Comparison between Nasal and Nasopharyngeal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Detection in an Asymptomatic Population, and Direct Confirmation by RT-PCR from the Residual Buffer.

Containment measures employed during the COVID-19 pandemic included prompt recognition of cases, isolation, and contact tracing. Bilateral nasal (NA) swabs applied to a commercial antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) offer a simpler and more comfortable alternative to nasopharyngeal (NP) collection; however, little is known about the sensitivity of this method in an asymptomatic population. Participants in community-based asymptomatic testing sites were screened for SARS-CoV-2 using an Ag-RDT with NP sampling. Positive individuals returned for confirmatory molecular testing and consented to repeating the Ag-RDT using a bilateral NA swab for comparison. Residual test buffer (RTB) from Ag-RDTs was subjected to real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR). Of 123,617 asymptomatic individuals, 197 NP Ag-RDT-positive participants were included, with 175 confirmed positive by RT-PCR. Of these cases, 154 were identified from the NA swab collection with Ag-RDT, with a sensitivity of 88.0% compared to the NP swab collection. Stratifying results by RT-PCR cycle threshold demonstrated that sensitivity of the nasal collection method varied based on the cycle threshold (CT) value of the paired RT-PCR sample. RT-PCR testing on the RTB from the Ag-RDT using NP and NA swab collections resulted in 100.0% and 98.7% sensitivity, respectively. NA swabs provide an adequate alternative to NP swab collection for use with Ag-RDT, with the recognition that the test is most sensitive in specimens with high viral loads. With the high sensitivity of RT-PCR testing on RTB from Ag-RDT, a more streamlined approach to confirmatory testing is possible without recollection or use of paired collections strategies. IMPORTANCE Nasal swabbing for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) comes with many benefits but is slightly less sensitive than traditional nasopharyngeal swabbing; however, confirmatory lab-based testing could be performed directly from the residual buffer from either sample type.

Laboratory and field evaluation of the STANDARD Q and Panbio™ SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid test in Namibia using nasopharyngeal samples.

BACKGROUND: As new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern emerge, there is a need to scale up testing to minimize transmission of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Many countries especially those in the developing world continue to struggle with scaling up reverse transcriptase polymerase reaction (RT-PCR) to detect SARS-CoV-2 due to scarcity of resources. Alternatives such as antigen rapid diagnostics tests (Ag-RDTs) may provide a solution to enable countries scale up testing. METHODS: In this study, we evaluated the Panbio™ and STANDARD Q Ag-RDTs in the laboratory using 80 COVID-19 RT-PCR confirmed and 80 negative nasopharyngeal swabs. The STANDARD Q was further evaluated in the field on 112 symptomatic and 61 asymptomatic participants. RESULTS: For the laboratory evaluation, both tests had a sensitivity above 80% (Panbio™ = 86% vs STANDARD Q = 88%). The specificity of the Panbio™ was 100%, while that of the STANDARD Q was 99%. When evaluated in the field, the STANDARD Q maintained a high specificity of 99%, however the sensitivity was reduced to 56%. CONCLUSION: Using Ag-RDTs in low resource settings will be helpful in scaling-up SARS-CoV-2 testing, however, negative results should be confirmed by RT-PCR where possible to rule out COVID-19 infection.

Evaluating diagnostic accuracies of Panbio™ test and RT-PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia using Bayesian Latent-Class Models (BLCM).

BACKGROUND: Rapid diagnostics are vital for curving the transmission and control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although many commercially available antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 are recommended by the WHO, their diagnostic performance has not yet been assessed in Ethiopia. So far, the vast majority of studies assessing diagnostic accuracies of rapid antigen tests considered RT-PCR as a reference standard, which inevitably leads to bias when RT-PCR is not 100% sensitive and specific. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of Panbio™ jointly with the RT-PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional study was done from July to September 2021 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, during the third wave of the pandemic involving two health centers and two hospitals. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of Panbio™ and RT-PCR were obtained using Bayesian Latent-Class Models (BLCM). RESULTS: 438 COVID-19 presumptive clients were enrolled, 239 (54.6%) were females, of whom 196 (44.7%) had a positive RT-PCR and 158 (36.1%) were Panbio™ positive. The Panbio™ and RT-PCR had a sensitivity (95% CrI) of 99.6 (98.4-100) %, 89.3 (83.2-97.6) % and specificity (95% CrI) of 93.4 (82.3-100) %, and 99.1 (97.5-100) %, respectively. Most of the study participants, 318 (72.6%) exhibited COVID-19 symptoms; the most reported was cough 191 (43.6%). CONCLUSION: As expected the RT-PCR performed very well with a near-perfect specificity and a high, but not perfect sensitivity. The diagnostic performance of Panbio™ is coherent with the WHO established criteria of having a sensitivity ≥80% for Ag-RDTs. Both tests displayed high diagnostic accuracies in patients with and without symptoms. Hence, we recommend the use of the Panbio™ for both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals in clinical settings for screening purposes.

Diagnostic Performance of Six Rapid Antigen Tests for SARS-CoV-2.

Microbiological diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been a challenge. Although real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) represents the gold standard method, strategies that allow rapid and simple diagnosis are necessary for the early identification of cases. In this study, we evaluated the diagnostic performance of six different commercial rapid antigen tests (Coronavirus antigen [Ag] rapid test cassette [Healgen Scientific, Houston, TX, USA], COVID-19 Ag FIA [Vircell, SD Biosensor Inc., Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea], Clinitest rapid COVID-19 antigen test [Siemens, Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany], SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test [SD Biosensor; Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland], Panbio COVID-19 Ag rapid test device [Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA], and SARS-CoV-2 test [MonLab, Barcelona, Spain]) in 130 nasopharyngeal swab samples tested previously by RT-PCR. The overall sensitivity of the rapid tests ranged from 65% to 79%, and the specificity was 100% for all of them. The sensitivity was higher for those samples with RT-PCR cycle threshold (CT) values below 25 and those from patients presenting within the first week of symptoms. The Siemens test showed the highest sensitivity for patients with high viral loads while the Vircell test performed better than the rest for CT values of ≥25. IMPORTANCE The rapid detection of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 is essential for a correct and effective control of the disease it causes. This process must be sensitive, fast, and simple, and it must be possible to carry out in any type of health center. Rapid antigen tests are the answer to this need. Knowing its ability to detect the virus in different stages of the disease is essential for a correct diagnosis, which is why this study has been carried out to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of 6 different antigens tests in nasopharyngeal smear samples.

Preparation of the luciferase-labeled antibody for improving the detection sensitivity of viral antigen.

BACKGROUND: Viral antigen detection test is the most common method used to detect viruses in the field rapidly. However, due to the low sensitivity, it can only be used as an auxiliary diagnosis method for virus infection. Improving sensitivity is crucial for developing more accurate viral antigen tests. Nano luciferase (Nluc) is a sensitive reporter that has not been used in virus detection. RESULTS: In this study, we produced an intracellularly Nluc labeled detection antibody (Nluc-ch2C5) and evaluated its ability to improve the detection sensitivity of respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigens. Compared with the traditional horse-radish peroxidase (HRP) labeled antibody (HRP-ch2C5), Nluc-ch2C5 was 41 times more sensitive for inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus by sandwich chemiluminescence ELISA. Then we applied Nluc-ch2C5 to establish an automatic magnet chemiluminescence immune assay (AMCA) for the SARS-CoV-2 viral spike protein, the limit of detection was 68 pfu/reaction. The clinical sensitivity and specificity reached 75% (24/32) and 100% (48/48) using 32 PCR-positive and 48 PCR-negative swab samples for clinical evaluation, which is more sensitive than the commercial ELSA kit and colloid gold strip kit. CONCLUSIONS: Here, monoclonal antibody ch2C5 served as a model antibody and the SARS-CoV-2 served as a model pathogen. The Nluc labeled detecting antibody (Nluc-ch2C5) significantly improved the detection sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 antigen. This labeling principle applies to other viral infections, so this labeling and test format could be expected to play an important role in detecting other virus antigens.

Performance differences among commercially available antigen rapid tests for COVID-19 in Brazil.

A rapid and accurate diagnosis is a crucial strategy for containing the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Considering the obstacles to upscaling the use of RT-qPCR, rapid tests based on antigen detection (Ag-RDT) have become an alternative to enhance mass testing, reducing the time for a prompt diagnosis and virus spreading. However, the performances of several commercially available Ag-RDTs have not yet been evaluated in several countries. Here, we evaluate the performance of eight Ag-RDTs available in Brazil to diagnose COVID-19. Patients admitted to tertiary hospitals with moderate or mild COVID-19 symptoms and presenting risk factors for severe disease were included. The tests were performed using a masked protocol, strictly following the manufacturer's recommendations and were compared with RT-qPCR. The overall sensitivity of the tests ranged from 9.8 to 81.1%, and specificity greater than 83% was observed for all the evaluated tests. Overall, slight or fair agreement was observed between Ag-RDTs and RT-PCR, except for the Ag-RDT COVID-19 (Acro Biotech), in which moderate agreement was observed. Lower sensitivity of Ag-RDTs was observed for patients with cycle threshold > 25, indicating that the sensitivity was directly affected by viral load, whereas the effect of the disease duration was unclear. Despite the lower sensitivity of Ag-RDTs compared with RT-qPCR, its easy fulfillment and promptness still justify its use, even at hospital admission. However, the main advantage of Ag-RDTs seems to be the possibility of increasing access to the diagnosis of COVID-19 in patients with a high viral load, allowing immediate clinical management and reduction of infectivity and community transmission.

Performance evaluation of antigen detection rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) for COVID-19 diagnosis in a primary healthcare center during the Shanghai COVID-19 quarantine period.

BACKGROUND: Rapid and accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection is the cornerstone of prompt patient care. However, the reliability of the antigen rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection remains inconclusive. METHODS: We conducted a field evaluation of Ag-RDT performance during the Shanghai Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) quarantine and screened 7225 individuals visiting our Emergency Department. 83 asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 (+) individuals were enrolled in the current study. Simultaneously, Ag-RDT was performed to evaluate its testing performance. RESULTS: For the Ag-RDT(-) cases, the average cycle threshold (Ct) values of the N gene were 27.26 ± 4.59, which were significantly higher than the Ct value (21.9 ± 4.73) of the Ag-RDT(+) individuals (p < 0.0001). The overall sensitivity of Ag-RDT versus that of RT-PCR was 43.37%. The Ag-RDT(+) individuals regarding the N gene's Ct value were 16 cases in the < 20 range, 12 in 20-25, 5 in 25-30, and 3 in 30-35. The corresponding sensitivity was 84.21%, 52.17%, 21.74% and 16.67%, respectively. Meanwhile, sampling had a straight specificity of 100% regardless of the Ct value. CONCLUSIONS: The Ag-RDT were extremely sensitive in asymptomatic COVID-19 individuals with a Ct value < 20.

Evaluation of the Boson rapid Ag test vs RT-PCR for use as a self-testing platform.

The gold standard test available for detecting COVID-19 patients is Real Time RT-PCR. However, this method is expensive, needing special equipment and skilled laboratory staff. Recently, less expensive antigen tests have become available, that could easily and rapidly identify new COVID-19 cases. Our objective was to evaluate the Boson Rapid Antigen Test Card versus the RT-rtPCR, using samples taken both by laymen (self-testing) and professionals. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy rates were, 98.18%, 100.00%, and 99.28%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 100.00% and 98.82%, respectively. The detection rate for asymptomatic patients was 90.48%, and detection rate for Ct values ≥30 was 91.67%. Our results indicate a high coincidence rate between the Boson and the referencing RT-rtPCR method, meeting the performance standards recommended by the WHO. Therefore, this test could facilitate a fast self-testing screening method, for the detection of infected individuals.

High Sensitivity and NPV for BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen Test in Children at a Mass Testing Site during Prevalent Delta Variant Period.

SARS-CoV-2 continues to develop new, increasingly infectious variants including delta and omicron. We evaluated the efficacy of the Abbott BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen Test against Reverse Transcription PCR (RT-PCR) in 1,054 pediatric participants presenting to a high-volume Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing site while the delta variant was predominant. Both tests utilized anterior nares swabs. Participants were grouped by COVID-19 exposure and symptom status. 5.2% of samples tested positive by RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2. For all participants, sensitivity of the BinaxNOW was 92.7% (95% CI 82.4%-98.0%), and specificity was 98.0% (95% CI 97.0%-98.8%). For symptomatic participants, positive predictive value (PPV) was 72.7% (95% CI 54.5%-86.7%) and negative predictive value (NPV) was 99.2% (95% CI 98.2%-100%). Among asymptomatic participants, PPV was 71.4% (95% CI 53.7%-85.4%) and NPV was 99.7% (95% CI 99.0%-100%). Our reported sensitivity and NPV are higher than other pediatric studies, potentially because of higher viral load from the delta variant, but specificity and PPV are lower. IMPORTANCE The BinaxNOW rapid antigen COVID-19 test had a sensitivity of nearly 92% in both symptomatic and asymptomatic children when performed at a high-throughput setting during the more transmissible delta variant dominant period. The test may play an invaluable role in asymptomatic screening and keeping children safe in school.

Validity of at-home rapid antigen lateral flow assay and artificial intelligence read to detect SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: The gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis-reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)- is expensive and often slow to yield results whereas lateral flow tests can lack sensitivity. METHODS: We tested a rapid, lateral flow antigen (LFA) assay with artificial intelligence read (LFAIR) in subjects from COVID-19 treatment trials (N = 37; daily tests for 5 days) and from a population-based study (N = 88; single test). LFAIR was compared to RT-PCR from same-day samples. RESULTS: Using each participant's first sample, LFAIR showed 86.2% sensitivity (95% CI 73.6%-98.8) and 94.3% specificity (88.8%-99.7%) compared to RT-PCR. Adjusting for days since symptom onset and repeat testing, sensitivity was 97.8% (89.9%-99.5%) on the first symptomatic day and decreased with each additional day. Sensitivity improved with artificial intelligence (AI) read (86.2%) compared to the human eye (71.4%). CONCLUSION: LFAIR showed improved accuracy compared to LFA alone. particularly early in infection.

An all-in-one point-of-care testing device for multiplexed detection of respiratory infections.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has reinforced the need for rapid, cost-effective, and reliable point-of-care testing (POCT) devices for massive population screening. The co-circulation of SARS-CoV-2 with several seasonal respiratory viruses highlights the need for multiplexed biosensing approaches. Herein, we present a fast and robust all-in-one POCT device for parallel viral antigen and serological analysis. The biosensing approach consists of a functionalized polycarbonate disc-shaped surface with microfluidic structures, where specific bioreagents are immobilized in microarray format, and a portable optoelectronic analyzer. The biosensor quantifies the concentration of viral antigens and specific immunoglobulins G and M for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B, adenovirus, and respiratory syncytial virus, using 30 µL of a sample. The semi-automated analysis of 6 samples is performed in 30 min. Validation studies performed with 135 serum samples and 147 nasopharyngeal specimens reveal high diagnostic sensitivity (98-100%) and specificity (84-98%), achieving an excellent agreement (κ = 0.937) with commercial immunoassays, which complies with the World Health Organization criteria for POC COVID-19 diagnostic tests. The versatility of the POCT device paves the way for the detection of other pathogens and analytes in the incoming post-pandemic world, integrating specific bioreagents against different variants of concerns and interests.

Field evaluation of the performance of seven Antigen Rapid diagnostic tests for the diagnosis of SARs-CoV-2 virus infection in Uganda.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of seven antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag RDTs) in a clinical setting to identify those that could be recommended for use in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Uganda. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional prospective study. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected consecutively from COVID-19 PCR positive and COVID-19 PCR negative participants at isolation centers and points of entry, and tested with the SARS-CoV-2 Ag RDTs. Test sensitivity and specificity were generated by comparing results against qRT-PCR results (Berlin Protocol) at a cycle threshold (Ct) cut-off of ≤39. Sensitivity was also calculated at Ct cut-offs ≤29 and ≤33. RESULTS: None of the Ag RDTs had a sensitivity of ≥80% at Ct cut-off values ≤33 and ≤39. Two kits, Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag and VivaDiag™ SARS-CoV-2 Ag had a sensitivity of ≥80% at a Ct cut-off value of ≤29. Four kits: BIOCREDIT COVID -19 Ag, COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip, MEDsan® SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test and Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test had a specificity of ≥97%. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation identified one Ag RDT, Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag with a performance at high viral load (Ct value ≤29) reaching that recommended by WHO. This kit was recommended for screening of patients with COVID -19-like symptoms presenting at health facilities.

A prospective evaluation of diagnostic performance of a combo rapid antigen test QuickNavi-Flu+COVID19 Ag.

INTRODUCTION: Since respiratory sample collection is an uncomfortable experience, simultaneous detection of pathogens with a single swab is preferable. We prospectively evaluated the clinical performance of a newly developed antigen test QuickNavi-Flu+COVID19 Ag (Denka Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) which can detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and influenza viruses at the same time with a single testing device. METHODS: We included those who were suspected of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and were referred to a PCR center at Ibaraki prefecture in Japan, between August 2, 2021 to September 13, 2021, when the variant carrying L452R spike mutation of SARS-CoV-2 were prevalent. Additional nasopharyngeal samples and anterior nasal samples were obtained for the antigen test and were compared with a reference real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) using nasopharyngeal samples. RESULTS: In total, 1510 nasopharyngeal samples and 862 anterior nasal samples were evaluated. During the study period, influenza viruses were not detected by QuickNavi-Flu+COVID19 Ag and reference real-time RT-PCR. For SARS-CoV-2 detection in nasopharyngeal samples, the sensitivity and specificity of the antigen test were 80.9% and 99.8%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity using anterior nasal samples were 67.8% and 100%, respectively. In symptomatic cases, the sensitivities increased to 88.3% with nasopharyngeal samples and 73.7% with anterior nasal samples. There were three cases of discrepant results between the antigen test and the real-time RT-PCR. All of them were positive with the antigen test but negative with the real-time RT-PCR in SARS-CoV-2 detection. CONCLUSION: A combo kit, QuickNavi-Flu+COVID19 Ag, showed an acceptable sensitivity and sufficient specificity for SARS-CoV-2 detection, especially using nasopharyngeal sample collected from symptomatic patients.

Recent advances of functional nucleic acid-based sensors for point-of-care detection of SARS-CoV-2.

This review focuses on critical scientific barriers that the field of point-of-care (POC) testing of SARS-CoV-2 is facing and possible solutions to overcome these barriers using functional nucleic acid (FNA)-based technology. Beyond the summary of recent advances in FNA-based sensors for COVID-19 diagnostics, our goal is to outline how FNA might serve to overcome the scientific barriers that currently available diagnostic approaches are suffering. The first introductory section on the operationalization of the COVID-19 pandemic in historical view and its clinical features contextualizes essential SARS-CoV-2-specific biomarkers. The second part highlights three major scientific barriers for POC COVID-19 diagnosis, that is, the lack of a general method for (1) designing receptors of SARS-CoV-2 variants; (2) improving sensitivity to overcome false negatives; and (3) signal readout in resource-limited settings. The subsequent part provides fundamental insights into FNA and technical tricks to successfully achieve effective COVID-19 diagnosis by using in vitro selection of FNA to overcome receptor design barriers, combining FNA with multiple DNA signal amplification strategies to improve sensitivity, and interfacing FNA with portable analyzers to overcome signal readout barriers. This review concludes with an overview of further opportunities and emerging applications for FNA-based sensors against COVID-19.

Performance evaluation of STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag home test for the diagnosis of COVID-19 during early symptom onset.

BACKGROUND: Surveillance and control of SARS-CoV-2 outbreak through gold standard detection, that is, real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), become a great obstacle, especially in overwhelming outbreaks. In this study, we aimed to analyze the performance of rapid antigen home test (RAHT) as an alternative detection method compared with RT-PCR. METHODS: In total, 79 COVID-19-positive and 217 COVID-19-negative patients confirmed by RT-PCR were enrolled in this study. A duration from symptom onset to COVID-19 confirmation of <5 days was considered a recruiting criterion for COVID-19-positive cases. A nasal cavity specimen was collected for the RAHT, and a nasopharyngeal swab specimen was collected for RT-PCR. RESULTS: Sensitivity of the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Home Test (SD Biosensor, Korea), compared with RT-PCR, was 94.94% (75/79) (95% [confidence interval] CI, 87.54%-98.60%), and specificity was 100%. Sensitivity was significantly higher in symptomatic patients (98.00%) than in asymptomatic (89.66%) patients (p-value = 0.03). There was no difference in sensitivity according to the duration of symptom onset to confirmation (100% for 0-2 days and 96.97% for 3-5 days, respectively) (p-value = 1.00). The RAHT detected all 51 COVID-19 patients whose Ct values were ≤25 (100%), whereas sensitivity was 73.33% (11/15) among patients with Ct values >25 (p-value = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The RAHT showed an excellent sensitivity for COVID-19-confirmed cases, especially for those with symptoms. There was a decrease in sensitivity when the Ct value is over 25, indicating that RAHT screening may be useful during the early phase of symptom onset, when the viral numbers are higher and it is more transmissible.

Clinical validation of two immunochromatographic SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests in near hospital facilities.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid antigen tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 virus need to be validated. The purpose of clinical validation is to place the test into the everyday working process in health care institutions. METHODOLOGY: The clinical validation of Alltest Covid19 antigen test (Alltest, China) and Vivadiag Pro SARS- CoV-2 antigen tests (Vivacheck, China) started in four Slovenian health care institutions in December as a point-of-care test. Institutions compared the results of antigen tests to Seegene Allplex™ 2019-nCoV rt-PCR assay (SeeGene, South Korea) and Cobas 6800 SARS CoV-2 rt-PCR (Roche, USA). RESULTS: Sensitivity (90.6%, 95% CI = 84.94%-94.36%) and specificity (100%, 95% CI = 99.41%-100%) of Vivadiag Pro SARS CoV-2 Ag test were observed. While validating Alltest Covid19 Ag assay we got similar results (sensitivity 94.37%, 95% CI = 89.20% - 97.54%), specificity 100% (95% CI = 98.83% - 100%). CONCLUSIONS: Vivadiag Pro SARS CoV-2 Ag test and Alltest Covid19 test proved to be a good screening tool to detect SARS-CoV-2. The accurate information about the patient's status was available almost immediately and there was no need to wait for rt-PCR results. We could prevent further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 in primary care and hospital settings.

The Usefulness of Antigen Testing in Predicting Contagiousness in COVID-19.

Increasing the diagnostic capacity for COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 infection) is required to improve case detection, reduce COVID-19 expansion, and boost the world economy. Rapid antigen detection tests are less expensive and easier to implement, but their diagnostic performance has been questioned compared to reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR). Here, we evaluate the performance of the Standard Q COVID-19 antigen test for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection and predicting contagiousness compared to RT-PCR and viral culture, respectively. The antigen test was 100.0% specific but only 40.9% sensitive for diagnosing infection compared to RT-PCR. Interestingly, SARS-CoV-2 contagiousness is highly unlikely with a negative antigen test since it exhibited a negative predictive value of 99.9% compared to viral culture. Furthermore, a cycle threshold (CT) value of 18.1 in RT-PCR was shown to be the one that best predicts contagiousness (area under the curve [AUC], 97.6%). Thus, screening people with antigen testing is a good approach to prevent SARS-CoV-2 contagion and allow returning to daily activities. IMPORTANCE The importance of our results is the excellent agreement between the Standard Q COVID-19 antigen test and the viral culture, indicating that it is important as a marker of contagiousness. Due to its high positive predictive value in situations of a high prevalence of infection, positive results do not require confirmation with another test. Likewise, its high negative predictive value for contagiousness makes possible to use this test as a criterion to discharge patients in isolation and screen people moving into environments that could facilitate the transmission of the virus. Screening people with antigen testing is a good approach to prevent SARS-CoV-2 contagion and allow returning to daily activities.