Analytical performance of eleven SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid tests for Delta variant (preprint)

Global concerns arose as the emerged and rapidly spreading SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant. To date, few data on routine diagnostic performance for Delta are available. Here, we investigate the analytical performance of eleven commercially available antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for Delta VOC in comparison with current and earlier VOCs (Alpha, Beta and Gamma) and early pandemic variant using cultured SARS-CoV-2. Comparable sensitivity was observed for Delta for the majority of Ag-RDTs.

Analytical comparison of nine SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests for emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants (preprint)

Several SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern/interest (VOC/VOI) emerged recently, with VOCs outcompeting earlier lineages on a global scale. To date, few data on routine diagnostic performance for VOC/VOIs are available. Here, we investigate the analytical performance of nine commercially available antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for VOC B.1.1.7, B.1.351, P.1 and VOI P.2 with cultured SARS-CoV-2. Comparable or higher sensitivity was observed for VOC/VOI compared to a non-VOC/VOI early-pandemic virus for all Ag-RDTs.

SARS-CoV-2 antibodies rapid tests: a valuable epidemiological tool in challenging settings (preprint)

Background During the last year, mass screening campaigns have been carried out to identify immunological response to SARS-CoV-2 and establish a possible seroprevalence. The obtained results gained new importance with the beginning of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination campaign, as the lack of doses has persuaded several countries to introduce different policies for individuals who had a history of COVID 19. LFAs may represent an affordable tool to support population screening in LMICs, where diagnostic tests are lacking, and epidemiology is still widely unknown. However, LFAs have demonstrated a wide range of performance and the question of which one could be more valuable in these settings still remains. Methods We evaluated the performance of 11 LFAs in detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection, analysing samples collected from 350 subjects. In addition, samples from 57 health care workers collected at 21-24 days after the first dose of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine were also evaluated. Findings LFAs demonstrated a wide range of specificity (92.31% to 100%) and sensitivity (50 to 100%). The analysis of serum samples post vaccination was used to describe the most suitable tests to detect IgG response against S protein RBD. History of TB therapy was identified as a potential factor affecting the specificity of LFAs. Conclusions This analysis identified which LFAs represent a valuable tool not only for the detection of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, but also to detect IgG elicited in response to vaccination. These results demonstrated that different LFAs may have different applications and the possible risks of their use in high TB burden settings.

Limit of detection in different matrices of nineteen commercially available rapid antigen tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 (preprint)

In the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic there has been an increase of the use of antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT). The performance of Ag-RDT vary greatly between manufacturers and evaluating their analytical limit of detection (LOD) has become high priority. Here we describe a manufacturer-independent evaluation of the LOD of 19 marketed Ag-RDT using live SARS-CoV-2 spiked in different matrices: direct culture supernatant, a dry swab, and a swab in Amies. Additionally, the LOD using dry swab was investigated after 7 days’ storage at -80°C of the SARS-CoV-2 serial dilutions. An LOD of ≈ 5.0 x 10 2 pfu/ml (1.0 x 10 6 genome copies/ml) in culture media is defined as acceptable by the World Health Organization. Fourteen of nineteen Ag-RDTs (ActiveXpress, Espline, Excalibur, Innova, Joysbio, Mologic, NowCheck, Orient, PanBio, RespiStrip, Roche, Standard-F, Standard-Q and Sure-Status) exceeded this performance criteria using direct culture supernatant applied to the Ag-RDT. Six Ag-RDT were not compatible with Amies media and a decreased sensitivity of 2 to 20-fold was observed for eleven tests on the stored dilutions at -80°C for 7 days. Here, we provide analytical sensitivity data to guide appropriate test and sample type selection for use and for future Ag-RDT evaluations. 201/200

Limit of detection in different matrices of nineteen commercially available rapid antigen tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 (preprint)

In the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic there has been an increase of the use of antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT). The performance of Ag-RDT vary greatly between manufacturers and evaluating their analytical limit of detection (LOD) has become high priority. Here we describe a manufacturer-independent evaluation of the LOD of 19 marketed Ag-RDT using live SARS-CoV-2 spiked in different matrices: direct culture supernatant, a dry swab, and a swab in Amies. Additionally, the LOD using dry swab was investigated after 7 days storage at -80{degrees}C of the SARS-CoV-2 serial dilutions. An LOD of {approx} 5.0 x 102 pfu/ml (1.0 x 106 genome copies/ml) in culture media is defined as acceptable by the World Health Organization. Fourteen of nineteen Ag-RDTs (ActiveXpress, Espline, Excalibur, Innova, Joysbio, Mologic, NowCheck, Orient, PanBio, RespiStrip, Roche, Standard-F, Standard-Q and Sure-Status) exceeded this performance criteria using direct culture supernatant applied to the Ag-RDT. Six Ag-RDT were not compatible with Amies media and a decreased sensitivity of 2 to 20-fold was observed for eleven tests on the stored dilutions at -80{degrees}C for 7 days. Here, we provide analytical sensitivity data to guide appropriate test and sample type selection for use and for future Ag-RDT evaluations.

The accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: a living systematic review and meta-analysis (preprint)

ABSTRACT Background SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being integrated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs. Methods and Results We registered the review on PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix and bioRvix, FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 up until April 30 th , 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed and when more than four studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses, and rated study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS 2 assessment tool. From a total of 14,254 articles, we included 133 analytical and clinical studies resulting in 214 clinical accuracy data sets with 112,323 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity was 71.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 68.2 to 74.0) and increased to 76.3% (CI 73.1 to 79.2) if analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers’ instructions. The LumiraDx showed the highest sensitivity with 88.2% (CI 59.0 to 97.5). Of instrument-free Ag-RDTs, Standard Q nasal performed best with 80.2% sensitivity (CI 70.3 to 87.4). Across all Ag-RDTs sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower Ct-values, i.e., <20 (96.5%, CI 92.6 to 98.4) and <25 (95.8%, CI 92.3 to 97.8), in comparison to those with Ct ≥25 (50.7%, CI 35.6 to 65.8) and ≥30 (20.9%, CI 12.5 to 32.8). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (83.8%, CI 76.3 to 89.2) compared to testing after one week (61.5%, CI 52.2 to 70.0). The best Ag-RDT sensitivity was found with anterior nasal sampling (75.5%, CI 70.4 to 79.9) in comparison to other sample types (e.g., nasopharyngeal 71.6%, CI 68.1 to 74.9) although CIs were overlapping. Concerns of bias were raised across all data sets, and financial support from the manufacturer was reported in 24.1% of data sets. Our analysis was limited by the included studies’ heterogeneity in design and reporting, making it difficult to draw conclusions from. Conclusion In this study we found that Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of cases within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load. Thus, they can have high utility for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease, making them a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization in conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data. AUTHOR SUMMARY Why was this study done? – Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are considered an important diagnostic tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2 – An increasing number of Ag-RDTs is offered on the market, and a constantly growing body of literature evaluating their performance is available – To inform decision makers about the best test to choose, an up to date summary of their performance is needed What did the researchers do and find? – On a weekly basis, we search multiple data bases for evaluations of Ag-RDTs detecting SARS-CoV-2 and post the results on www.diagnosticsglobalhealth.org – Based on the search results up until April 30 th , 2021, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, including a total of 133 clinical and analytical accuracy studies – Across all meta-analyzed studies, when Ag-RDTs were performed according to manufacturers’ recommendations, they showed a sensitivity of 76.3% (CI 73.1 to 79.2), with the LumiraDx (sensitivity 88.2%, CI 59.0 to 97.5) and of the instrument-free Ag-RDT Standard Q (74.9% sensitivity, CI 69.3 to 79.7) performing best. – Across all Ag-RDTs, sensitivity increased to 95.8% (CI 92.3 to 97.8) when restricting the analysis to samples with high viral loads (i.e., a Ct-value <25) and to 83.8% (CI 76.3 to 89.2) when tests were performed on patients within the first week after symptom onset What do these findings mean? – Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of cases within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load. Thus, they can have high utility for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease – Out of all assessed tests, the Lumira Dx showed the highest accuracy. The Standard Q wasthe best performing test when only considering those that don’t require an instrument – A standardization of reporting methods for clinical accuracy studies would enhance future test-comparisons

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.

Limited specificity of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests at low temperatures (preprint)

SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are available within and outside of health care settings to enable increased access to COVID-19 diagnosis. These environments include provisional testing facilities, lacking temperature control; as outside temperatures fall, recommended testing temperatures cannot be guaranteed. We report impaired specificity in two out of six Ag-RDTs when used at 2-4°C, indicating that testing in cold settings might cause false-positive results potentially entailing unwarranted quarantine assignments and incorrect incidence estimates.

Impaired performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid tests at elevated temperatures (preprint)

Rapid antigen-detecting tests (Ag-RDTs) can complement molecular diagnostics for COVID-19. The recommended temperature for storage of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs ranges between 5-30°C. In many countries that would benefit from SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs, mean temperatures exceed 30°C. We assessed analytical sensitivity and specificity of eleven commercially available SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs using different storage and operational temperatures, including (i) long-term storage and testing at recommended conditions, (ii) recommended storage conditions followed by 10 minutes exposure to 37°C and testing at 37°C and (iii) 3 weeks storage followed by testing at 37°C. The limits of detection of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs under recommended conditions ranged from 8.2×10 5 -7.9×10 7 genome copies/ml of infectious SARS-CoV-2 cell culture supernatant. Despite long-term storage at recommended conditions, 10 minutes pre-incubation of Ag-RDTs and testing at 37°C resulted in about ten-fold reduced sensitivity for 46% of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs, including both Ag-RDTs currently listed for emergency use by the World Health Organization. After 3 weeks of storage at 37°C, 73% of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs exhibited about ten-fold reduced sensitivity. Specificity of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs using cell culture-derived human coronaviruses HCoV-229E and HCoV-OC43 was not affected by storage and testing at 37°C. In summary, short- and long-term exposure to elevated temperatures likely impairs sensitivity of several SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs that may translate to false-negative test results at clinically relevant virus concentrations compatible with inter-individual transmission. Ensuring appropriate transport and storage conditions, and development of tests that are more robust across temperature fluctuations will be important for accurate use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs in tropical settings.

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.