Diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the Omicron period: cross sectional study (preprint)

Objectives To assess the performances of three commonly used rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) used as self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the Omicron period. Design Cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy study. Setting Three public health service COVID-19 test sites in the Netherlands. Participants 3,600 asymptomatic individuals aged ≥16 years presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing for any reason except confirmatory testing after a positive self-test. Interventions Participants were sampled for RT-PCR (reference test) and received one self-test (either Acon Flowflex (Flowflex), MP Biomedicals (MPBio), or Siemens-Healthineers Clinitest (Clinitest)) to perform unsupervised at home within three hours and blinded to the RT-PCR result. Main Outcome(s) and Measures(s) Diagnostic accuracies (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values) of each self-test compared to RT-PCR. Results Overall sensitivities of the three self-tests were 27.5% (95% CI: 21.3-34.3%) for Flowflex, 20.9% (13.9-29.4%) for MPBio, and 25.6% (19.1-33.1%) for Clinitest. After applying a viral load cut-off (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL), sensitivities increased to 48.3% (95% CI: 37.6-59.2%), 37.8% (22.5-55.2%), and 40.0% (29.5-51.2%), respectively. No consistent differences were found in sensitivities by COVID-19 vaccination status, having had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, gender or age across the three self-tests. Specificities were >99% for all tests in most analyses. Conclusions The sensitivities of three commonly used SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs when used as self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the Omicron period, were very low. Our findings indicate that Ag-RDT self-testing in asymptomatic individuals may only detect the minority of infections at that point in time and may not be sufficient to prevent the spreading of the virus to other (vulnerable) persons. Repeated self-testing in case of a negative self-test is advocated to improve the diagnostic yield of the self-tests, and individuals should certainly be advised to re-test when symptoms develop. Summary box What is already known on this topic If sufficiently reliable, SARS-CoV-2 self-testing by asymptomatic persons prior to admission in places where groups gather could have a huge public health impact by lowering the reproduction number or keep it below one for longer periods. Current evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) when used as self-tests by asymptomatic individuals perform suboptimal, but sample sizes of the previous studies were too small to draw robust conclusions, and also empirical data on the accuracy of Ag-RDT self-tests in asymptomatic individuals during the Omicron period are scarce. What this study adds Compared to RT-PCR testing, overall sensitivities of three commercially available SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs when used as self-tests by asymptomatic individuals (primary analysis population of non-confirmatory testers; n= 3600, 87% of full analysis population) in the Omicron period, were very low: 27.5% (95% CI: 21.3-34.3%) for the Acon Flowflex test, 20.9% (13.9-29.4%) for the MP Biomedicals test, and 25.6% (19.1-33.1%) for the Siemens Healthineers Clinitest Ag-RDT, which increased to 48.3% (95% CI: 37.6-59.2%), 37.8% (22.5-55.2%), and 40.0% (29.5-51.2%), respectively, when applying a viral load cut-off (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL). Our findings indicate that Ag-RDT self-testing in asymptomatic individuals may only detect the minority of infections at that point in time and may not be sufficient to prevent the spreading of the virus to other (vulnerable) persons. Repeated self-testing in case of a negative self-test is advocated to improve the diagnostic yield of the self-tests, and individuals should certainly be advised to re-test when symptoms develop.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF A SARS-COV-2 RAPID ANTIGENTEST: TEST PERFORMANCE IN THE COMMUNITY IN THE NETHERLANDS (preprint)

Objectives: This study was primarily conducted to evaluate clinical sensitivity and specificity of the SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test BD Veritor System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 (VRD) compared to real time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). Furthermore, the VRD sensitivity for different Ct-value groups (Ct <20; Ct 20-25, Ct 25-30 and Ct > 30) and different intervals since symptom onset (< 7 days; > 7 days) were examined. Design: Prospective performance evaluation study. Setting: Municipal Health Service (GGD) COVID-19 test centres in West-Brabant, the Netherlands Participants: In order to evaluate clinical specificity, 352 symptomatic adults (> 18 years) who presented at a participating GGD test centre for a COVID- 19 test between September 28 and October 7 2020 were included. In order to evaluate clinical sensitivity, 123 symptomatic adults (> 18 years) who were tested positive with qRT-PCR in a participating GGD test centre between September 26 and October 6 were included. Results: An overall clinical specificity of 100% (95%CI : 98.9%-100%) and sensitivity of 80.7% (95% CI: 73,2%-86,9%) was found for the VRD compared to qRT-PCR. Sensitivity was the highest for low Ct-value categories and for specimen obtained within the first days after disease onset. For specimen obtained within 7 days after onset of symptoms, the overall sensitivity was 91.0% (95%: CI 82,4%-96,3%) and 98,6% (95%: CI 92,3%-100%) for samples with qRT-PCR Ct-value beneath 30. Conclusion: The VRD is a promising diagnostic test for COVID-19 community screening for symptomatic individuals within 7 days after symptom onset in function of disease control. The clinical sensitivity was highest when viral load was high, which correlated with the duration of symptoms. Further research on practical applicability and the optimal position of the test within the current testing landscape is needed.

COVID-19 in healthcare workers in three hospitals in the South of the Netherlands, March 2020 (preprint)

Background: Ten days after the first reported case of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the Netherlands, 3.9% of healthcare workers (HCWs) in nine hospitals located in the South of the Netherlands tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The extent of nosocomial transmission that contributed to the HCW infections was unknown. Methods: We combined epidemiological data, collected by means of structured interviews of HCWs, with whole genome sequencing (WGS) of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical samples from HCWs and patients in three of nine hospitals that participated in the HCW screening, to perform an in-depth analysis of sources and modes of transmission of SARS -CoV-2 in HCWs and patients. Results: A total of 1,796 out of 12,022 HCWs (15%) of the three participating hospitals were screened, based on clinical symptoms, of whom 96 (5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. We obtained complete genome sequences of 50 HCWs and 18 patients. Most sequences grouped in 3 clusters, with 2 clusters displaying local circulation within the region. The observed patterns are most consistent with multiple introductions into the hospitals through community acquired infections, and local amplification in the community. Conclusions: Although direct transmission in the hospitals cannot be ruled out, the data does not support widespread nosocomial transmission as source of infection in patients or healthcare workers.

SARS-CoV-2 infection in 86 healthcare workers in two Dutch hospitals in March 2020 (preprint)

Background On February 27, 2020, the first patient with COVID-19 was reported in the Netherlands. During the following weeks, nine healthcare workers (HCWs) were diagnosed with COVID-19 in two Dutch teaching hospitals, eight of whom had no history of travel to China or Northern-Italy. A low-threshold screening regimen was implemented to determine the prevalence and clinical presentation of COVID-19 among HCWs in these two hospitals. Methods HCWs who suffered from fever or respiratory symptoms were voluntarily tested for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time reverse-transcriptase PCR on oropharyngeal samples. Structured interviews were conducted to document symptoms for all HCWs with confirmed COVID-19. Findings Thirteen-hundred fifty-three (14%) of 9,705 HCWs employed were tested, 86 (6%) of whom were infected with SARS-CoV-2. Most HCWs suffered from relatively mild disease and only 46 (53%) reported fever. Seventy-nine (92%) HCWs met a case definition of fever and/or coughing and/or shortness of breath. None of the HCWs identified through the screening reported a travel history to China or Northern Italy, and 3 (3%) reported to have been exposed to an inpatient known with COVID-19 prior to the onset of symptoms. Interpretation Within two weeks after the first Dutch case was detected, a substantial proportion of HCWs with fever or respiratory symptoms were infected with SARS-CoV-2, probably caused by acquisition of the virus in the community during the early phase of local spread. The high prevalence of mild clinical presentations, frequently not including fever, asks for less stringent use of the currently recommended case-definition for suspected COVID-19.