Limit of Detection for Rapid Antigen Testing of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant

There has been debate in the literature about the ability of antigen tests to detect the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant including indication on the US Food and Drug administration website that antigen tests may have lower sensitivity for the Omicron variant without provision of data or the potential scale of the issue (see https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-covid-19-and-medical-devices/sars-cov-2-viral-mutations-impact-covid-19-tests-omicronvariantimpact, accessed 1/27/2022). Here we determined the limit of detection (LoD) for the Omicron variant compared with the WA1 strain used for LoD studies described in the Instructions for Use for all Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)-approved antigen tests. Using live virus (to avoid artifactual findings potentially obtained with gamma-irradiated or heat-killed virus) quantified by plaque forming units (PFU), we examined the analytical sensitivity of three antigen tests widely used in the United States: the Abbott Binax Now, the AccessBio CareStart, and LumiraDx antigen tests. We found that the 95% detection threshold (LoD) for antigen tests was at least as good for Omicron as for the WA1 strain. Furthermore, the relationship of genome copies to plaque forming units for Omicron and WA1 overlap. Therefore, the LoD equivalency also applies if the quantitative comparator is genome copies determined from live virus preparations. Taken together, our data support the continued ability of the antigen tests examined to detect the Omicron variant.

SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Tests Predict Infectivity Based on Viral Culture: Comparison of Antigen, PCR Viral Load, and Viral Culture Testing on a Large Sample Cohort

The relationship of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing results, viral load, and viral culture detection remains to be fully defined. Presumptively, viral culture can provide a surrogate measure for infectivity of sampled individuals, and thereby inform how and where to most appropriately deploy available diagnostic testing modalities. We therefore determined the relationship of antigen testing results from three lateral flow and one microfluidics assay to viral culture performed in parallel in 181 nasopharyngeal swab samples positive for SARS-CoV-2. Sample viral loads, determined by RT-qPCR, were distributed across the range of viral load values observed in our testing population. We found that antigen tests were predictive of viral culture positivity, with the LumiraDx method showing enhanced sensitivity (90%; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 83-94%) compared with the BD Veritor (74%, 95% CI 65-81%), CareStart (74%, 95% CI 65-81%) and Oscar Corona (74%, 95% CI 65-82%) lateral flow antigen tests. Antigen and viral culture positivity were also highly correlated with sample viral load, with areas under the receiver-operator characteristic curves (ROCs) of 0.94-0.97 and 0.92, respectively. In particular, a viral load threshold of 100,000 copies/mL was 95% sensitive (95% CI, 90-98%) and 72% specific (95% CI, 60-81%) for predicting viral culture positivity. Taken together, the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen identified highly infectious individuals, some of whom may harbor 10,000-fold more virus in their samples than those with any detectable infectious virus. As such, our data support use of antigen testing in defining infectivity status at the time of sampling.

Saliva Is Comparable to Nasopharyngeal Swabs for Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2

BackgroundThe continued need for molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2 and potential for self-collected saliva as an alternative to nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs for sample acquisition led us to compare saliva to NP swabs in an outpatient setting, without restrictions to avoid food, drink, smoking, or tooth-brushing. MethodsA total of 385 pairs of NP and saliva specimens were obtained, the majority from individuals presenting for initial evaluation, and were tested on two high-sensitivity RT-PCR platforms: the Abbott m2000 and Abbott Alinity m (both with limits of detection [LoD] of 100 copies of viral RNA/mL). ResultsConcordance between saliva and NP was excellent overall (Cohens {kappa}=0.93), for both initial and followup testing, for both platforms, and for specimens treated with guanidinium transport medium as preservative as well as for untreated saliva ({kappa}=0.88-0.95). Viral loads were on average 16x higher in NP specimens than saliva specimens, suggesting that only the relatively small fraction of outpatients ([~]8% in this study) who present with very low viral loads (<1,600 copies/mL from NP swabs) would be missed by testing saliva instead of NP swabs, when using sensitive testing platforms. Special attention was necessary to ensure leak-resistant specimen collection and transport. ConclusionsThe advantages of self-collection of saliva, without behavioral restrictions, will likely outweigh a minor potential decrease in clinical sensitivity in individuals less likely to pose an infectious risk to others for many real-world scenarios, especially for initial testing. Key pointsSaliva has comparable sensitivity and specificity to nasopharyngeal swabs for RT-PCR-based COVID-19 testing (concordance, {kappa}=0.93; n=385 participants), albeit with slightly lower recovery of viral RNA. Treatment with a readily available guanidinium preservative within 24 hours of sample collection improves recovery.