). When inconclusive results of the Lumipulse Ag test were excluded, the overall concordance rate of the Lumipulse Ag test was 88.3% (467/529) with 84.8% (330/389) sensitivity and 97.9% (137/140) specificity. The overall concordance rate between the Roche and Lumipulse Ag tests was 97.9% (518/529) with 96.7% (322/333) sensitivity and 100% (196/196) specificity. Quantitative Ag levels determined using the Roche and Lumipulse Ag tests were highly correlated (R2 = 0.922). The Roche and Lumipulse Ag tests showed high concordance up to nine days after symptom onset, with progressively lower concordance after that. CONCLUSIONS: The Roche and Lumipulse Ag tests showed equivalent assay performance and represent promising approaches for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019.

Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag assay evaluation using clinical samples from different testing groups.

OBJECTIVES: Compared to RT-PCR, lower performance of antigen detection assays, including the Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag assay, may depend on specific testing scenarios. METHODS: We tested 594 nasopharyngeal swab samples from individuals with COVID-19 (RT-PCR cycle threshold [Ct] values ≤ 40) or non-COVID-19 (Ct values >40) diagnoses. RT-PCR positive samples were assigned to diagnostic, screening, or monitoring groups of testing. RESULTS: With a limit of detection of 1.2 × 104 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/mL, Lumipulse showed positive percent agreement (PPA) of 79.9% (155/194) and negative percent agreement of 99.3% (397/400), whereas PPAs were 100% for samples with Ct values of <18 or 18-<25 and 92.5% for samples with Ct values of 25-<30. By three groups, Lumipulse showed PPA of 87.0% (60/69), 81.1% (43/53), or 72.2% (52/72), respectively, whereas PPA was 100% for samples with Ct values of <18 or 18-<25, and was 94.4, 80.0, or 100% for samples with Ct values of 25-<30, respectively. Additional testing of RT-PCR positive samples for SARS-CoV-2 subgenomic RNA showed that, by three groups, PPA was 63.8% (44/69), 62.3% (33/53), or 33.3% (24/72), respectively. PPAs dropped to 55.6, 20.0, or 41.7% for samples with Ct values of 25-<30, respectively. All 101 samples with a subgenomic RNA positive result had a Lumipulse assay's antigen positive result, whereas only 54 (58.1%) of remaining 93 samples had a Lumipulse assay's antigen positive result. CONCLUSIONS: Lumipulse assay was highly sensitive in samples with low RT-PCR Ct values, implying repeated testing to reduce consequences of false-negative results.

Prospective study of 1308 nasopharyngeal swabs from 1033 patients using the LUMIPULSE SARS-CoV-2 antigen test: Comparison with RT-qPCR.

BACKGROUND: Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the gold standard for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Previously, the accuracy of the quantitative LUMIPULSE SARS-CoV-2 antigen test was demonstrated using samples collected retrospectively. In this study, the LUMIPULSE antigen test was clinically validated using prospective samples. METHODS: In total, 1033 nasopharyngeal swab samples were collected from 1033 individuals, and an additional 275 follow-up samples were collected from 43 patients who subsequently tested positive for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). All 1308 samples were subjected to quantitative RT-PCR (RT-qPCR) and the antigen test. The antibody response was investigated for patients with discordant results to clarify if seroconversion had occurred. RESULTS: RT-qPCR identified 990 samples as negative and 43 as positive, while the antigen test identified 992 samples as negative, 37 as positive and four as inconclusive. The overall concordance rate was 99.7% (1026/1029). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of the antigen test were 92.5% (37/40), 100% (989/989), 100% (37/37) and 99.7% (989/992), respectively, after exclusion of the four inconclusive results. The kappa coefficient was 0.960 (95% confidence interval 0.892-0.960), suggesting excellent agreement between the two tests. Seropositivity in five of seven patients with discordant results suggested that the discrepancy was caused by samples collected during the late phase of infection. Using follow-up samples, correlation was observed between the antigen level and the viral load or cycle threshold value. The concordance rate between these test results tended to be high among samples collected 0-9 days after symptom onset, but this decreased gradually in samples collected thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study demonstrated that the LUMIPULSE antigen test is a highly accurate diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2.

Evaluation of Lumipulse® G SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay automated test for detecting SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (NP) in nasopharyngeal swabs for community and population screening.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the Lumipulse® SARS-CoV-2 antigen test with the gold standard real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and to evaluate its role in screening programs. METHODS: Lumipulse® SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay was compared with the gold standard RT-PCR test in a selected cohort of 226 subjects with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, and its accuracy was evaluated. Subsequently, the test was administered to a real-life screening cohort of 1738 cases. ROC analysis was performed to explore test features and cutoffs. All tests were performed in the regional reference laboratory in Umbria, Italy. RESULTS: A 42.0% positive result at RT-PCR was observed in the selected cohort. The Lumipulse® system showed 92.6% sensitivity (95% CI 85.4-97.0%) and 90.8% specificity (95% CI 84.5-95.2%) at 1.24 pg/mL optimal cutoff. In the screening cohort, characterized by 5.2% prevalence of infection, Lumipulse® assay showed 100% sensitivity (95% CI 96.0-100.0%) and 94.8% specificity (95% CI 93.6-95.8%) at 1.645 pg/mL optimal cutoff; the AUC was 97.4%, NPV was 100% (95% CI 99.8-100.0%) and PPV was 51.1% (95% CI 43.5-58.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The Lumipulse® SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay can be safely employed in the screening strategies in small and large communities and in the general population.

Immunochromatography and chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay for COVID-19 diagnosis.

INTRODUCTION: The rapid and accurate detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is required to prevent the spread of COVID-19. This study evaluated the utility of two SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection methods. METHODS: We evaluated two types of antigen detection methods using immunochromatography (Espline) and quantitative chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (Lumipulse). RT-PCR was performed as a standard procedure for COVID-19 diagnosis. Lumipulse and RT-PCR were performed for all 486 nasopharyngeal swabs and 136 saliva samples, and the Espline test was performed for 271 nasopharyngeal swabs and 93 saliva samples. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of the Espline test were 10/11 and 260/260 (100%), respectively for the nasopharyngeal swabs and 3/9 and 84/84 (100%), respectively for the saliva samples. High sensitivities for both saliva (8/9) and nasopharyngeal swabs (22/24) were observed in the Lumipulse test. The specificities of the Lumipulse test for nasopharyngeal swabs and saliva samples were 460/462 (99.6%) and 123/127 (96.9%), respectively. CONCLUSION: The Espline test is not effective for saliva samples but is useful for simple and rapid COVID-19 tests using nasopharyngeal swabs because it does not require special devices. The Lumipulse test is a powerful high-throughput tool for COVID-19 diagnosis because it has high detection performance for nasopharyngeal swabs and saliva samples.

Evaluating a novel, highly sensitive, and quantitative reagent for detecting SARS-CoV-2 antigen.

INTRODUCTION: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is rapidly spreading all over the world. A new quantifying reagent for detecting SARS-CoV-2 antigen was developed for early and accurate detection. We evaluated the novel quantitative reagent for detecting SARS-CoV-2 antigen using an automated laboratory device. METHODS: One-hundred nasopharyngeal samples were collected from 47 SARS-CoV-2-infected patients, and 200 samples were collected from healthy donners. We measured the SARS-CoV-2 antigen and nucleic acid using Lumipulse Presto SARS-CoV-2 Ag and the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Detection Kit, respectively. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of the SARS-CoV-2 antigen test were 75.7% (56/74) and 96.0% (192/200), respectively. The concordance rate in the positive group between the antigen and nucleic acid tests was 66% (66/100). In addition, the correlation coefficient between the concentration of SARS-CoV-2 antigen and the level of SARS-CoV-2 RNA was 0.74. There were 19 discrepant samples in which SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected without SARS-CoV-2 antigen. There was significant difference between the discrepant and matched samples in terms of the time since symptom onset: the 19 discrepant samples were collected a median of 33 days after onset, while the 55 matched samples were collected a median of 19 days after onset. In addition, the 19 discrepant samples were collected from patients who were immune against SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS: This novel SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection assay is highly sensitive, rapid, accurate, easily diagnostic. It may be useful in both clinical diagnosis and in screening because it does not require special methods such as PCR.