Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody containing plasma improves outcome in patients with hematologic or solid cancer and severe COVID-19 via increased neutralizing antibody activity. A randomized clinical trial (preprint)

Cancer patients are at high risk of severe COVID-19 with high morbidity and mortality. Further, impaired humoral response renders SARS-CoV-2 vaccines less effective and treatment options are scarce. Randomized trials using convalescent plasma are missing for high-risk patients. Here, we performed a multicenter trial (https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-001632-10/DE) in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 within four risk groups (1, cancer; 2, immunosuppression; 3, lab-based risk factors; 4, advanced age) randomized to standard of care (CONTROL) or standard of care plus convalescent/vaccinated anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma (PLASMA). For the four groups combined, PLASMA did not improve clinically compared to CONTROL (HR 1.29; p=0.205). However, cancer patients experienced shortened median time to improvement (HR 2.50, p=0.003) and superior survival in PLASMA vs. CONTROL (HR 0.28; p=0.042). Neutralizing antibody activity increased in PLASMA but not in CONTROL cancer patients (p=0.001). Taken together, convalescent/vaccinated plasma may improve COVID-19 outcome in cancer patients unable to intrinsically generate an adequate immune response.

The clinical utility and epidemiological impact of self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 using an-tigen detecting diagnostics: a systematic review and meta-analysis (preprint)

Introduction Self-testing for COVID-19 (C19ST) based on antigen detecting diagnostics could signifi-cantly support controlling the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. To inform the World Health Organiza-tion in developing a C19ST guideline, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature. Methods We electronically searched Medline and the Web of Science core collection, performed secondary reference screening, and contacted experts for further relevant publications. Any study published between December 1, 2020 and November 30, 2021 assessing the epidemio-logical impact and clinical utility of C19ST was included. Study quality was evaluated using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS). The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022299977). Results 11 studies only from high-income countries with an overall low quality (median of 3/9 stars on the NOS) were found. Pooled C19ST positivity was 0.2% (95% CI 0.1% to 0.4%; eight data sets) in populations where otherwise no dedicated testing would have occurred. The impact of self-testing on virus transmission was uncertain. Positive test results mainly resulted in people having to isolate without further confirmation of results (eight data sets). When testing was voluntary by study design, pooled testing uptake was 53.2% (95% CI 36.7% to 68.9%; five data sets. Outside direct health impacts, C19ST reduced quarantine duration and absenteeism from work, and made study participants feel safer. Study participants favored self-testing and were confident that they performed testing and sampling correctly. Conclusions The present data suggests that C19ST could be a valuable tool in reducing the spread of COVID-19, as it can achieve good uptake, may identify additional cases, and was generally perceived as positive by study participants. However, data was very limited and heterogenous, and further research especially in low- and middle-income countries is needed to assess the clinical utility and epidemiological impact of C19ST in more detail.

Scalable RT-LAMP-based SARS-CoV-2 testing for infection surveillance with applications in pandemic control (preprint)

Throughout the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, limited diagnostic testing capacity prevented sentinel testing of the population, demonstrating the need for novel testing strategies and infrastructures. Here, we describe the set-up of an alternative testing platform, which allows scalable surveillance testing as an acute pandemic response tool and for pandemic preparedness purposes, exemplified by SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics in an academic environment. The testing strategy involves self-sampling based on gargling saline, pseudonymized sample handling, automated 96-well plate-based RNA extraction, and viral RNA detection using a semi-quantitative multiplexed colorimetric reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) assay with an analytical sensitivity comparable to RT-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). We provide standard operating procedures and an integrated software solution for all workflows, including sample logistics, LAMP assay analysis by colorimetry or by sequencing (LAMP-seq), and communication of results to participants and the health authorities. Using large sample sets including longitudinal sample series we evaluated factors affecting the viral load and the stability of gargling samples as well as the diagnostic sensitivity of the RT-LAMP assay. We performed >35,000 tests during the pandemic, with an average turnover time of fewer than 6 hours from sample arrival at the test station to result announcement. Altogether, our work provides a blueprint for fast, sensitive, scalable, cost- and labor-efficient RT-LAMP diagnostics. As RT-LAMP-based testing requires advanced, but non-specialized laboratory equipment, it is independent of potentially limiting clinical diagnostics supply chains.

Accuracy of rapid point-of-care antigen-based diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis with meta regression analyzing influencing factors (preprint)

BackgroundComprehensive information about the accuracy of antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 is essential to guide public health decision makers in choosing the best tests and testing policies. In August 2021, we published a systematic review and meta-analysis about the accuracy of Ag-RDTs. We now update this work and analyze the factors influencing test sensitivity in further detail. Methods and findingsWe registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix, bioRvix, and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 until August 31, 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing as a reference. To evaluate factors influencing test sensitivity, we performed 3 different analyses using multivariate mixed-effects meta-regression models. We included 194 studies with 221,878 Ag-RDTs performed. Overall, the pooled estimates of Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 72.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.8 to 74.2) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6 to 99.1), respectively. When manufacturer instructions were followed, sensitivity increased to 76.4% (95%CI 73.8 to 78.8). Sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values (sensitivity of 97.9% [95% CI 96.9 to 98.9] and 90.6% [95% CI 88.3 to 93.0] for Ct-values <20 and <25, compared to 54.4% [95% CI 47.3 to 61.5] and 18.7% [95% CI 13.9 to 23.4] for Ct-values [≥]25 and [≥]30) and was estimated to increase by 2.9 percentage points (95% CI 1.7 to 4.0) for every unit decrease in mean Ct-value when adjusting for testing procedure and patients symptom status. Concordantly, we found the mean Ct-value to be lower for true positive (22.2 [95% CI 21.5 to 22.8]) compared to false negative (30.4 [95% CI 29.7 to 31.1]) results. Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (81.9% [95% CI 77.7 to 85.5]) compared to testing after 1 week (51.8%, 95% CI 41.5 to 61.9). Similarly, sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (76.2% [95% CI 73.3 to 78.9]) compared to asymptomatic (56.8% [95% CI 50.9 to 62.4]) persons. However, both effects were mainly driven by the Ct-value of the sample. With regards to sample type, highest sensitivity was found for nasopharyngeal (NP) and combined NP/oropharyngeal samples (70.8% [95% CI 68.3 to 73.2]), as well as in anterior nasal/mid-turbinate samples (77.3% [95% CI 73.0 to 81.0]). ConclusionAg-RDTs detect most of the individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2, and almost all when high viral loads are present (>90%). With viral load, as estimated by Ct-value, being the most influential factor on their sensitivity, they are especially useful to detect persons with high viral load who are most likely to transmit the virus. To further quantify the effects of other factors influencing test sensitivity, standardization of clinical accuracy studies and access to patient level Ct-values and duration of symptoms are needed.

Highly valued despite burdens: qualitative implementation research on rapid tests for hospital-based SARS-CoV-2 screening (preprint)

Antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 have good reliability and have been repeatedly implemented as part of pandemic response policies, especially for screening in high-risk settings (e.g., hospitals and care homes) where fast recognition of an infection is essential, but evidence from actual implementation efforts is lacking. We conducted a prospective qualitative study at a large tertiary care hospital in Germany where RDTs are used to screen incoming patients. We relied on semi-structured observations of the screening situation, as well as on 30 in-depth interviews with hospital staff (members of the regulatory body, department heads, staff working on the wards, staff training providers on how to perform RDTs, and providers performing RDTs as part of the screening) and patients being screened with RDTs. Despite some initial reservations, RDTs were rapidly accepted and adopted as the best available tool for accessible and reliable screening. Decentralized implementation efforts resulted in different procedures being operationalized across departments. Procedures were continuously refined based on initial experiences (e.g., infrastructural or scheduling constraints), pandemic dynamics (growing infection rates), and changing regulations (e.g., screening of all external personnel). To reduce interdepartmental tension, stakeholders recommended high-level, consistently communicated and enforced regulations. Despite challenges, RDT-based screening for all incoming patients was observed to be feasible and acceptable among implementers and patients, and merits continued consideration in the context of rising infections and stagnating vaccination rates.

SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern B.1.1.7: diagnostic accuracy of three antigen-detecting rapid tests (preprint)

Virus mutations have the potential to impact the accuracy of diagnostic tests. The SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 lineage is defined by a large number of mutations in the spike gene and four in the nucleocapsid (N) gene. Most commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid tests (Ag-RDTs) target the viral N-protein, encoded by the N-gene. We conducted a manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study of three SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs that are currently under review by the WHO Emergency Use Listing Procedure (Espline - Fujirebio Inc.; Sure Status - Premier Medical Corporation Private Limited; Mologic - Mologic Ltd.) and report here on an additional sub-analysis regarding the B.1.1.7 lineage. During the study, in Berlin and Heidelberg, Germany, from 20 January to 15 April 2021, B.1.1.7 rapidly became the dominant SARS-CoV-2 lineage at the testing sites and was detected in 220 (62%) of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive patients. All three Ag-RDTs yielded comparable sensitivities irrespective of an infection with the B.1.1.7 lineage or not. There is only limited data on how N-gene mutations in variants of concern may impact Ag-RDTs. Currently, no major changes to test performance are anticipated. However, test developers and health authorities should assess and monitor the impact of emerging variants on the accuracy of Ag-RDTs.

Field evaluation of specificity and sensitivity of a standard SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic test: A prospective study at a teaching hospital in Northern Ghana (preprint)

BackgroundThe testing capacity for SARS-CoV-2 in Africa is rather limited. Antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are a cheap and rapid alternative to reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests, but there is little data about their performance under real life conditions in tropical countries. ObjectiveTo evaluate the performance of a standard Ag-RDT in a population of a major hospital in northern Ghana. MethodsProspective, cross-sectional, blinded verification of the performance of the SD Biosensor Standard Q SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT under real life conditions in 135 symptomatic patients and 58 contacts of RT-PCR positives at Tamale Teaching Hospital in February 2021. Nasopharyngeal samples were taken under standard conditions and tested against RT-PCR in the hospital laboratory. Results193 participants (median age 35 years, 109 male) were included into the study for which both RT-PCR test and Ag-RDT results were available. A total of 42 (22%) were RT-PCR positive. Of the 42 RT-PCR positives, 27 were Ag-RDT positive, resulting in a sensitivity of 64% (95% CI 49-79). Sensitivity among symptomatic patients was 58% (95% CI 38-78). 123 were identified Ag-RDT negatives of the 151 RT-PCR negatives, resulting in a specificity of 81% (95% CI 75-87). ConclusionsSARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs appear to have a rather low sensitivity and particularly a low specificity under real life conditions in Africa. The role of existing Ag-RDTs in countries with high-temperature climates and limited resources still needs more data and discussion.

Head-to-head performance comparison of self-collected nasal versus professional-collected nasopharyngeal swab for a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (preprint)

BackgroundIn 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended two SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow antigen detecting rapid diagnostics tests (Ag-RDTs), both initially with nasopharyngeal (NP) sample collection. Independent head-to-head studies demonstrated for SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs nasal sampling to be a comparable and reliable alternative for nasopharyngeal (NP) sampling. MethodsWe conducted a head-to-head comparison study of a supervised, self-collected nasal mid-turbinate (NMT) swab and a professional-collected NP swab, using the Panbio Ag-RDT (the second WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT, distributed by Abbott). We calculated positive and negative percent agreement and, compared to the reference standard reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), sensitivity and specificity for both sampling techniques. ResultsA SARS-CoV-2 infection could be diagnosed by RT-PCR in 45 of 290 participants (15.5%). Comparing the NMT and NP sampling the positive percent agreement of the Ag-RDT was 88.1% (37/42 PCR positives detected; CI 75.0% - 94.8%). The negative percent agreement was 98.8% (245/248; CI 96.5% - 99.6%). The overall sensitivity of Panbio with NMT sampling was 84.4% (38/45; CI 71.2% - 92.3%) and 88.9% (40/45; CI 76.5% - 95.5%) with NP sampling. Specificity was 99.2% (243/245; CI 97.1% - 99.8%) for both, NP and NMT sampling. The sensitivity of the Panbio test in participants with high viral load (> 7 log10 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/mL) was 96.3% (CI 81.7% - 99.8%) for both, NMT and NP sampling. ConclusionFor the Panbio Ag-RDT supervised NMT self-sampling yields to results comparable to NP sampling. This suggests that nasal self-sampling could be used for scale-up population testing.

Can we predict antibody responses in SARS-CoV-2? A cohort analysis. (preprint)

BackgroundAfter infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), Immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies and virus-specific neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) develop. This study describes antibody responses in a cohort of recovered COVID-19 patients to identify predictors. MethodsWe recruited patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from Heidelberg, Germany. Blood samples were collected three weeks after COVID-19 symptoms ended. Participants with high antibody titers were invited for follow-up visits. IgG titers were measured by the Euroimmun Assay, and nAbs titers in a SARS-CoV-2 infection-based assay. Results281 participants were enrolled between April and August 2020 with IgG testing, 145 (51.6%) had nAbs, and 35 (12.5%) had follow-up. The median IgG optical density (OD) ratio was 3.1 (Interquartile range (IQR) 1.6-5.1), and 24.1% (35/145) had a nAb titer>1:80. Higher IgG titers were associated with increased age and more severe disease, and higher nAbs were associated with male gender and CT-value of 25-30 on RT-PCR at diagnosis. The median IgG OD ratio on follow-up was 3.7 (IQR 2.9-5.9), a median increase of 0.5 (IQR -0.3-1.7). Six participants with follow-up nAbs all had titers [≤] 1:80. ConclusionsWhile age and disease severity were correlated with IgG responses, predictive factors for nAbs in convalescent patients remain unclear.

Evaluation of accuracy, exclusivity, limit-of-detection and ease-of-use of LumiraDx™ - Antigen-detecting point-of-care device for SARS-CoV-2 (preprint)

BackgroundRapid antigen-detecting tests (Ag-RDTs) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can transform pandemic control. Thus far, sensitivity ([≤]85%) of lateral-flow assays has limited scale-up. Conceivably, microfluidic immunofluorescence Ag-RDTs could increase sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Materials and MethodsThis multi-centre diagnostic accuracy study investigated performance of the microfluidic immunofluorescence LumiraDx assay, enrolling symptomatic and asymptomatic participants with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants collected a supervised nasal mid-turbinate (NMT) self-swab for Ag-RDT testing, in addition to a professionally-collected nasopharyngeal (NP) swab for routine testing with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Results were compared to calculate sensitivity and specificity. Sub-analyses investigated the results by viral load, symptom presence and duration. An analytical study assessed exclusivity and limit-of-detection (LOD). In addition, we evaluated ease-of-use. ResultsStudy conduct was between November 2nd 2020 and January 21st 2021. 761 participants were enrolled, with 486 participants reporting symptoms on testing day. 120 out of 146 RT-PCR positive cases were detected positive by LumiraDx, resulting in a sensitivity of 82.2% (95% CI: 75.2%-87.5%). Specificity was 99.3% (CI: 98.3-99.7%). Sensitivity was increased in individuals with viral load [≥] 7 log10 SARS-CoV2 RNA copies/ml (93.8%; CI: 86.2%-97.3%). Testing against common respiratory commensals and pathogens showed no cross-reactivity and LOD was estimated to be 2-56 PFU/mL. The ease-of-use-assessment was favourable for lower throughput settings. ConclusionThe LumiraDx assay showed excellent analytical sensitivity, exclusivity and clinical specificity with good clinical sensitivity using supervised NMT self-sampling.

Anterior nasal versus nasal mid-turbinate sampling for a SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test: does localisation or professional collection matter? (preprint)

ObjectivesThe aim of this diagnostic accuracy study was direct comparison of two different nasal sampling methods for an antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) that detects severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Furthermore, the accuracy and feasibility of self-sampling was evaluated. MethodsThis manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study, compared professional anterior nasal (AN) and nasal mid-turbinate (NMT) sampling for a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. A second group of participants collected a NMT sample themselves and underwent a professional nasopharyngeal swab for comparison. The reference standard was real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) using combined oro-/nasopharyngeal sampling. Individuals with high suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection were tested. Sensitivity, specificity, and percent agreement were calculated. Self-sampling was observed without intervention. Feasibility was evaluated by observer and participant questionnaires. ResultsAmong 132 symptomatic adults, both professional AN- and NMT-sampling yielded a sensitivity of 86.1% (31/36 RT-PCR positives detected; 95%CI: 71.3-93.9) and a specificity of 100.0% (95%CI: 95.7-100). The positive percent agreement (PPA) was 100% (95%CI: 89.0-100). Among 96 additional adults, self NMT- and professional NP-sampling yielded an identical sensitivity of 91.2% (31/34; 95%CI 77.0-97.0). Specificity was 98.4% (95%CI: 91.4-99.9) with NMT- and 100.0% (95%CI: 94.2-100) with NP-sampling. The PPA was 96.8% (95%CI: 83.8-99.8). Most participants (85.3%) considered self-sampling as easy to perform. ConclusionProfessional AN- and NMT-sampling are of equivalent accuracy for an Ag-RDT in ambulatory symptomatic adults. Participants were able to reliably perform the NMT-sampling themselves, following written and illustrated instructions. Nasal self-sampling will likely facilitate scaling of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing.

SARS-CoV-2 patient self-testing with an antigen-detecting rapid test: a head-to-head comparison with professional testing (preprint)

Background Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) have been widely recommended as a complement to RT-PCR. Considering the possibility of nasal self-sampling and the ease-of-use in performing the test, self-testing may be an option. Methods and Findings We performed a manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study of nasal mid-turbinate self-sampling and self-testing when using a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. Symptomatic participants suspected to have COVID-19 received written and illustrated instructions. Procedures were observed without intervention. For comparison, Ag-RDTs with nasopharyngeal sampling were professionally performed. Estimates of agreement, sensitivity, and specificity relative to RT-PCR on a combined oro-/nasopharyngeal sample were calculated. Feasibility was evaluated by observer and participant questionnaires. Among 146 symptomatic adults, 40 (27.4%) were RT-PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2. Sensitivity with self-testing was 82.5% (33/40 RT-PCR positives detected; 95% CI 68.1-91.3), and 85.0% (34/40; 95% CI 70.9-92.9) with professional testing. The positive percent agreement between self-testing and professional testing on Ag-RDT was 91.4% (95% CI 77.6-97.0), and negative percent agreement 99.1% (95% CI 95.0-100). At high viral load (>7.0 log10 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/ml), sensitivity was 96.6% (28/29; 95% CI 82.8-99.8) for both self- and professional testing. Deviations in sampling and testing (incomplete self-sampling or extraction procedure, or imprecise volume applied on the test device) were observed in 25 out of the 40 PCR-positives. Participants were rather young (mean age 35 years) and educated (59.6% with higher education degree). Most participants (80.9%) considered the Ag-RDT as rather easy to perform. Conclusion Ambulatory participants suspected for SARS-CoV-2 infection were able to reliably perform the Ag-RDT and test themselves. Procedural errors might be reduced by refinement of the Ag-RDTs for self-testing, such as modified instructions for use or product design/procedures. Self-testing may result in more wide-spread and more frequent testing. Paired with the appropriate information and education of the general public about the benefits and risks, self-testing may therefore have significant impact on the pandemic.

Lack of antibodies against seasonal coronavirus OC43 nucleocapsid protein identifies patients at risk of critical COVID-19 (preprint)

Most COVID-19 patients experience a mild disease; a minority suffers from critical disease. We report about a biomarker validation study regarding 296 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections from four tertiary care referral centers in Germany and France. Patients with critical disease had significantly less anti-HCoV OC43 nucleocapsid protein antibodies compared to other COVID-19 patients (p=0.007). In multivariate analysis, OC43 negative inpatients had an increased risk of critical disease, higher than the risk by increased age or BMI, and lower than the risk by male sex. A risk stratification based on sex and OC43 serostatus was derived from this analysis. Our results indicate that prior infections with seasonal human coronaviruses can protect against a severe course of COVID-19. Anti-OC43 antibodies should be measured for COVID-19 inpatients and considered as part of the risk assessment. We expect individuals tested negative for anti-OC43 antibodies to particularly benefit from vaccination, especially with other risk factors prevailing.

Evaluation of the accuracy and ease-of-use of Abbott PanBio - A WHO emergency use listed, rapid, antigen-detecting point-of-care diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2 (preprint)

BackgroundDiagnostics are essential for controlling the pandemic. Identifying a reliable and fast diagnostic is needed to support testing. We assessed performance and ease-of-use of the Abbott PanBio antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT). MethodsThis prospective, multi-centre diagnostic accuracy study enrolled at two sites in Germany. Following routine testing with RT-PCR, a second study-exclusive swab was performed for Ag-RDT testing. Routine swabs were nasopharyngeal (NP) or combined NP/oropharyngeal (OP) whereas the study-exclusive swabs were NP. To evaluate performance, sensitivity and specificity were assessed overall and in predefined sub analyses accordingly to cycle-threshold values, days of symptoms, disease severity and study site. Additionally, an ease-of-use assessment and System Usability Scale (SUS) were performed. Findings1108 participants were enrolled between Sept 28 and Oct 30, 2020. Of these, 106 (9{middle dot}6%) were PCR-positive. The Abbott PanBio detected 92/106 PCR-positive participants with a sensitivity of 86{middle dot}8% (95% CI: 79{middle dot}0% - 92{middle dot}0%) and a specificity of 99{middle dot}9% (95% CI: 99{middle dot}4%-100%). The sub analyses indicated that sensitivity was 95{middle dot}8% in CT-values <25 and within the first seven days from symptom onset. The test was characterized as easy to use (SUS: 86/100) and considered suitable for point-of- care settings. InterpretationThe Abbott PanBio Ag-RDT performs well for SARS-CoV-2 testing in this large manufacturer independent study, confirming its WHO recommendation for Emergency Use in settings with limited resources. FundingThe Foundation of Innovative New Diagnostics supplied the test kits for the study. The internal funds from the Heidelberg University as well as the Charite Berlin supported this study.

Head-to-head comparison of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test with self-collected anterior nasal swab versus professional-collected nasopharyngeal swab (preprint)

BackgroundTwo antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are now approved through the WHO Emergency Use Listing procedure and can be performed at the point-of-care. However, both tests use nasopharyngeal (NP) swab samples. NP swab samples must be collected by trained healthcare personnel with protective equipment and are frequently perceived as uncomfortable by patients. MethodsThis was a manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study with comparison of a supervised, self-collected anterior nose (AN) swab sample with a professional-collected NP swab sample, using a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT, STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test (SD Biosensor), which is also being distributed by Roche. The reference standard was RT-PCR from an oro-/nasopharyngeal swab sample. Percent positive and negative agreement as well as sensitivity and specificity were calculated. ResultsAmong the 289 participants, 39 (13.5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. The positive percent agreement of the two different sampling techniques for the Ag-RDT was 90.6% (CI 75.8-96.8). The negative percent agreement was 99.2% (CI 97.2-99.8). The Ag-RDT with AN sampling showed a sensitivity of 74.4% (29/39 PCR positives detected; CI 58.9-85.4) and specificity of 99.2% (CI 97.1-99.8) compared to RT-PCR. The sensitivity with NP sampling was 79.5% (31/39 PCR positives detected; CI 64.5-89.2) and specificity was 99.6% (CI 97.8-100). In patients with high viral load (>7.0 log 10 RNA SARS-CoV2/swab), the sensitivity of the Ag-RDT with AN sampling was 96% and 100% with NP sampling. ConclusionSupervised self-sampling from the anterior nose is a reliable alternative to professional nasopharyngeal sampling using a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. Considering the ease-of-use of Ag-RDTs, self-sampling and potentially patient self-testing at home may be a future use case.

Evaluation of the accuracy, ease of use and limit of detection of novel, rapid, antigen-detecting point-of-care diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2 (preprint)

Abstract Background: Reliable point-of-care (POC) diagnostics not requiring laboratory infrastructure could be a game changer in the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in the Global South. We assessed performance, limit of detection (LOD) and ease-of-use of three antigen-detecting, rapid POC diagnostics (Ag-RDT) for SARS-CoV-2. Methods: This prospective, multi-centre diagnostic accuracy study, recruited participants suspected to have SARS-CoV2 in Germany and UK. Paired nasopharyngeal swabs (NP) or NP and/or oropharyngeal swabs (OP) were collected from participants (one for clinical real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and one for Ag-RDT testing). Performance of each of three Ag-RDTs was compared to RT-PCR overall, and according to predefined subcategories e.g. cycle threshold (CT)-value, days from symptom onset, etc. In addition, limited verification of analytical limit-of-detection (LOD) was determined. To understand the usability of each Ag-RDT a System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire and ease-of-use assessment were performed. Results: Between April 17th and August 25th, 2020, 2417 participants were enrolled, with 70 (3.0%) testing positive by RT-PCR. The best-performing test (SD Biosensor, Inc. STANDARD Q) was 76.6% [95% Confidence Interval (CI) 62.8-86.4] sensitive and 99.3% [CI 98.6-99.6] specific. A sub-analysis showed all samples with RT-PCR CT-values <25 were detectable by STANDARD Q. The test was considered easy-to-use (SUS 86/100) and suitable for POC. Bioeasy and Coris showed specificity of 93.1% [CI 91.0%-94.8%] and 95.8% [CI 93.4%-97.4%], respectively, not meeting the predefined target of [≥]98%. Conclusion: There is large variability in performance of Ag-RDT tests with one test showing promise. Given the usability at POC, these tests are likely to have impact despite imperfect sensitivity; however further research and modelling are needed.