Antigen tests for COVID-19.

PCR diagnosis has been considered as the gold standard for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and other many diseases. However, there are many problems in using PCR, such as non-specific (i.e., false-positive) and false-negative amplifications, the limits of a target sample volume, deactivation of the enzymes used, complicated techniques, difficulty in designing probe sequences, and the expense. We, thus, need an alternative to PCR, for example an ultrasensitive antigen test. In the present review, we summarize the following three topics. (1) The problems of PCR are outlined. (2) The antigen tests are surveyed in the literature that was published in 2020, and their pros and cons are discussed for commercially available antigen tests. (3) Our own antigen test on the basis of an ultrasensitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is introduced. Finally, we discuss the possibility that our antigen test by an ultrasensitive ELISA technique will become the gold standard for diagnosis of COVID-19 and other diseases.

COVID-19 patients often show high-titer non-platelet-activating anti-PF4/heparin IgG antibodies.

BACKGROUND: Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a severe adverse reaction to heparin caused by heparin-dependent, platelet-activating anti-platelet factor 4 (PF4)/heparin antibodies. Heparin is a cornerstone of treatment in critically ill COVID-19 patients. HIT antibodies can be detected by antigen tests and functional tests. Often strong reactivity in the antigen test is used as a surrogate marker for the presence of clinically relevant, platelet-activating antibodies. We observed an unexpectedly high percentage of COVID-19 patients, clinically suspected to have HIT, with high titer anti-PF4/heparin antibodies, but a negative functional test. OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether in COVID-19 patients a serum-derived factor inhibits the heparin-induced platelet activation test (HIPA). METHODS AND RESULTS: Twelve COVID-19 patients with suspected HIT were tested. Three samples tested negative in all assays; nine samples tested positive by antigen tests, among which only three tested also positive by HIPA. When we spiked COVID-19 serum or control serum with the human HIT antibody like monoclonal antibody 5B9, reactivity of 5B9 remained the same. Also, the purified IgG fractions of COVID-19 sera testing strongly positive in the PF4/heparin antigen test but negative in the functional test did not show increased reactivity in the functional test in comparison to the original serum. Both results make a functionally inhibitory factor in the serum/plasma of COVID-19 patients highly unlikely. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 patients often present with strong reactivity in PF4/heparin antigen tests without the presence of platelet-activating antibodies. Diagnosis of HIT requires confirmation of heparin-dependent, platelets activating antibodies to avoid overdiagnosis and overtreatment with non-heparin anticoagulants.

Analytical Sensitivity of the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card.

Multiple rapid antigen (Ag) tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have recently received emergency-use authorization (EUA) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Although less sensitive than molecular detection methods, rapid antigen testing offers the potential for inexpensive, quick, decentralized testing. Robust analytical sensitivity data in comparison to reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (qRT-PCR) are currently lacking for many rapid antigen tests. Here, we evaluated the analytical sensitivity of the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag card using SARS-CoV-2-positive clinical specimens quantified by reverse transcription-droplet digital PCR (RT-ddPCR) and multiple FDA EUA qRT-PCR platforms using RNA standards. Initial and confirmatory limits of detection for the BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag card were determined to be equivalent to 4.04 × 104 to 8.06 × 104 copies/swab. We further confirmed this limit of detection with 72 additional clinical samples positive for SARS-CoV-2 in either phosphate-buffered saline or viral transport medium. One hundred percent of samples with viral loads of >40,000 copies/swab were detected by rapid antigen testing. These data indicate that the BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag card has an analytical sensitivity approximately equivalent to a generic qRT-PCR cycle threshold (CT ) value of 29 to 30.

Rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection assay in comparison with real-time RT-PCR assay for laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to spread across the world. Hence, there is an urgent need for rapid, simple, and accurate tests to diagnose severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Performance characteristics of the rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection test should be evaluated and compared with the gold standard real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for diagnosis of COVID-19 cases. METHODS: The rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection test, Standard™ Q COVID-19 Ag kit (SD Biosensor®, Republic of Korea), was compared with the real-time RT-PCR test, Allplex™ 2019-nCoV Assay (Seegene®, Korea) for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory specimens. Four hundred fifty-four respiratory samples (mainly nasopharyngeal and throat swabs) were obtained from COVID-19 suspected cases and contact individuals, including pre-operative patients at Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand during March-May 2020. RESULTS: Of 454 respiratory samples, 60 (13.2%) were positive, and 394 (86.8%) were negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by real-time RT-PCR assay. The duration from onset to laboratory test in COVID-19 suspected cases and contact individuals ranged from 0 to 14 days with a median of 3 days. The rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection test's sensitivity and specificity were 98.33% (95% CI, 91.06-99.96%) and 98.73% (95% CI, 97.06-99.59%), respectively. One false negative test result was from a sample with a high real-time RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct), while five false positive test results were from specimens of pre-operative patients. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid assay for SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection showed comparable sensitivity and specificity with the real-time RT-PCR assay. Thus, there is a potential use of this rapid and simple SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection test as a screening assay.

Field evaluation of the performance of a SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic test in Uganda using nasopharyngeal samples.

OBJECTIVES: There is a high demand for SARS-CoV-2 testing to identify COVID-19 cases. Real-time quantitative PCR (qRT-PCR) is the recommended diagnostic test but a number of constraints prevent its widespread implementation, including cost. The aim of this study was to evaluate a low cost and easy to use rapid antigen test for diagnosing COVID-19 at the point of care. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal swabs from suspected COVID-19 cases and low-risk volunteers were tested with the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test and the results were compared with the qRT-PCR results. RESULTS: In total, 262 samples were collected, including 90 qRT-PCR positives. The majority of samples were from males (89%) with a mean age of 34 years and only 13 (14%) of the positives were mildly symptomatic. The sensitivity and specificity of the antigen test were 70.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 60-79) and 92% (95% CI: 87-96), respectively, and the diagnostic accuracy was 84% (95% CI: 79-88). The antigen test was more likely to be positive for samples with qRT-PCR Ct values ≤29, with a sensitivity of 92%. CONCLUSIONS: The STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test performed less than optimally in this evaluation. However, the test may still have an important role to play early in infection when timely access to molecular testing is not available but the results should be confirmed by qRT-PCR.

Low performance of rapid antigen detection test as frontline testing for COVID-19 diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring accurate diagnosis is essential to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and for the clinical management of COVID-19. Although real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT- qPCR) is the current recommended laboratory method to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 acute infection, several factors such as requirement of special equipment and skilled staff limit the use of these time-consuming molecular techniques. Recently, several easy to perform rapid antigen detection tests were developed and recommended in some countries as the first line of diagnostic. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performances of the Coris COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip test, a rapid immunochromatographic test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen, in comparison to RT-qPCR. RESULTS: 148 nasopharyngeal swabs were tested. Amongst the 106 positive RT-qPCR samples, 32 were detected by the rapid antigen test, given an overall sensitivity of 30.2%. All the samples detected positive with the antigen rapid test were also positive with RT-qPCR. CONCLUSIONS: Higher viral loads are associated with better antigen detection rates. Unfortunately, the overall poor sensitivity of the COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip does not allow using it alone as the frontline testing for COVID-19 diagnosis.