Comparison of the analytical and clinical sensitivity of thirty-four rapid antigen tests with the most prevalent SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK (preprint)

Background The continued emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC) requires timely analytical and clinical evaluation of antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) especially those that are recommended for at home use. Methods The limit of detection (LOD) of 34 Ag-RDTs was evaluated using the most encountered SARS-CoV-2 VOC viral isolates (Alpha, Delta, Gamma, Omicron BA.1, Omicron BA.5) and the wild type (WT). Clinical sensitivity was further evaluated for five Ag-RDT utilising retrospective samples (Alpha, Delta, Omicron BA.1) and one Ag-RDT utilising prospective clinical samples (Delta and Omicron BA.1). Findings For the WT, Alpha, Delta, Gamma and Omicron (BA.1) variants 22, 32, 29, 31 and 32 of the 34 Ag-RDTs evaluated met the World Health Organisations (WHO) target product profile (TPP), respectively. Of the 31 Ag-RDTs included for Omicron BA.5 evaluation 29 met the WHO TPP. Additionally, the LODs for samples spiked with Omicron BA.5 were significantly lower than all other VOCs included (p<0.001). In the retrospective clinical evaluation when comparing RNA copies/mL, the Ag-RDTs detected Alpha and Omicron (BA.1) more sensitively than the Delta VOC. Samples with high RT-qPCR Cts (Ct>25) resulted in reduced test sensitivities across all variants. We used linear regression to model the 50% and 95% LOD of clinical samples and observed statistically similar results for all tests. In the prospective clinical samples, the sensitivity was statistically similar for the Delta VOC 71.9% (CI 95% 53.3-86.6%) and Omicron VOC 84.4% (CI95% 75.3-91.2%). Interpretation Test performance differs between SARS-CoV-2 VOCs, and high sensitivity was achieved when testing the Omicron BA.5 VOC compared to the WHO Ag-RDT requirements. Continuous evaluations must be performed to monitor test performance.

Pooling samples to increase testing capacity with Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 during the Covid-19 pandemic in Lao People's Democratic Republic.

The COVID-19 pandemic created the need for large-scale testing of populations. However, most laboratories do not have sufficient testing capacity for mass screening. We evaluated pooled testing of samples, as a strategy to increase testing capacity in Lao PDR. Samples of consecutive patients were tested in pools of four using the Xpert Xpress SARS CoV-2 assay. Positive pools were confirmed by individual testing, and we describe the performance of the test and savings achieved. We also diluted selected positive samples to describe its effect on the assays CT values. 1,568 patients were tested in 392 pools of four. 361 (92.1%) pools were negative and 31 (7.9%) positive. 29/31 (93.5% (95%CI 77-99%) positive pools were confirmed by individual testing of the samples but, in 2/31 (6.5%) the four individual samples were negative, suggesting contamination. Pools with only one positive sample had higher CT values (lower RNA concentrations) than the respective individual samples, indicating a dilution effect, which suggested an increased risk of false negative results with dilutions >1:10. However, this risk may be low if the prevalence of infection is high, when pools are more likely to contain more than one positive sample. Pooling saved 67% of cartridges and substantially increased testing capacity. Pooling samples increased SARS-CoV-2 testing capacity and resulted in considerable cartridge savings. Given the need for high-volume testing, countries may consider implementation of pooling for SARS-CoV-2 screening.

Multicentre diagnostic evaluation of OnSite COVID-19 Rapid Test (CTK Biotech) among symptomatic individuals in Brazil and The United Kingdom (preprint)

The COVID-19 pandemic has given rise to numerous commercially available antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs). To generate and share accurate and independent data with the global community, multi-site prospective diagnostic evaluations of Ag-RDTs are required. This report describes the clinical evaluation of OnSite COVID-19 Rapid Test (CTK Biotech, California, USA) in Brazil and The United Kingdom. A total of 496 paired nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs were collected from symptomatic healthcare workers at Hospital das Clinicas in Sao Paulo, and 211 NP swabs were collected from symptomatic participants at a COVID-19 drive-through testing site in Liverpool, England. These swabs were analysed by Ag-RDT and results were compared to RT-qPCR. The overall clinical sensitivity of the OnSite COVID-19 Rapid test was 79.6% [95% Cl 70.8 - 86.8%] and specificity was 98.5% [95% Cl 97.2 - 99.3%]. Analytical evaluation of the Ag-RDT was assessed using direct culture supernatant of SARS-CoV-2 strains from Wild-Type (WT), Alpha, Delta, Gamma and Omicron lineages. Analytical limit of detection was 1.0x103 pfu/mL, 1.0x103 pfu/mL, 1.0x102 pfu/mL, 5.0x103 pfu/mL and 1.0x103 pfu/mL, giving a viral copy equivalent of approximately 2.1x105 copies/mL, 2.1x104 copies/mL, 1.6x104 copies/mL, 3.5x106 copies/mL and 8.7 x 104 for the Ag-RDT, when tested on the WT, Alpha, Delta, Gamma and Omicron lineages, respectively. Overall, the OnSite Ag-RDT demonstrates a lower clinical sensitivity than claimed by the manufacturers and narrowly missed out on the World Health Organization's minimum performance requirements for sensitivity of Ag-RDTs targeted to SARS-CoV-2. This study provides comparative performance of an Ag-RDT across two different settings, geographical areas, and population.

Head-to head comparison of anterior nares and nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection in a community drive-through test centre in the UK (preprint)

Objective: To conduct a head-to-head diagnostic accuracy evaluation of professionally taken anterior nares (AN) and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs for SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection using rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT). Methods: NP swabs for SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) testing and paired AN and NP swabs for the antigen detection were collected from symptomatic participants enrolled at a community drive-through COVID-19 test centre in Liverpool. Two Ag-RDT brands were evaluated: Sure-Status (PMC, India) and Biocredit (RapiGEN, South Korea). The visual read out of the Ag-RDT test band was quantitative scored and the 50% and 95% limit of detection (LoD) of both Ag-RDT brands using AN and NP swabs was calculated using a probabilistic logistic regression model. Results: A total of 604 participants were recruited of which 241 (40.3%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive by RT-qPCR. Sensitivity and specificity of AN swabs was equivalent to the obtained with NP swabs: 83.2% (75.2-89.4%) and 98.8% (96.5-99.6%) utilising NP swabs and 84.0% (76.2-90.1%) and 99.2% (97.0-99.8%) with AN swabs for Sure-Status and; 81.2% (73.1-87.7%) and 99.0% (94.7-86.5%) with NP swabs and 79.5% (71.3-86.3%) and 100% (96.5-100%) with AN swabs for Biocredit. The agreement of the AN and NP swabs was high for both brands with an inter-rater relatability (K) of 0.918 and 0.833 for Sure-Status and Biocredit, respectively. The overall 50% LoD and 95% LoD was 0.9-2.4 x 104 and 3.0-3.2 x 108 RNA copies/mL for NP swabs and 0.3- 1.1 x 105 and 0.7-7.9 x 107 RNA copies/mL and for AN swabs with no significant difference on LoD for any of the swabs types or test brands. Quantitative read-out of test line intensity was more often higher when using NP swabs with significantly higher scores for both Ag-RDT brands. Conclusions: the diagnostic accuracy of the two SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs brands evaluated in this study was equivalent using AN swabs than NP swabs. However, test line intensity was lower when using AN swabs which could influence negatively the interpretation of the Ag-RDT results for lay users. Studies on Ag-RDT self-interpretation using AN and NP swabs are needed to ensure accurate test use in the wider community.

The aerobiology of SARS-CoV-2 in UK hospitals and the impact of aerosol generating procedures (preprint)

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 nosocomial transmission to patients and healthcare workers (HCWs) has occurred throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) seemed particularly risky, and policies have restricted their use in all settings. We examined the prevalence of aerosolized SARS-CoV-2 in the rooms of COVID-19 patients requiring AGP or supplemental oxygen compared to those on room air. MethodsSamples were collected prospectively near to adults hospitalised with COVID-19 at two tertiary care hospitals in the UK from November 2020 - October 2021. The Sartorius MD8 AirPort air sampler was used to collect air samples at a minimum distance of 1.5 meters from patients. RT-qPCR was used following overnight incubation of membranes in culture media and extraction. ResultsWe collected 219 samples from patients rooms: individuals on room air (n=67), receiving oxygen (n=65) or AGP (n=67). Of these, 54 (24.6%) samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA. The highest prevalence was identified in the air around patients receiving oxygen (32.3%, n=21, CI95% 22.2 to 44.3%) with AGP and room air recording prevalence of (20.7%, n=18, CI95% 14.1 - 33.7%) and (22.3%, n=15, CI95% 13.5 - 30.4%) respectively. We did not detect a significant difference in the observed frequency of viral RNA between interventions. InterpretationSARS-CoV-2 viral RNA was detected in the air of hospital rooms of COVID-19 patients, and AGPs did not appear to impact the likelihood of viral RNA. Enhanced respiratory protection and appropriate infection prevention and control measures are required to be fully and carefully implemented for all COVID-19 patients to reduce risk of aerosol transmission.

Analytical evaluation of thirty-two SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow antigen tests demonstrates sensitivity remains with the SARS-CoV-2 Gamma lineage (preprint)

The limit of detection (LOD) of thirty-two antigen lateral flow tests (Ag-RDT) were evaluated with the SARS-CoV-2 Gamma variant. Twenty-eight of thirty-two Ag-RDTs exceeded the World Health Organization criteria of an LOD of 1.0×10 6 genome copy numbers/ml and performance was equivalent as with the 2020 B.1 lineage and Alpha variant.

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.

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.

Self-sampling of capillary blood for serological testing of SARS-CoV-2 by COVID-19 IgG ELISA (preprint)

Serological testing is emerging as a powerful tool to progress our understanding of COVID-19 exposure, transmission and immune response. Large-scale testing is limited by the need for in-person blood collection by staff trained in venepuncture. Capillary blood self-sampling and postage to laboratories for analysis could provide a reliable alternative. Two-hundred and nine matched venous and capillary blood samples were obtained from thirty nine participants and analysed using a COVID-19 IgG ELISA to detect antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Thirty seven out of thirty eight participants were able to self-collect an adequate sample of capillary blood ([≥]50 l). Using plasma from venous blood collected in lithium heparin as the reference standard, matched capillary blood samples, collected in lithium heparin-treated tubes and on filter paper as dried blood spots, achieved a Cohen's kappa coefficient of >0.88 (near-perfect agreement). Storage of capillary blood at room temperature for up to 7 days post sampling did not affect concordance. Our results indicate that capillary blood self-sampling is a reliable and feasible alternative to venepuncture for serological assessment in COVID-19.

Variation of SARS-CoV-2 viral loads by sample type, disease severity and time: a systematic review (preprint)

Background. To describe whether SARS-CoV-2 viral loads (VLs) and cycle thresholds (CTs) vary by sample type, disease severity and symptoms duration. Methods. Systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, BioRxiv and MedRxiv. Studies reporting individual SARS-CoV-2 VLs and/or CT values from biological samples. Paired reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. CT values and VLs distributions were described by sample type, disease severity and time from symptom onset. Differences between groups were examined using Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's tests (post-hoc test). The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Tools. Results. 14 studies reported CT values, 8 VLs and 2 CTs and VLs, resulting in 432 VL and 873 CT data points. VLs were higher in saliva and sputum (medians 4.7x108 and 6.5x104 genomes per ml, respectively) than in nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs (medians 1.7x102 and 4.8x103). Combined naso/oropharyngeal swabs had lower CT values (i.e. higher VLs) than single site samples (p=<0.0001). CT values were also lower in asymptomatic individuals and patients with severe COVID-19 (median CT 30 for both) than among patients with moderate and mild symptoms (31.4 and 31.3, respectively). Stool samples were reported positive for a longer period than other specimens. Conclusion. VLs are higher in saliva and sputum and in individuals who are asymptomatic of with severe COVID-19. Diagnostic testing strategies should consider that VLs vary by sample type, disease severity and time since symptoms onset.

Saliva offers a sensitive, specific and non-invasive alternative to upper respiratory swabs for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. (preprint)

RT-qPCR utilising upper respiratory swabs are the diagnostic gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 despite reported low sensitivity and limited scale up due to global shortages. Saliva is a non-invasive, equipment independent alternative to swabs. We collected 145 paired saliva and nasal/throat (NT) swabs at diagnosis (day 0) and repeated on day 2 and day 7 dependent on inpatient care and day 28 for study follow up. Laboratory cultured virus was used to determine the analytical sensitivity of spiked saliva and swabs containing amies preservation media. Self-collected saliva samples were found to be consistent, and in some cases superior when compared to healthcare worker collected NT swabs from COVID-19 suspected participants. We report for the first time the analytical limit of detection of 10-2 and 100 pfu/ml for saliva and swabs respectively. Saliva is a easily self-collected, highly sensitive specimen for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.