Ten rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 widely differ in their ability to detect Omicron-BA.4 and -BA.5.

Since late 2021, the variant landscape of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been dominated by the variant of concern (VoC) Omicron and its sublineages. We and others have shown that the detection of Omicron-BA.1 and -BA.2-positive respiratory specimens by rapid antigen tests (RATs) is impaired compared to Delta VoC-containing samples. Here, in a single-center retrospective laboratory study, we evaluated the performance of ten most commonly used RATs for the detection of Omicron-BA.4 and -BA.5 infections. We used 171 respiratory swab specimens from SARS-CoV-2 RNA-positive patients, of which 71 were classified as BA.4 and 100 as BA.5. All swabs were collected between July and September 2022. 50 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative samples from healthy individuals, collected in October 2022, showed high specificity in 9 out of 10 RATs. When assessing analytical sensitivity using clinical specimens, the 50% limit of detection (LoD50) ranged from 7.6 × 104 to 3.3 × 106 RNA copies subjected to the RATs for BA.4 compared to 6.8 × 104 to 3.0 × 106 for BA.5. Overall, intra-assay differences for the detection of these two Omicron subvariants were not significant for both respiratory swabs and tissue culture-expanded virus isolates. In contrast, marked heterogeneity was observed among the ten RATs: to be positive in these point-of-care tests, up to 443-fold (BA.4) and up to 56-fold (BA.5) higher viral loads were required for the worst performing RAT compared to the best performing RAT. True-positive rates for Omicron-BA.4- or -BA.5-containing specimens in the highest viral load category (Ct values < 25) ranged from 94.3 to 34.3%, dropping to 25.6 to 0% for samples with intermediate Ct values (25-30). We conclude that the high heterogeneity in the performance of commonly used RATs remains a challenge for the general public to obtain reliable results in the evolving Omicron subvariant-driven pandemic.

Analysis of seven SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests in detecting omicron (B.1.1.529) versus delta (B.1.617.2) using cell culture supernatants and clinical specimens.

PURPOSE: Omicron is rapidly spreading as a new SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern (VOC). The question whether this new variant has an impact on SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test (RAT) performance is of utmost importance. To obtain an initial estimate regarding differences of RATs in detecting omicron and delta, seven commonly used SARS-CoV-2 RATs from different manufacturers were analysed using cell culture supernatants and clinical specimens. METHODS: For this purpose, cell culture-expanded omicron and delta preparations were serially diluted in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's Medium (DMEM) and the Limit of Detection (LoD) for both VOCs was determined. Additionally, clinical specimens stored in viral transport media or saline (n = 51) were investigated to complement in vitro results with cell culture supernatants. Ct values and RNA concentrations were determined via quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). RESULTS: The in vitro determination of the LoD showed no obvious differences in detection of omicron and delta for the RATs examined. The LoD in this study was at a dilution level of 1:1,000 (corresponding to 3.0-5.6 × 106 RNA copies/mL) for tests I-V and at a dilution level of 1:100 (corresponding to 3.7-4.9 × 107 RNA copies/mL) for tests VI and VII. Based on clinical specimens, no obvious differences were observed between RAT positivity rates when comparing omicron to delta in this study setting. Overall positivity rates varied between manufacturers with 30-81% for omicron and 42-71% for delta. Test VII was only conducted in vitro with cell culture supernatants for feasibility reasons. In the range of Ct < 23, positivity rates were 50-100% for omicron and 67-93% for delta. CONCLUSION: In this study, RATs from various manufacturers were investigated, which displayed no obvious differences in terms of analytical LoD in vitro and RAT positivity rates based on clinical samples comparing the VOCs omicron and delta. However, differences between tests produced by various manufacturers were detected. In terms of clinical samples, a focus of this study was on specimens with high virus concentrations. Further systematic, clinical and laboratory studies utilizing large datasets are urgently needed to confirm reliable performance in terms of sensitivity and specificity for all individual RATs and SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Impaired detection of omicron by SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests.

Since autumn 2020, rapid antigen tests (RATs) have been implemented in several countries as an important pillar of the national testing strategy to rapidly screen for infections on site during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The current surge in infection rates around the globe is driven by the variant of concern (VoC) omicron (B.1.1.529). Here, we evaluated the performance of nine SARS-CoV-2 RATs in a single-centre laboratory study. We examined a total of 115 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative and 166 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive respiratory swab samples (101 omicron, 65 delta (B.1.617.2)) collected from October 2021 until January 2022 as well as cell culture-expanded clinical isolates of both VoCs. In an assessment of the analytical sensitivity in clinical specimen, the 50% limit of detection (LoD50) ranged from 1.77 × 106 to 7.03 × 107 RNA copies subjected to the RAT for omicron compared to 1.32 × 105 to 2.05 × 106 for delta. To score positive in these point-of-care tests, up to 10-fold (LoD50) or 101-fold (LoD95) higher virus loads were required for omicron- compared to delta-containing samples. The rates of true positive test results for omicron samples in the highest virus load category (Ct values < 25) ranged between 31.4 and 77.8%, while they dropped to 0-8.3% for samples with intermediate Ct values (25-30). Of note, testing of expanded virus stocks suggested a comparable RAT sensitivity of both VoCs, questioning the predictive value of this type of in vitro-studies for clinical performance. Given their importance for national test strategies in the current omicron wave, awareness must be increased for the reduced detection rate of omicron infections by RATs and a short list of suitable RATs that fulfill the minimal requirements of performance should be rapidly disclosed.

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.

Virucidal activity of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen extraction buffers.

Since diagnostic sampling material must be considered as infectious, we evaluated whether extraction buffers of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test kits may inactivate SARS-CoV-2. Of concern, seven of nine tested buffers lacked potent virucidal activity. To reduce risk of infection during assay performance, virucidal antigen extraction buffers that efficiently inactivate virus should replace the extraction buffers in these commercially available point-of-care devices.

Antigen-Based Point of Care Testing (POCT) for Diagnosing SARS-CoV-2: Assessing Performance.

Currently, the most accurate way to diagnose an active SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection is through detection of viral RNA using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. While RT-PCR tests are the most sensitive for identifying infection, there are significant limitations, such as global access to sufficient test kits, turnaround times (TAT) from specimen collection to test result is often greater than 24 h and the need for skilled operators in accredited laboratories requiring specialized equipment. A rapid test performed at the point of care (POC) could provide a result within an approximate time of 30 min post specimen collection, be performed by a health care worker and comprise a simple workflow, improving both turnaround time and potentially decreasing costs (e.g., transport, cold-chain, skilled laboratory staff, complex equipment). Determining the performance of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests is, however, easier to assess than antigen-based POCT, as residual clinical specimens (swabs in universal transport media [UTM]) are readily available in laboratory environments, and do not require patient informed consent. Evaluating the performance of POCT requires informed-consent driven studies, with patients required to provide a standard of care specimen as well as study evaluation specimens, which is often not acceptable as nasopharyngeal swabbing can be invasive, clinical field trials are costly and time consuming. Many institutions and regulatory bodies also require preliminary data prior to use in field settings. Therefore, we have developed a method to determine the performance of antigen based POCT that can be used by implementers in national healthcare programs, regulators and rapid test developers. The method investigates both quantitative and qualitative parameters, with the latter providing insights into the capability for implementation and national program uptake.

Dental Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic in a German Dental Hospital.

Due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, dental treatment performed by undergraduate students at the University of Marburg/Germany was immediately stopped in spring 2020 and stepwise reinstalled under a new hygiene concept until full recovery in winter 2020/21. Patient treatment in the student courses was evaluated based on three aspects: (1) Testing of patients with a SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen (SCRA) Test applied by student assistants (SA); (2) Improved hygiene regimen, with separated treatment units, cross-ventilation, pre-operative mouth rinse and rubber dam application wherever possible; (3) Recruitment of patients: 735 patients were pre-registered for the two courses; 384 patients were treated and a total of 699 tests with the SCRA test were performed by SAs. While half of the patients treated in the course were healthy, over 40% of the patients that were pre-registered but not treated in the course revealed a disease being relevant to COVID (p < 0.001). 46 patients had concerns to visit the dental hospital due to the increase of COVID incidence levels, 14 persons refused to be tested. The presented concept was suitable to enable patient treatment in the student course during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.