Lessons learned: drive-through COVID-19 clinic testing during an adaptive epidemic response and a point-of-care test assessment of a computer-read rapid lateral flow immunoassay with fluorescence-based detection.

Background. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated a need for robust SARS-CoV-2 test evaluation infrastructure to underpin biosecurity and protect the population during a pandemic health emergency.Gap statement. The first generation of rapid antigen tests was less accurate than molecular methods due to their inherent sensitivity and specificity shortfalls, compounded by the consequences of self-testing. This created a need for more accurate point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 detection methods.Aim. Here we present the lessons-learned during the COVID-19 emergency response in Western Australia including the detailed set-up, evaluation and operation of rapid antigen test in a state-run drive-through sample collection service during the COVID-19 pandemic after the strict border shutdown ended.Methods. We report a conformity assessment of a novel, second-generation rapid antigen test (Virulizer) comprising a technician-operated rapid lateral flow immunoassay with fluorescence-based detection.Results. The Virulizer rapid antigen test demonstrated up to 100% sensitivity (95% CI: 61.0-100%), 91.94% specificity (95% CI: 82.5-96.5%) and 92.65% accuracy when compared to a commercial PCR assay method. Wide confidence intervals in our series reflect the limits of small sample size. Nevertheless, the Virulizer assay performance was well-suited to point-of-care screening for SARS-CoV-2 in a drive-through clinic setting.Conclusion. The adaptive evaluation process necessary under changing pandemic conditions enabled assessment of a simple sample collection and point-of-care testing process, and showed how this system could be rapidly deployed for SARS-CoV-2 testing, including to regional and remote settings.

Development and characterization of monoclonal antibodies recognizing nucleocapsid protein of multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Rapid antigen test (RAT) is widely used for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnostics. However, test sensitivity has decreased recently due to the emergence of the Omicron variant and its sublineages. Here we developed a panel of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (NP) specific mouse monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and assessed their sensitivity and specificity to important SARS-CoV-2 variants. We identified seven mAbs that exhibited strong reactivity to SARS-CoV-2 variants and recombinant NP (rNP) by Western immunoblot or ELISA. Their specificity to SARS-CoV-2 was confirmed by negative or low reactivity to rNPs from SARS-CoV-1, MERS, and common human coronaviruses (HCoV-HKU1, HCoV-CO43, HCoV-NL63, and HCoV-229E). These seven mAbs were further tested by immunoplaque assay against selected variants of concern (VOCs), including two Omicron sublineages, and five mAbs (F461G13, F461G7, F459G7, F457G3, and F461G6), showed strong reactions, warranting further suitability testing for the development of diagnostic assay.

Geospatial Point-of-Care Testing Strategies for COVID-19 Resilience in Resource-Poor Settings: Rural Cambodia Field Study.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care testing (POCT) generates intrinsically fast, inherently spatial, and immediately actionable results. Lessons learned in rural Cambodia and California create a framework for planning and mobilizing POCT with telehealth interventions. Timely diagnosis can help communities assess the spread of highly infectious diseases, mitigate outbreaks, and manage risks. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to identify the need for POCT in Cambodian border provinces during peak COVID-19 outbreaks and to quantify geospatial gaps in access to diagnostics during community lockdowns. METHODS: Data sources comprised focus groups, interactive learners, webinar participants, online contacts, academic experts, public health experts, and officials who determined diagnostic needs and priorities in rural Cambodia during peak COVID-19 outbreaks. We analyzed geographic distances and transit times to testing in border provinces and assessed a high-risk province, Banteay Meanchey, where people crossed borders daily leading to disease spread. We strategized access to rapid antigen testing and molecular diagnostics in the aforementioned province and applied mobile-testing experience among the impacted population. RESULTS: COVID-19 outbreaks were difficult to manage in rural and isolated areas where diagnostics were insufficient to meet needs. The median transit time from border provinces (n=17) to testing sites was 73 (range 1-494) minutes, and in the high-risk Banteay Meanchey Province (n=9 districts), this transit time was 90 (range 10-150) minutes. Within border provinces, maximum versus minimum distances and access times for testing differed significantly (P<.001). Pareto plots revealed geospatial gaps in access to testing for people who are not centrally located. At the time of epidemic peaks in Southeast Asia, mathematical analyses showed that only one available rapid antigen test met the World Health Organization requirement of sensitivity >80%. We observed that in rural Solano and Yolo counties, California, vending machines and public libraries dispensing free COVID-19 test kits 24-7 improved public access to diagnostics. Mobile-testing vans equipped with COVID-19 antigen, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, and multiplex influenza A/B testing proved useful for differential diagnosis, public awareness, travel certifications, and telehealth treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Rural diagnostic portals implemented in California demonstrated a feasible public health strategy for Cambodia. Automated dispensers and mobile POCT can respond to COVID-19 case surges and enhance preparedness. Point-of-need planning can enhance resilience and assure spatial justice. Public health assets should include higher-quality, lower-cost, readily accessible, and user-friendly POCT, such as self-testing for diagnosis, home molecular tests, distributed border detection for surveillance, and mobile diagnostics vans for quick telehealth treatment. High-risk settings will benefit from the synthesis of geospatially optimized POCT, automated 24-7 test access, and timely diagnosis of asymptomatic and symptomatic patients at points of need now, during new outbreaks, and in future pandemics.

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Antigen Card Test, Puerto Rico.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the need for rapid and accurate diagnostic tools. In August 2020, the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Antigen Card test became available as a timely and affordable alternative for SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing, but its performance may vary due to factors including timing and symptomatology. This study evaluates BinaxNOW diagnostic performance in diverse epidemiological contexts. METHODS: Using RT-PCR as reference, we assessed performance of the BinaxNOW COVID-19 test for SARS-CoV-2 detection in anterior nasal swabs from participants of two studies in Puerto Rico from December 2020 to May 2023. Test performance was assessed by days post symptom onset, collection strategy, vaccination status, symptomatology, repeated testing, and RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values. RESULTS: BinaxNOW demonstrated an overall sensitivity of 84.1% and specificity of 98.8%. Sensitivity peaked within 1-6 days after symptom onset (93.2%) and was higher for symptomatic (86.3%) than asymptomatic (67.3%) participants. Sensitivity declined over the course of infection, dropping from 96.3% in the initial test to 48.4% in testing performed 7-14 days later. BinaxNOW showed 99.5% sensitivity in participants with low Ct values (≤ 25) but lower sensitivity (18.2%) for participants with higher Cts (36-40). CONCLUSIONS: BinaxNOW demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity, particularly in early-stage infections and symptomatic participants. In situations where test sensitivity is crucial for clinical decision-making, nucleic acid amplification tests are preferred. These findings highlight the importance of considering clinical and epidemiological context when interpreting test results and emphasize the need for ongoing research to adapt testing strategies to emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Double testing with lateral flow antigen test devices for COVID-19: does a second test in quick succession add value?

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: We investigated if performing two lateral flow device (LFD) tests, LFD2 immediately after LFD1, could improve diagnostic sensitivity or specificity for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen. STUDY DESIGN: Individuals aged ≥16 years attending UK community testing sites (February-May 2021) performed two successive LFD tests and provided a nose-and-throat sample for a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. Using the PCR result as the reference diagnosis, we assessed whether improvements could be achieved in sensitivity (by counting a positive result in either LFD as a positive overall test result) or specificity (by using LFD2 as confirmatory test). RESULTS: Overall, 2231 participants were included with 159 (7 %) having a positive PCR test. Of 2223 participants who completed both LFD tests, LFD results were highly concordant both with each other and with PCR tests (>97 %). The proportion of discord LFD results decreased significantly over the study period. Combined LFD usage achieved a sensitivity of 68.6 %, versus 67.1 % for either LFD individually. The specificity increased from 99.5 % to 99.8 % when using LFD2 as confirmatory test. Observed increases in sensitivity and specificity were not statistically significant. Void results were recorded for 31 (1.4 %) LFD1s, 19 (0.9 %) LFD2s and 6 (0.3 %) combined LFD tests. CONCLUSIONS: LFD tests were highly reproducible even when they were performed by untrained users following only written instructions and without supervision. While performing two LFD tests of the same type in quick succession marginally increased sensitivity or specificity, statistically significant improvements were not detected in our study.

An Evaluation of the Sensitivity and Specificity of Three COVID-19 Rapid Immunochromatographic Test Kits Compared to Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase-Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) Among Clinical Samples.

Background and objective The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has imposed a significant burden on healthcare systems worldwide. This highlights the need for simple, rapid, and affordable diagnostic tests that can serve as alternatives to the existing costly and demanding polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay, especially in resource-limited countries like Ghana. In light of this, we aimed to assess the diagnostic efficacy of three COVID-19 rapid immunochromatographic antigen test kits vs. real-time reverse transcriptase-PCR (rRT-PCR). Methods This study evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of three COVID-19 rapid immunochromatographic antigen test kits: DG Rapid, SD Rapid, and SS Rapid. They were compared with the gold standard RT-PCR for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleocapsid antigen in 75 randomly selected archived nasopharyngeal samples. Results Of the 75 samples tested, 38 (50.7%) were positive and 37 (49.3%) were negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by rRT-PCR assay. No false positives were recorded. On the other hand, the DG Rapid kit detected 30 (78.9%) true positives and eight (21.1%) false negatives. SD Rapid kit detected 28 (73.7%) true positives and 10 (26.3%) false negatives, while the SS Rapid kit detected 19 (50.0%) true positives and 19 (50.0%) false negatives. While the specificity of each test kit was 100% (95% CI), the sensitivity of the DG Rapid, SD Rapid, and SS Rapid kits was 79%, 74%, and 50% (95% CI), respectively. Higher sensitivities were recorded among samples with cycle threshold (Ct) values <29.99 for each kit. Also, the DG Rapid kit demonstrated 79% excellent agreement with rRT-PCR, while the SD Rapid and SS Rapid kits demonstrated good agreement with rRT-PCR with 73% and 50% Cohen's kappa values, respectively. Conclusions Based on our findings, DG Rapid and SD Rapid kits are reliable alternatives to rRT-PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, especially in resource-limited settings like Ghana.

Validation of 12 Rapid Antigen Tests for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2.

The rapid identification SARS-CoV-2 virus has become the basis for the control of the COVID-19 outbreak. The rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 are quick, widely available, and inexpensive. Rapid antigen tests have gradually replaced the time-consuming and costly RT-PCR. Currently, although several RAT kits have been extensively used for the diagnosis of COVID-19, validity data are limited due to the inconsistent sensitivity and poor reproducibility. Meanwhile, WHO does not recommend specific commercial RAT kits. Therefore, it is crucial to establish a method to evaluate the effectiveness of different rapid antigen tests kits. This study aimed to develop an evaluation system for rapid antigen tests to provide an efficient and accurate technique for screening SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection kits. Given large number of rapid antigen tests kits available, this study only focused on those that are representative and commonely used in China. By minimzing biases through randomization, concealment, and blinding, we eventually found that the Test 1 had the lowest sensitivity and the Test VI had the highest sensitivity. This study provided an evaluation platform that can potentially serve as a reference for COVID-19 diagnostic strategies.

Diagnostic performance of multiplex lateral flow tests in ambulatory patients with acute respiratory illness.

We assessed the performance of three different multiplex lateral flow assays manufactured by SureScreen, Microprofit and Goldsite which provide results for influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and SARS-CoV-2. Between 4 April and 20 October 2023, 1646 patients 6 months and older presenting to an outpatient department of a hospital in Hong Kong with ≥2 symptoms or signs of an acute respiratory illness were enrolled. The point estimates for all three multiplex tests had sensitivity >80% for influenza A and SARS-CoV-2 compared to PCR, and the tests manufactured by Microprofit and Goldsite had sensitivity >84% to detect RSV. Specificity was >97% for all three tests except for the SureScreen test which had specificity 86.2% (95% CI: 83.9% to 88.3%) for influenza A. Sensitivity was lower than reported by the manufacturers, resulting in a higher risk of false negatives. The three multiplex tests performed better in patients with high viral loads.

Performance of and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Diagnostics Based on Symptom Onset and Close Contact Exposure: An Analysis From the Test Us at Home Prospective Cohort Study.

Background: Understanding changes in diagnostic performance after symptom onset and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exposure within different populations is crucial to guide the use of diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2. Methods: The Test Us at Home study was a longitudinal cohort study that enrolled individuals across the United States between October 2021 and February 2022. Participants performed paired antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) and reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests at home every 48 hours for 15 days and self-reported symptoms and known coronavirus disease 2019 exposures immediately before testing. The percent positivity for Ag-RDTs and RT-PCR tests was calculated each day after symptom onset and exposure and stratified by vaccination status, variant, age category, and sex. Results: The highest percent positivity occurred 2 days after symptom onset (RT-PCR, 91.2%; Ag-RDT, 71.1%) and 6 days after exposure (RT-PCR, 91.8%; Ag-RDT, 86.2%). RT-PCR and Ag-RDT performance did not differ by vaccination status, variant, age category, or sex. The percent positivity for Ag-RDTs was lower among exposed, asymptomatic than among symptomatic individuals (37.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.7%-69.4%) vs 90.3% (75.1%-96.7%). Cumulatively, Ag-RDTs detected 84.9% (95% CI, 78.2%-89.8%) of infections within 4 days of symptom onset. For exposed participants, Ag-RDTs detected 94.0% (95% CI, 86.7%-97.4%) of RT-PCR-confirmed infections within 6 days of exposure. Conclusions: The percent positivity for Ag-RDTs and RT-PCR tests was highest 2 days after symptom onset and 6 days after exposure, and performance increased with serial testing. The percent positivity of Ag-RDTs was lowest among asymptomatic individuals but did not differ by sex, variant, vaccination status, or age category.

Single-Facility Analysis of COVID-19 Status of Healthcare Employees during the Eighth and Ninth Pandemic Waves in Japan after Introducing Regular Rapid Antigen Testing.

BACKGROUND: Community infections of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have increased rapidly since the emergence of the Omicron strain. During the eighth and ninth pandemic waves-when movement restrictions in the community were eased-the all-case registration system was changed, and the actual status of infection became uncertain. METHODS: We conducted regular rapid antigen tests (R-RATs) once or twice a week as self-testing to examine the actual state of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) diagnosis among healthcare employees. RESULTS: Overall, 320 (1.42/day) and 299 (1.76/day) employees were infected in the eighth and ninth pandemic waves. During both periods, 59/263 doctors (22.4%), 335/806 nurses (41.6%), 92/194 administrative employees (47.4%), and 129/218 clinical laboratory technicians (59.2%) were infected. In the eighth wave, 56 of 195 employees were infected through close contact; in the ninth wave, 26 of 62 employees were infected. No significant difference was observed in the number of vaccinations between infected and non-infected employees. The positivity rate of R-RATs was 0.41% and 0.45% in the eighth and ninth waves. R-RATs detected infection in 212 and 229 employees during the eighth and ninth waves, respectively; the ratio of R-RAT-detected positive employees to those who reported infection was significantly higher during the ninth wave (odds ratio: 1.67, 95% confidence interval: 1.17-2.37, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The number of infected healthcare employees remained high during the eighth and ninth pandemic waves in Japan. The R-RAT is considered effective for detecting mild or asymptomatic COVID-19 at an early stage and at a high rate in healthcare employees.

Performance evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B combo rapid antigen test.

Introduction: The global COVID-19 pandemic and seasonal influenza outbreaks have drawn attention to the critical need for accurate and efficient diagnostic tools. Methods: The performance of the InstaView COVID-19/Flu Ag Combo Test, which was designed to simultaneously detect the SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, and influenza B viruses, was analytically and clinically evaluated. Results: The InstaView COVID-19/Flu Ag Combo Test exhibited robust detection capabilities, accurately identifying SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, and influenza B viruses over a wide concentration range (1.41 × 103 to 7.05 × 104 TCID50/mL). Extensive testing against potential cross-reactants and interferences yielded no false-positive results, indicating the high specificity of the test. Clinical evaluation further confirmed the kit's reliability, with sensitivity ranging from 95.1% to 98.2% for SARS-CoV-2, 88.9%-95.2% for influenza A, and 91.7%-100% for influenza B depending on the sample type. The specificity was consistently 100% for all of the targeted viruses. Discussion: The InstaView COVID-19/Flu Ag Combo Test thus demonstrated high performance, ease of use, rapid results, and the ability to precisely detect SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B infections, making it an effective tool in streamlining diagnostic workflows, optimizing resource allocation, and improving patient outcomes.

Reliability of the rapid antigen test for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in Tunisia.

Background: Early and accurate diagnosis is crucial for preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The rapid antigen test was developed for testing infection, and it was necessary to assess its performance before widespread use in Tunisia. Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness of a rapid antigen test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs in Tunisia. Methods: Nasopharyngeal samples were taken from COVID-19 suspected cases between October and December 2020 and tested using the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test (SD-Biosensor, Republic of Korea) and real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT­PCR). Results: Overall, 4539 patients were tested. Of the total study population (N = 4539), 82.5% of positive samples remained positive with the rapid antigen test, while 20.2% (470/2321) of samples that were negative with rapid antigen test were confirmed positive with RT-PCR, giving a negative predictive value of 79.8% for the rapid antigen test. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of the rapid antigen test were 70.2% and 65.8%, respectively. These results improved to 96.4% and 92.8%, respectively, when considering the cycle threshold value by RT-PCR below 25. Conclusion: Although the rapid antigen test was less sensitive than RT-PCR, its ability to rapidly detect individuals with high viral loads makes it suitable for use during an epidemic.

Diagnostic performance of rapid antigen tests (RAT) for COVID-19 and factors associated with RAT-negative results among RT-PCR-positive individuals during Omicron BA.2, BA.5 and XBB.1 predominance.

BACKGROUND: While numerous studies have evaluated the real-world performance of rapid antigen tests (RATs), data on the effect of Omicron sublineages such as XBB and reinfections on RAT performance is limited. We assessed the performance of RATs and factors associated with RAT-negative results among individuals who tested SARS-CoV-2-positive by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study among Singapore residents who underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2 with RAT (Acon Flowflex or SD Biosensor) and RT-PCR in the same clinical encounter between 9 May 2022 and 21 November 2022. RT-PCR served as a reference standard for RAT performance. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratios (OR) of factors associated with negative RAT results among RT-PCR-positive cases. RESULTS: Of 8,620 clinical encounters analysed, 3,519 (40.8%) were SARS-CoV-2-positive on RT-PCR. Overall sensitivity and specificity of RAT was 84.6% (95% CI 83.3-85.7%) and 99.4% (95% CI 99.1-99.6%) respectively. Acon Flowflex consistently achieved higher sensitivity and specificity than SD Biosensor test kit. Among RT-PCR-positive cases, individuals who had a previous documented SARS-CoV-2 infection, coinfection with another respiratory pathogen or tested ≥ 6 days from symptom onset had higher odds of testing RAT-negative, but the associations were attenuated after adjustment for cycle threshold values (proxy for viral load). There was no significant difference in RAT performance between Omicron sublineages BA.2, BA.5 and XBB.1. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic performance of RAT was not affected by changes in predominant circulating Omicron sublineages. However, reinfection cases may be under ascertained by RAT. In individuals with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection episode or symptom onset ≥ 6 days prior to testing, a confirmatory RT-PCR may be considered if there is high clinical suspicion.

Comparison of the analytical sensitivity of COVID-19 rapid antigen tests in Australia and Canada.

Rapid testing has become an indispensable strategy to identify the most infectious individuals and prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in vulnerable populations. As such, COVID-19 rapid antigen tests (RATs) are being manufactured faster than ever yet lack relevant comparative analyses required to inform on absolute analytical sensitivity and performance, limiting end-user ability to accurately compare brands for decision making. To date, more than 1000 different COVID-19 RATs are commercially available in the world, most of which detect the viral nucleocapsid protein (NP). Here, we examine and compare the analytical sensitivity of 26 RATs that are readily available in Canada and/or Australia using two NP reference materials (RMs) - a fluorescent NP-GFP expressed in bacterial cells and NCAP-1 produced in a mammalian expression system. Both RMs generate highly comparable results within each RAT, indicating minimal bias due to differing expression systems and final buffer compositions. However, we demonstrate orders of magnitude differences in analytical sensitivities among distinct RATs, and find little correlation with the median tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50) assay values reported by manufacturers. In addition, two COVID-19/Influenza A&B combination RATs were evaluated with influenza A NP-GFP. Finally, important logistics considerations are discussed regarding the robustness, ease of international shipping and safe use of these reference proteins. Taken together, our data highlight the need for and practicality of readily available, reliable reference proteins for end-users that will ensure that manufacturers maintain batch-to-batch quality and accuracy of RATs. They will aid international public health and government agencies, as well as health and aged care facilities to reliably benchmark and select the best RATs to curb transmission of future SARS-CoV-2 and influenza outbreaks.

Coding-complete genomic sequence of a rhinovirus C-32 in a human nasal swab sample that tested false positive in a SARS-CoV-2 antigen test.

Rhinovirus-A was previously shown to cause false-positive results in a Japanese SARS-CoV-2 antigen test. We report that a false-positive result was obtained in a specimen with rhinovirus C-32 that had been tested using an American SARS-CoV-2 antigen test.

Diagnostics of Tuberculosis with Single-Walled Carbon Nanotube-Based Field-Effect Transistors.

Tuberculosis (TB) is still threatening millions of people's lives, especially in developing countries. One of the major factors contributing to the ongoing epidemic of TB is the lack of a fast, efficient, and inexpensive diagnostic strategy. In this work, we developed a semiconducting single-walled carbon nanotube (SWCNT)-based field-effect transistor (FET) device functionalized with anti-Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigen 85B antibody (Ab85B) to detect the major M. tuberculosis-secreted antigen 85B (Ag85B). Through optimizing the device fabrication process by evaluating the mass of the antibody and the concentration of the gating electrolyte, our Ab85B-SWCNT FET devices achieved the detection of the Ag85B spiked in phosphate-buffered saline (calibration samples) with a limit of detection (LOD) of 0.05 fg/mL. This SWCNT FET biosensor also showed good sensing performance in biological matrices including artificial sputum and can identify Ag85B in serum after introducing bovine serum albumin (BSA) into the blocking layer. Furthermore, our BSA-blocked Ab85B-SWCNT FET devices can distinguish between TB-positive and -negative clinical samples, promising the application of SWCNT FET devices in point-of-care TB diagnostics. Moreover, the robustness of this SWCNT-based biosensor to the TB diagnosis in blood serum was enhanced by blocking SWCNT devices directly with a glutaraldehyde cross-linked BSA layer, enabling future applications of these SWCNT-based biosensors in clinical testing.

Model for Interpreting Discordant SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostic Test Results.

We devised a model to interpret discordant SARS-CoV-2 test results. We estimate that, during March 2020-May 2022, a patient in the United States who received a positive rapid antigen test result followed by a negative nucleic acid test result had only a 15.4% (95% CI 0.6%-56.7%) chance of being infected.

SARS-CoV-2 viral dynamics in a placebo-controlled phase 2 study of patients infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant and treated with pomotrelvir.

Current guidelines recommend that individuals with moderate COVID-19 disease isolate for 5 days after the first appearance of symptoms or a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. It would be useful to understand the time course of infectious virus production and its correlation with virus detection using a rapid antigen test (RAT) or quantitative reverse transcriptase (qRT)-PCR. In a phase 2 study, 242 vaccinated patients with COVID-19 and at low risk for progression to severe disease initiated 5 days of treatment with pomotrelvir (PBI-0451, a SARS-CoV-2 main protease inhibitor) or placebo within 5 days after symptom onset. The primary endpoint, the proportion of subjects with SARS-CoV-2 viral titers below the limit of detection on Day 3 of treatment in the pomotrelvir versus placebo groups, was not met. No between-group differences in SARS-CoV-2 clearance or symptom resolution or alleviation were observed. Additional analyses evaluated the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 replication in mid-turbinate nasal swabs and saliva samples using infectious virus assay (IVA), RAT, and qRT-PCR. SARS-CoV-2 cleared rapidly, with negative results first determined by IVA (TCID50 below the limit of detection), followed by the RAT (negative for SARS-CoV-2 N antigen), and qRT-PCR (RNA below the limit of detection), which suggests that delayed initiation of treatment (up to 5 days after symptom onset) may have contributed to the lack of treatment response. Symptom resolution lagged behind viral clearance assessed by IVA and RAT. These data support reliance on a negative RAT to determine when an individual is no longer producing infectious virus and may end isolation.IMPORTANCEA phase 2 double-blind, placebo-controlled study was performed evaluating pomotrelvir, a SARS-CoV-2 Mpro inhibitor, compared with placebo in 242 non-hospitalized, vaccinated, symptomatic adults with COVID-19 (Omicron). No improvement in the decrease of viral replication or relief of symptoms was observed between the two groups when treatment was initiated ≥3 days after symptom onset. These results suggest that future COVID-19 antiviral studies using a similar patient population may need to initiate treatment earlier, like influenza studies. This is the first study to prospectively evaluate SARS-CoV-2 viral dynamics and the time to viral clearance in a significant number of patients using concurrently obtained results from an infectious virus assay, a rapid antigen test (RAT), and a qRT-PCR assay over a 15-day time course. These results suggest that a negative RAT assay is a good indicator of loss of infectious virus and the ability to return to normal activities.

The sensitivity and specificity of Abbott Panbio™ COVID 19 Ag Rapid test in the context of four SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Rapid antigen tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 are commonly used for the diagnosis of Covid-19. Previously published data showed a wide range of sensitivity and specificity of RATs, but these studies were performed on relatively small numbers of samples and using only limited numbers of virus variants. The aim of the study was to evaluate the main parameters of a commonly used RAT for 4 different virus variants in comparison with PCR. Material and methods: A set of 2874 samples obtained from Covid-19 patients were examined both by PCR and RAT. Two commercial PCR kits (Generi Biotech, Diana Biotechnologies) and one RAT - Abbott Panbio™ COVID 19 Ag Rapid - were compared for their sensitivity and specificity in samples positive for one of the four different SARS-CoV-2 variants - B.1.258 (n = 496), Alpha (n = 645), Delta/Delta+ (n = 687), and Omicron (n = 1046). Results: The sensitivity of Panbio™ COVID19 Ag Rapid test varied from 80.0 % in Omicron to 88.92 % in Alpha variants. The specificities of the RAT for all variants reached above 93 %. Statistically significant differences were found between the results from RAT assay in select virus variants. In addition, significantly higher sensitivity (p < 0.05) was detected in samples with higher viral loads than in those with lower. Conclusion: Despite the different sensitivity and specificity of Panbio™ COVID19 Ag Rapid test (Abbott ®) for different SARS-CoV-2 variants, this test sensitivity was proven to be always above the 80 % suggested by WHO, which makes it suitable for common use, regardless of the virus variability.

Performance Evaluation of the STANDARD i-Q COVID-19 Ag Test with Nasal and Oral Swab Specimens from Symptomatic Patients.

We evaluated the diagnostic performance of the STANDARD i-Q COVID-19 Ag Test, which was developed to detect viral antigens, using nasal and oral swabs. Sixty positive and 100 negative samples were analyzed. We determined the distribution of the Ct values according to the day of sample collection after symptom onset, the diagnostic performance of the total samples and subgroups separated by Ct value or time of sample collection, and the Ct value at which maximal accuracy was expected. No differences were observed in Ct values, except for the samples obtained on the day of symptom onset. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the oral swabs were 75.0 and 100.0%, respectively, whereas those of the nasal swabs were 85.0 and 98.0%, respectively. The sensitivity was higher in samples with a high viral load collected earlier than those collected later, although the difference was not significant. False-negative results were confirmed in all samples with a Ct value ≥ 30.0. These results indicate that tests using oral and nasal swabs are helpful for diagnosing acute symptomatic cases with suspected high viral loads. Our tests exhibited relatively low sensitivity but high specificity rates, indicating the need to assess negative antigen test results.