Fast, cheap and sensitive: Homogenizer-based RNA extraction free method for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-qPCR.

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 gold standard detection method is an RT-qPCR with a previous step of viral RNA extraction from the patient sample either by using commercial automatized or manual extraction kits. This RNA extraction step is expensive and time demanding. Objective: The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a simple SARS-CoV-2 detection protocol based on a fast and intense sample homogenization followed by direct RT-qPCR. Results: 388 nasopharyngeal swabs were analyzed in this study. 222 of them tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by the gold standard RNA extraction and RT-qPCR method, while 166 tested negative. 197 of those 222 positive samples were also positive for the homogenization protocol, yielding a sensitivity of 88.74% (95% IC; 83.83 - 92.58). 166 of those negative samples were also negative for the homogenization protocol, so the specificity obtained was 97% (95% IC; 93.11 - 99.01). For Ct values below 30, meaning a viral load of 103 copies/uL, only 4 SARS-CoV-2 positive samples failed for the RNA extraction free method; for that limit of detection, the homogenizer-based method had a sensitivity of 97.92% (95% CI; 96.01 - 99.83). Conclusions: Our results show that this fast and cheap homogenization method for the SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-qPCR is a reliable alternative of high sensitivity for potentially infectious SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. This RNA extraction free protocol would help to reduce diagnosis time and cost, and to overcome the RNA extraction kits shortage experienced during COVID-19 pandemic.

Clinical Performance of Three Commercial SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Tests for Community-Dwelling Individuals in a Tropical Setting.

During the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of Rapid Diagnosis Antigen Tests (RDAgTs) for SARS-CoV-2 detection has substantially increased as some of the brands available in the market were certified for clinical use by international regulatory agencies. RDAgTs are a fast and cheap tool for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance with great potential to improve testing capacities in middle- and low-income countries compared to the gold standard RT-qPCR. However, as the clinical performance of RDAgTs has been shown to vary greatly between the commercial brands available, evaluation studies are necessary. Moreover, the available evaluation has been done in high-income countries while SARS-CoV-2 transmission is also actively happening in developing countries, many of which are located in tropical latitudes where cross-reactivity with other infectious agents is highly prevalent, which could compromise RDAgT specificity. Moreover, unreported mutations and/or new SARS-CoV-2 variants may compromise RDAgT sensitivity as genomic surveillance is limited in these settings. Here we describe a multicenter and manufacturer-independent evaluation of the clinical performance and analytical sensitivity of three different RDAgTs brands available in South America from three companies, Rapigen (South Korea), SD-Biosensor (South Korea), and Certest (Spain), compared to the gold standard RT-qPCR. A total number of 1,646 nasopharyngeal swabs from community-dwelling individuals were included in the study, and 379 of them were SARS-CoV-2 positive by RT-qPCR. The overall sensitivity for each RDAgT was 79% (IC95%: 72 - 86.2), 64.2% (IC95%: 56.7 - 71.6), and 45.8% (IC95%: 35.8 - 55.8) for SD-Biosensor, Certest, and Rapigen, respectively. The overall specificity for each RDAgT was 100%, 97.7% (IC95%: 96.8 - 98.6), and 100% for SD-Biosensor, Certest, and Rapigen, respectively. However, the limit of detection (LoD) to achieve a sensitivity over 90% was substantially lower for Certest RDAgT (102 copies/uL) compared to SD-Biosensor (103 copies/uL) or Rapigen (106 copies/uL) RDAgTs, considering that the gold standard RT-qPCR method used in this study has a high sensitivity of 97.7% and low LoD of 5 copies/uL. Additionally, the Certest RDAgT also showed an improved sensitivity up to 79.7% (IC95%: 70.2 - 89.2) for symptomatic individuals. Finally, the slight reduction in specificity for Certest RDAgTs was only associated with one of the laboratories performing this study, pointing out the need for locally assessed evaluation for RDAgTs like this one carried out in Ecuador. In conclusion, two of the three the RDAgTs tested in this study are a fast, cheap, and point of care tool for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance and reliable enough to detect SARS-CoV-2 infectious individuals.

Clinical Performance of Three Commercial SARS‐CoV‐2 Rapid Antigen Tests for Community-Dwelling Individuals in a Tropical Setting

During the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of Rapid Diagnosis Antigen Tests (RDAgTs) for SARS-CoV-2 detection has substantially increased as some of the brands available in the market were certified for clinical use by international regulatory agencies. RDAgTs are a fast and cheap tool for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance with great potential to improve testing capacities in middle- and low-income countries compared to the gold standard RT-qPCR. However, as the clinical performance of RDAgTs has been shown to vary greatly between the commercial brands available, evaluation studies are necessary. Moreover, the available evaluation has been done in high-income countries while SARS-CoV-2 transmission is also actively happening in developing countries, many of which are located in tropical latitudes where cross-reactivity with other infectious agents is highly prevalent, which could compromise RDAgT specificity. Moreover, unreported mutations and/or new SARS-CoV-2 variants may compromise RDAgT sensitivity as genomic surveillance is limited in these settings. Here we describe a multicenter and manufacturer‐independent evaluation of the clinical performance and analytical sensitivity of three different RDAgTs brands available in South America from three companies, Rapigen (South Korea), SD-Biosensor (South Korea), and Certest (Spain), compared to the gold standard RT-qPCR. A total number of 1,646 nasopharyngeal swabs from community-dwelling individuals were included in the study, and 379 of them were SARS-CoV-2 positive by RT-qPCR. The overall sensitivity for each RDAgT was 79% (IC95%: 72 - 86.2), 64.2% (IC95%: 56.7 - 71.6), and 45.8% (IC95%: 35.8 - 55.8) for SD-Biosensor, Certest, and Rapigen, respectively. The overall specificity for each RDAgT was 100%, 97.7% (IC95%: 96.8 - 98.6), and 100% for SD-Biosensor, Certest, and Rapigen, respectively. However, the limit of detection (LoD) to achieve a sensitivity over 90% was substantially lower for Certest RDAgT (102 copies/uL) compared to SD-Biosensor (103 copies/uL) or Rapigen (106 copies/uL) RDAgTs, considering that the gold standard RT-qPCR method used in this study has a high sensitivity of 97.7% and low LoD of 5 copies/uL. Additionally, the Certest RDAgT also showed an improved sensitivity up to 79.7% (IC95%: 70.2 – 89.2) for symptomatic individuals. Finally, the slight reduction in specificity for Certest RDAgTs was only associated with one of the laboratories performing this study, pointing out the need for locally assessed evaluation for RDAgTs like this one carried out in Ecuador. In conclusion, two of the three the RDAgTs tested in this study are a fast, cheap, and point of care tool for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance and reliable enough to detect SARS-CoV-2 infectious individuals.