Virus variant-specific clinical performance of SARS coronavirus two rapid antigen tests in point-of-care use, from November 2020 to January 2022.

OBJECTIVES: Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are quick, widely available, and inexpensive. Consequently, RDTs have been established as an alternative and additional diagnostic strategy to quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). However, reliable clinical and large-scale performance data specific to a SARS-CoV-2 virus variant of concern (VOC) are limited, especially for the Omicron VOC. The aim of this study was to compare RDT performance among different VOCs. METHODS: This single-centre prospective performance assessment compared RDTs from three manufacturers (NADAL, Panbio, MEDsan) with RT-qPCR including deduced standardized viral load from oropharyngeal swabs for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a clinical point-of-care setting from November 2020 to January 2022. RESULTS: Among 35 479 RDT/RT-qPCR tandems taken from 26 940 individuals, 164 of the 426 SARS-CoV-2 positive samples tested true positive with an RDT corresponding to an RDT sensitivity of 38.50% (95% CI, 34.00-43.20%), with an overall specificity of 99.67% (95% CI, 99.60-99.72%). RDT sensitivity depended on viral load, with decreasing sensitivity accompanied by descending viral load. VOC-dependent sensitivity assessment showed a sensitivity of 42.86% (95% CI, 32.82-53.52%) for the wild-type SARS-CoV-2, 43.42% (95% CI, 32.86-54.61%) for the Alpha VOC, 37.67% (95% CI, 30.22-45.75%) for the Delta VOC, and 33.67% (95% CI, 25.09-43.49%) for the Omicron VOC. Sensitivity in samples with high viral loads of ≥106 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies per mL was significantly lower in the Omicron VOC (50.00%; 95% CI, 36.12-63.88%) than in the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 (79.31%; 95% CI, 61.61-90.15%; p 0.015). DISCUSSION: RDT sensitivity for detection of the Omicron VOC is reduced in individuals infected with a high viral load, which curtails the effectiveness of RDTs. This aspect furthert: limits the use of RDTs, although RDTs are still an irreplaceable diagnostic tool for rapid, economic point-of-care and extensive SARS-CoV-2 screening.

Using real patients in e-learning: case-based online training in child and adolescent psychiatry.

Objectives: In undergraduate medical education and in the subject of child and adolescent psychiatry, examining young patients face-to-face is a key element of teaching. With the abrupt shutdown of face-to-face teaching caused by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, a case-based online training program integrating audio and video of real patients was developed. Methods: The blended learning platform CaseTrain guides medical students in their final year through real child-psychiatric patient cases, such as anorexia, autism, or attention deficit disorder, through presentation of video and audio of real patients and parents. The teaching format complements lectures on child psychiatric topics, comprising asynchronous elements (self-study using the digital material) as well as synchronous elements (web-conferences with a specialist). Learning objectives for students were set to develop knowledge of the spectra of psychiatric disorders that affect children and to recognize approaches how to assess and manage common psychiatric problems of childhood and adolescence. Results: The feedback from medical students through oral and written evaluation was positive. They appreciated getting to know 'real-world patients' in times of such a pandemic, to learn explorative techniques from role models, and to be in close contact with the supervising specialist. In consequence of critical feedback on the length of some video sequences, these training units will undergo revision. Conclusions: Case-based online training may continue to be a useful option in a post-pandemic future as integral part of medical education, complementing face-to-face lectures and training in (child) psychiatry.

Clinical performance evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing in point of care usage in comparison to RT-qPCR.

BACKGROUND: Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) for SARS-CoV-2 are fast, broadly available, and inexpensive. Despite this, reliable clinical performance data from large field studies is sparse. METHODS: In a prospective performance evaluation study, RDT from three manufacturers (NADAL®, Panbio™, MEDsan®, conducted on different samples) were compared to quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) in 5 068 oropharyngeal swabs for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a hospital setting. Viral load was derived from standardised RT-qPCR Cycle threshold (Ct) values. The data collection period ranged from November 12, 2020 to February 28, 2021. FINDINGS: The sensitivity of RDT compared to RT-qPCR was 42·57% (95% CI 33·38%-52·31%). The specificity was 99·68% (95% CI 99·48%-99·80%). Sensitivity declined with decreasing viral load from 100% in samples with a deduced viral load of ≥108 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies per ml to 8·82% in samples with a viral load lower than 104 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies per ml. No significant differences in sensitivity or specificity could be observed between samples with and without spike protein variant B.1.1.7. The NPV in the study cohort was 98·84%; the PPV in persons with typical COVID-19 symptoms was 97·37%, and 28·57% in persons without or with atypical symptoms. INTERPRETATION: RDT are a reliable method to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection in persons with high viral load. RDT are a valuable addition to RT-qPCR testing, as they reliably detect infectious persons with high viral loads before RT-qPCR results are available. FUNDING: German Federal Ministry for Education and Science (BMBF), Free State of Bavaria.