Verification of the Performance of the Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device for Implementation in the Clinical Laboratory

Objectives: The Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device (Panbio COVID-19 Ag, Abbott Rapid Diagnostics) is a lateral flow immunochromatographic assay targeting the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleoprotein in nasopharyngeal specimens for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aimed to verify the performance of the Panbio COVID-19 Ag for implementation in clinical laboratories. Method(s): Sixty nasopharyngeal swab specimens (30 positive and 30 negative) dipped in transport medium, and COVID-19 was confirmed using real-time RT-PCR using Allplex SARS-CoV-2 assay (Seegene), were tested using the Panbio COVID-19 Ag. Reproducibility was evaluated using positive and negative control materials. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated based on the results of realtime RT-PCR as the standard test method. Result(s): Reproducibility was confirmed by the consistent results of repeated tests of the quality control materials. The overall sensitivity and specificity of Panbio COVID-19 Ag were 50.0% and 100.0%, respectively. Panbio COVID-19 Ag demonstrated high sensitivity (88.2%) in analyzing the detection limit cycle threshold (Ct) value of 26.67 provided by the manufacturer as a positive criterion, and the sensitivity was 100.0% for the positive criterion of Ct values <25, although it was less sensitive for Ct > 25. Conclusion(s): Considering the high sensitivity for positive samples with Ct values <25 and the rapid turnaround of results, Panbio COVID-19 Ag can be used in clinical laboratories to diagnose COVID-19 in limited settings. Copyright © 2023 Ewha Womans University College of Medicine and Ewha Medical Research Institute.

Clinical effectiveness of molnupiravir in patients with COVID-19 undergoing haemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Molnupiravir is an essential oral antiviral agent against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, its real-world effectiveness has not been evaluated in patients undergoing haemodialysis (HD). METHODS: This multi-centre retrospective study, involving 225 patients undergoing HD with initially mild or asymptomatic COVID-19, was conducted to compare the risks of 30-day COVID-19-related acute care visits between patients receiving and not receiving molnupiravir. Patients who received molnupiravir were stratified by rapid antigen detection (RAD) test results on day 7 after disease onset to assess whether rapid molnupiravir introduction accelerated viral clearance. RESULTS: Thirty-day COVID-19-related acute care visits were reported in 9.41% and 21.74% of the molnupiravir and control groups, respectively, and use of molnupiravir markedly reduced the risk of acute care visits after adjusting for baseline characteristics via propensity score weighting [hazard ratio 0.218, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.074-0.642; P=0.006]. The tolerability of molnupiravir in the enrolled patients was generally acceptable, with only 11.88% of molnupiravir users reporting mild adverse events. Moreover, rapid initiation of molnupiravir within 1 day of COVID-19 onset was an independent predictor of conversion to a negative RAD test result on day 7 after disease onset (odds ratio 6.207, 95% CI 2.509-15.358; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Molnupiravir is well tolerated and decreases the medical needs in patients with COVID-19 undergoing HD. Furthermore, the rapid initiation of molnupiravir accelerates viral clearance in patients with COVID-19 undergoing HD. These findings highlight the therapeutic role of molnupiravir for this vulnerable population.

Performance of 20 rapid antigen detection tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) and B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variants using a clinical specimen panel from January 2022, Berlin, Germany.

BackgroundThere are conflicting reports on the performance of rapid antigen detection tests (RDT) in the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant; however, these tests continue to be used frequently to detect potentially contagious individuals with high viral loads.AimThe aim of this study was to investigate comparative detection of the Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron variants by using a selection of 20 RDT and a limited panel of pooled combined oro- and nasopharyngeal clinical Delta and Omicron specimens.MethodsWe tested 20 CE-marked RDT for their performance to detect SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron by using a panel of pooled clinical specimens collected in January 2022 in Berlin, Germany.ResultsWe observed equivalent detection performance for Delta and Omicron for most RDT, and sensitivity was widely in line with our previous pre-Delta/Omicron evaluation. Some variation for individual RDT was observed either for Delta vs Omicron detection, or when compared with the previous evaluation, which may be explained both by different panel sizes resulting in different data robustness and potential limitation of batch-to-batch consistency. Additional experiments with three RDT using non-pooled routine clinical samples confirmed comparable performance to detect Delta vs Omicron. Overall, RDT that were previously positively evaluated retained good performance also for Delta and Omicron variants.ConclusionOur findings suggest that currently available RDT are sufficient for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron variants.

The evaluation results of proposed antigen rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19: some possible factors might influence.

PURPOSE: In addition to existing gold standard qRT-PCR methods, there is a need to develop reliable rapid tests for infection control with early notification of COVID-19 cases to enable effective outbreak management. We evaluated the validity of the three Ag-RDT kits proposed by some companies in different countries by using qRT-PCR and analyzed its results. METHODS: Each of the three Ag-RDT kits (namely A, B, and C) was tested with 90 samples, consisting of samples with Ct ≤ 25, samples with Ct > 25, and negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR samples. RESULTS: This study showed that for samples with Ct > 25, all the three kits could not detect SARS-CoV-2 Ag (0% sensitivity) but showed 100% specificity. Meanwhile, for samples with Ct ≤ 25, kit C was the best (76.7% sensitivity and 100% specificity). The PPV of the three kits was 100%, but their NPV ranged 63-84.8%. Kit C showed the best accuracy (89.9%). Some factors might influence the results of evaluation, such as variation of virus proteins and transportation-storage of the kits. CONCLUSION: The overall specificity of the three kits for all samples was high; however, all of them have not met the minimum performance requirements of ≥ 80% sensitivity for samples with Ct ≤ 25. The validation test is much necessary to be carried out by the authority in national health care to ensure the feasibility of the kit for point-of-care testing (POCT) of COVID-19. Some factors that might influence should be anticipated to increase their sensitivities and specificities.

Evaluation of the Rapid Antigen Detection Test for Diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Experience from a Centralized Isolation Site in Shanghai, China.

Rapid and reliable diagnosis is important for the management of individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The rapid antigen detection test (RADT) is a rapid, inexpensive, and easy method. Several studies have reported that RADTs performed well in many countries; however, very few studies have been reported in China. In this study, we assessed the performance of the RADT (Ediagnosis COVID-19 antigen test kit). This study was conducted in a centralized isolation site in Shanghai and enrolled 716 patients with COVID-19 and 203 noninfected participants. Nasopharyngeal swabs from all participants were collected on the same day and tested using the RADT and real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR). The performance of the RADT was evaluated in different scenarios, such as threshold cycle (CT) values, symptomatic phase, and symptoms on the day of testing. The results demonstrated that the sensitivity for patients with CT values lower than 20 was 96.55% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.05 to 99.4). The sensitivities were 78.4% (95% CI, 69.96 to 85.05) for participants within 5 days after the first RT-PCR-positive result and 90.77% (95% CI, 80.34 to 96.19) within 5 days after symptom onset. Moreover, the sensitivity of the RADT was more than 80% for patients with symptoms on the day of testing, including fever (89.29%), cough (86.84%), stuffy nose (92.59%), runny nose (92%), sore throat (81.25%), and muscle pain (80.77%), especially for those with upper respiratory tract symptoms. The specificity of the RADT was good in all scenarios. During the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, Ediagnosis performed excellently in individuals with a higher viral load (evidenced by lower CT values), individuals in the early symptomatic phase, and especially those with upper respiratory tract symptoms. IMPORTANCE RADTs have demonstrated excellent performance in many counties for screening SARS-CoV-2 infection, but very few studies have been conducted in China. The performance of RADTs is largely related to different real-life scenarios. In our study, the performance of the RADT was evaluated in different scenarios, such as CT values, symptomatic phase, and symptoms on the day of testing. The results demonstrated that Ediagnosis (an RADT made in China) performed excellently for individuals with a higher viral load (evidenced by lower CT values), individuals in the early symptomatic phase, and especially those with upper respiratory tract symptoms.

Head-to-head comparison of the accuracy of saliva and nasal rapid antigen SARS-CoV-2 self-testing: cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic accuracy of unsupervised self-testing with rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) is mostly unknown. We studied the diagnostic accuracy of a self-performed SARS-CoV-2 saliva and nasal Ag-RDT in the general population. METHODS: This large cross-sectional study consecutively included unselected individuals aged ≥ 16 years presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing at three public health service test sites. Participants underwent molecular test sampling and received two self-tests (the Hangzhou AllTest Biotech saliva self-test and the SD Biosensor nasal self-test by Roche Diagnostics) to perform themselves at home. Diagnostic accuracy of both self-tests was assessed with molecular testing as reference. RESULTS: Out of 2819 participants, 6.5% had a positive molecular test. Overall sensitivities were 46.7% (39.3-54.2%) for the saliva Ag-RDT and 68.9% (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, these sensitivities increased to 54.9% (46.4-63.3%) and 83.9% (76.9-89.5%), respectively. For the nasal Ag-RDT, sensitivities were 78.5% (71.1-84.8%) and 22.6% (9.6-41.1%) in those symptomatic and asymptomatic at the time of sampling, which increased to 90.4% (83.8-94.9%) and 38.9% (17.3-64.3%) after applying the viral load cut-off. In those with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, sensitivities were 36.8% (16.3-61.6%) and 72.7% (65.1-79.4%). Specificities were > 99% and > 99%, positive predictive values > 70% and > 90%, and negative predictive values > 95% and > 95%, for the saliva and nasal Ag-RDT, respectively, in most analyses. Most participants considered the self-performing and result interpretation (very) easy for both self-tests. CONCLUSIONS: The Hangzhou AllTest Biotech saliva self Ag-RDT is not reliable for SARS-CoV-2 detection, overall, and in all studied subgroups. The SD Biosensor nasal self Ag-RDT had high sensitivity in individuals with symptoms and in those without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection but low sensitivity in asymptomatic individuals and those with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection which warrants further investigation.

Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Detection Test Device (COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device) in Diagnosis of Acute COVID-19 Infections

Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of the COVID-19 Ag Rapid test device for detection of SARS-CoV-2 with Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction as the gold standard. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Place and Duration of Study: Department of Virology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Rawalpindi, in the month of Sept 2020. Methodology: A total of 106 patients suspected of COVID-19 were tested, including 63 patients admitted to the COVID-19 ward of Pak Emirates Military Hospital and 43 from the emergency department of Combined Military Hospital, Rawalpindi Pakistan respectively. The samples were transported to the Virology department and subjected to Polymerase Chain Reaction and Antigen testing. In addition, the diagnostic accuracy of the COVID-19 Ag Rapid test device was compared to Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction for detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results: Out of 106 nasopharyngeal swab samples tested, 48 (45.2%) samples were positive by Rapid test device and Reversed Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction, and 52 (49.0%) samples tested negative by both methods. Inconsistent results (False Negative) were obtained in 6 (5.6%) samples. COVID-19 Ag Rapid test device has detected the maximum number of cases, 41 (85.4%), during the first week of illness. Its sensitivity decreases as the duration of infection progress. Conclusion: The overall sensitivity of the Rapid test device is much less than the Polymerase chain reaction due to potential false negative results. However, it can be helpful in the early isolation of cases in an outbreak in a closed community and for case management in peripheral setups, where Polymerase chain reaction facilities are unavailable. © 2022, Army Medical College. All rights reserved.

High Diagnostic Accuracy of a Novel Lateral Flow Assay for the Point-of-Care Detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Highly accurate lateral flow immunochromatographic tests (LFTs) are an important public health tool to tackle the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to assess the comparative diagnostic performance of the novel ND COVID-19 LFT under real-world conditions. A total of 400 nasopharyngeal swab specimens with a wide range of viral loads were tested in both reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction and ND LFT. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 85% (95% CI: 76.7-90.7%) and 100% (95% CI: 98.7-100%), respectively. There was a clear association between the false-negative rate and sample viral load: the sensitivity parameters for specimens with cycle threshold values of <25 (>3.95 × 106 copies/mL) and ≥30 (≤1.29 × 105 copies/mL) were 100% and 50%, respectively. The performance was maximized in testing samples with viral loads ≥1.29 × 105 copies/mL. These findings suggest that the ND LFT is sufficiently accurate and useful for mass population screening programs, especially in high-prevalence and resource-constrained settings or during periods when the epidemic curve is rising. Other public health implications were also discussed.

Validation of GeneFinder COVID-19 Ag Plus Rapid Test and Its Potential Utility to Slowing Infection Waves: A Single-Center Laboratory Evaluation Study.

Diagnostic laboratory tools are essential to keep everyone safe and track newly emerging variants; on the other hand, "filter" screening tests recognizing positivity are valuable tools to avoid hectic laboratory work that, besides COVID-19, are also part of the routine. Therefore, complementary assays, such as rapid antigen tests (RATs), are essential in controlling and monitoring virus spread within the community, especially in the asymptomatic population. A subset of nasopharyngeal swab specimens resulted in SARS-CoV-2 positive and investigated for genomic characterization were used for RAT validation. RATs were performed immediately after sampling, following the manufacturer's instructions (reading at 15 min). RT-PCRs were carried out within 24 h of specimens' collection. Out of 603 patients, 145 (24.05%) tested positive by RT-PCR and RAT and 451 (74.79%) tested negative by both methods; discordant results (RT-PCR+/RAT- or RT-PCR-/RAT+) were obtained in 7 patients (1.16%). RATs' overall specificity and sensitivity were 96.03% (95%CI: 91.55-98.53%) and 99.78% (95%CI: 98.77-99.99%), respectively, taking RT-PCR as the reference. Overall, RAT negative predictive value was 98.69% (95%CI 97.17-99.40%). The GeneFinder COVID-19 Ag Plus Rapid Test performed well as a screening test for early diagnosis of COVID-19, especially in asymptomatic subjects. The data suggested that patients with RT-PCR-proven COVID-19 testing negative by RAT are unlikely to be infectious. GeneFinder COVID-19 Ag Plus Rapid Test also works on variants of concern (VOC) delta and omicron BA.1 and BA.2.

Evaluation of Rapid Antigen Tests Using Nasal Samples to Diagnose SARS-CoV-2 in Symptomatic Patients.

INTRODUCTION: The best way to mitigate an outbreak besides mass vaccination is via early detection and isolation of infected cases. As such, a rapid, cost-effective test for the early detection of COVID-19 is required. METHODS: The study included 4,183 mildly symptomatic patients. A nasal and nasopharyngeal sample obtained from each patient was analyzed to determine the diagnostic ability of the rapid antigen detection test (RADT, nasal swab) in comparison with the current gold-standard (RT-PCR, nasopharyngeal swab). RESULTS: The calculated sensitivity and specificity of the RADT was 82.1 and 99.1%, respectively. Kappa's coefficient of agreement between the RADT and RT-PCR was 0.859 (p < 0.001). Stratified analysis showed that the sensitivity of the RADT improved significantly when lowering the cut-off RT-PCR Ct value to 24. CONCLUSION: Our study's results support the potential use of nasal swab RADT as a screening tool in mildly symptomatic patients, especially in patients with higher viral loads.

Development of a risk assessment profile tool to determine appropriate use of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen detection tests for different activities and events in Ireland, since October 2021.

We describe the development of a risk assessment profile tool that incorporates data from multiple domains to help determine activities and events where rapid antigen detection tests (Ag-RDT) could be used to screen asymptomatic individuals to identify infectious cases as an additional mitigation measure to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The tool aims to stratify, in real time, the overall risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission associated with common activities and events, and this can be matched to an appropriate Ag-RDT testing protocol.

Clinitest rapid COVID-19 antigen test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection: A multicenter evaluation study.

OBJECTIVES: RT-PCR assay is the reference method for diagnosis of COVID-19, but it is also a laborious and time-consuming technic, limiting the availability of testing. Rapid antigen-detection tests are faster and less expensive; however, the reliability of these tests must be validated before they can be used widely. The objective of this study was to determine the performance of the Clinitest Rapid COVID-19 Antigen Test (ClinitestRT) (SIEMENS) for SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab specimens. METHODS: This prospective multicenter study was carried out in three Spanish university hospitals including individuals with clinical symptoms or epidemiological criteria for COVID-19. Only individuals with ≤7 days from the onset of symptoms or from exposure to a confirmed case of COVID-19 were included. Two nasopharyngeal samples were taken to perform the ClinitestRT, as a point-of-care test, and a diagnostic RT-PCR test. RESULTS: Overall sensitivity and specificity for the ClinitestRT among the 450 patients studied were 93.3% (CI 95%: 89.7-96.8) and 99.2% (CI 95%: 97.2-99.8), respectively. Sensitivity in participants with ≤5 days of the clinical course was 93.6% (CI 95%: 89.2-96.3), and in participants who had a CT < 25 for the RT-PCR test was 98.4% (CI 95%: 94.5-99.6). Agreement between techniques was 96.7% (kappa score: 0.93; CI 95%: 0.90-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: The ClinitestRT provides good clinical performance, with more reliable results for patients with a higher viral load. The results must be interpreted based on the local epidemiological context.

Diagnostic Performance of SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test in a Large, German Cohort.

We assessed the performance of a rapid antigen test (RAT) in everyday clinical practice. Between 1 November 2020 until 1 April 2021 all in-patients at the Helios University Hospital Wuppertal, Germany, as well as the accompanying relatives at the Children's Hospital received a SARS-CoV-2 RAT and a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR prior to admission. Out of 3686 patients, 22 (0.6%) subjects were tested positive by RT-PCR and RAT, and 3591 (97.4%) were negative by both methods, showing discordant results: RT-PCR+/RAT- in 58 (1.6%) and RT-PCR-/RAT+ in 15 patients (0.4%). Overall sensitivity and specificity of RAT was 27.5% (95%CI 18.1-38.6%) and 99.6% (95%CI 99.3-99.8%), respectively. The sensitivity was slightly higher in adults (30.4%, 95%CI 18.8-90.9%) than in pediatric subjects (20.8%, 95%CI 7.1-42.2%). False negative RAT had a statistically higher Ct-value (p < 0.001) compared to true positive values, and overall sensitivity increased to 80% [59.3-93.2%] with Ct value < 30. While the sensitivity of the RAT was poor compared with the RT-PCR, the specificity was excellent. However, the sensitivity increased with lower Ct value, and with the right anamnesis the RAT can be a quick and easy approach to distinguish people who are infectious with SARS-CoV-2 from noninfectious people, enabling appropriate triage in clinical practice while waiting for the RT-PCR result.

Self-testing for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection with rapid antigen tests for people with suspected COVID-19 in the community.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of nasal mid-turbinate self-testing using rapid antigen detection tests (RDT) for persons with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the community. Self-testing for COVID-19 infection with lateral flow assay severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RDT, provides rapid results and could enable frequent and extensive testing in the community, thereby improving the control of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Participants 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 quantitative RT-PCR (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 dropped 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. RESULTS: A total of 3201 participants were included (BD-RDT n = 1595; Roche-RDT n = 1606). Sensitivity and specificity of self-testing compared with the qRT-PCR results with a Ct-value below the Ct-value cut-off were 78.4% (95% CI 73.2%-83.5%) and 99.4% (95% CI 99.1%-99.7%), respectively. A higher age was independently associated with a false-negative self-testing result with an odds ratio of 1.024 (95% CI 1.003-1.044). CONCLUSIONS: Self-testing using currently available RDT has a high specificity and relatively high sensitivity to identify individuals with a high probability of contagiousness.

Comparative diagnostic performance of rapid antigen detection tests for COVID-19 in a hospital setting.

BACKGROUND: The availability of accurate and rapid diagnostic tools for COVID-19 is essential for tackling the ongoing pandemic. Our study aimed to quantify the performance of available antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) in a real-world hospital setting. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, the diagnostic performance of 7 Ag-RDTs was compared with real-time reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay in terms of sensitivity, specificity and expected predictive values. RESULTS: A total of 321 matched Ag-RDTreal-time reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction samples were analyzed retrospectively. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the Ag-RDTs was 78.7% and 100%, respectively. However, a wide range of sensitivity estimates by brand (66.0%-93.8%) and cycle threshold (Ct) cut-off values (Ct <25: 96.2%; Ct 30-35: 31.1%) was observed. The optimal Ct cut-off value that maximized sensitivity was 29. CONCLUSIONS: The routine use of Ag-RDTs may be convenient in moderate-to-high intensity settings when high volumes of specimens are tested every day. However, the diagnostic performance of the commercially available tests may differ substantially.

Accuracy of COVID-19 rapid antigenic tests compared to RT-PCR in a student population: The StudyCov study.

OBJECTIVE: There is a lack of data evaluating performance of antigenic test (AT) for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis (Ag-RDT) in clinical practice, especially in asymptomatic subjects. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of AT compared to Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. METHODS: StudyCov is a monocentric cross-sectional study. A SARS-CoV-2 screening facility was set up in the Bordeaux University health campus from October 28th to November 20th 2020. Students willing to have a RT-PCR test (ARGENE SARS-CoV-2 R-GENE, BioMérieux, France) for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis were also offered the Abbott Panbio™ SARS-CoV-2 antigenic rapid test. All participants attending the screening facility with an AT in addition to RT-PCR and having signed an informed consent were included in the study. The main objective was to assess performance of AT as compared with RT-PCR in the recruited population. Secondary objectives dealt with the analysis of the main objective stratified by current symptoms and risk exposure. A sensitivity analysis with different RT-PCR cycle thresholds was included. RESULTS: RT-PCR and AT results were available for 692 subjects. Overall sensitivity and specificity of AT tests were respectively 63.5% (95% confidence interval (CI): 49.0 - 76.4) and 100% (95% CI: 99.4 - 100). In the asymptomatic sub-group, they were respectively 35.0% (95% CI: 15.4% - 59.2%) and 100% (95% CI: 99.3 - 100). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the poor sensitivity of AT in asymptomatic subjects, specificity being however excellent. The performance results fall below the World Health Organization recommendation of 80% sensitivity and question using AT in general population, especially when asymptomatic.

[Retrospective analysis of the performance of the SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen detection test compared to the reference RT-PCR test]. / Analyse rétrospective des performances du test de détection rapide antigénique du SARS-CoV-2 comparé au test de référence RT-PCR.

BACKGROUND: Discovered in 2019 in the region of Wuhan, China, the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rapidly established itself as a major pathogenic agent of morbidity and mortality. France has implemented a strategy to fight this virus which relies essentially on widespread RT-PCR virological testing in order to isolate positive patients. Antigenic tests have recently been made available to help the diagnostics. We have conducted a retrospective study to determine the sensitivity of these antigenic tests, comparing them to the reference RT-PCR method. METHOD: Between December 7, 2020 and January 31, 2021, each patient we received in our laboratories for an RT-PCR test was enrolled. Out of 271,649 patients, 4,881 had been submitted to an antigenic test (TDR) in the preceding 24 hours. Comparing the data resulting from both tests, we established the sensitivity and the specificity of the antigenic tests. For our analysis we included the parameter of symptom and/or the value of Cycles threshold (Ct) in our parameters. RESULTS: The sensitivity of the TDRs compared to all the positive RT-PCR tests is 56%. We further demonstrate the correlation between the symptom duration and the reduction of the nasopharyngeal viral load. Based on this data, we have established that the sensitivity of the TDRs decreases very rapidly after symptom onset, contrary to the estimated viral load in the RT-PCR. Indeed, less the 24 hours after clinical symptom onset, the sensitivity of the TDRs decreases from 74% to 60%. By including the Ct value in our parameters, we have established that, despite a high viral load and clinical symptoms since 7 days or less, the sensitivity of the TDRs is 66%. Although, a high number of asymptomatic patients among carriers of SARS-CoV-2, we have estimated a specificity of 93% for our test. CONCLUSIONS: Performance in terms of sensitivity and specificity of the TDR, as assessed in practice, are inferior to those given by the manufacturer, which raises several questions. What is the impact of falsely negative results for patients carrying a high viral load? Are the implemented measures sufficient to prevent the epidemic?

Accuracy of rapid antigen detection test for nasopharyngeal swab specimens and saliva samples in comparison with RT-PCR and viral culture for SARS-CoV-2 detection.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid antigen detection (RAD) tests are convenient tools for detecting the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in clinics, and testing using saliva samples could decrease the risk of infection during sample collection. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of the SARS-CoV-2 RAD for testing of nasopharyngeal swab specimens and saliva samples in comparison with the RT-PCR tests and viral culture for detecting viable virus. METHODS: One hundred seventeen nasopharyngeal swab specimens and 73 saliva samples with positive results on RT-PCR were used. Residual samples were assayed using a commercially available RAD test immediately, and its positivity was determined at various time points during the clinical course. The concordance between 54 nasopharyngeal swab samples and saliva samples that were collected simultaneously was determined. Viral culture was performed on 117 samples and compared with the results of the RAD test. RESULTS: The positive rate of RAD test using saliva samples was low throughout the clinical course. Poor concordance was observed between nasopharyngeal swab specimens and saliva samples (75.9%, kappa coefficient 0.310). However, a substantially high concordance between the RAD test and viral culture was observed in both nasopharyngeal swab specimens (86.8%, kappa coefficient 0.680) and saliva samples (95.1%, kappa coefficient 0.643). CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 RAD test was insufficient, particularly for saliva samples. However, a substantially high concordance with viral culture suggests its potential utility as an auxiliary test for estimating SARS-CoV-2 viability.

Validation and implementation of the Panbio COVID-19 Ag rapid test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in symptomatic hospital healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: RT-PCR is the current recommended laboratory method to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers (HCW). As RT-PCR is not widely available and is time-consuming, it limits decision making on removal from and return to work of possibly contagious HCW. AIM: In this study we evaluated the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag rapid test (PanbioCAgRT) in 825 hospital HCW. METHODS AND FINDING: This study consisted of two phases. In the validation phase, we tested hospital HCW with mild symptoms (three days or less) in parallel using the PanbioCAgRT and the RT-qPCR test. The PanbioCAgRT demonstrated 86.7% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 100% PPV and 98.5% NPV with regard to RT-qPCR. For HCW with PanbioCAgRT-/RT-qPCR+, the median Ct value was 30.9, whereas for the HCW with PanbioCAgRT+/RT-qPCR+ the median Ct value was 19.3 (P<0.001). In the second phase, we implemented an on-site antigen test-based strategy for symptomatic hospital HCW: HCW that tested positive with the PanbioCAgRT on-site were considered SARS-CoV-2 positive and were sent home. HCW that tested negative with the PanbioCAgRT on-site were allowed to work with PPE pending RT-qPCR test results from the laboratory. Sensitivity of the antigen test-based strategy was 72.5% and NPV was 97%. For HCW with PanbioCAgRT-/RT-qPCR+ median Ct values were 27.8. CONCLUSION: The PanbioCAgRTt validated in this study showed a high sensitivity and specificity in samples obtained from HCW with high viral loads. The antigen-based testing strategy proposed in this study seems to be effective, safe and easy to implement in a wide range of occupational healthcare settings.

False positive results in severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rapid antigen tests for inpatients.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 rapid antigen detection (RAD) test kits are widely used as primary screening test in Japan because rapid diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is critical for infection control. We report cases with RAD test false-positive results in a ward for patients with disabilities. RAD tests potentially evoke hospital operational risk. It is desirable that performing PCR test appropriately when patients admitted to a medical treatment ward with COVID-19 symptoms instead of RAD test.