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.

Wide Real-Life Data Support Reduced Sensitivity of Antigen Tests for Omicron SARS-CoV-2 Infections.

With the continuous spread of new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs), the monitoring of diagnostic test performances is mandatory. We evaluated the changes in antigen diagnostic tests' (ADTs) accuracy along the Delta to Omicron VOCs transition, exploring the N protein mutations possibly affecting ADT sensitivity and assessing the best sampling site for the diagnosis of Omicron infections. In total, 5175 subjects were enrolled from 1 October 2021 to 15 July 2022. The inclusion criteria were SARS-CoV-2 ADT combined with a same-day RT-PCR swab test. For the sampling site analysis, 61 patients were prospectively recruited during the Omicron period for nasal and oral swab analyses by RT-PCR. Next-Generation Sequencing data were obtained to evaluate the different sublineages. Using RT-PCR as a reference, 387 subjects resulted in becoming infected and the overall sensitivity of the ADT decreased from 63% in the Delta period to 33% in the Omicron period. This decrease was highly statistically significant (p < 0.001), and no decrease in viral load was detected at the RNA level. The nasal site presented a significantly higher viral load than the oral site during the Omicron wave. The reduced detection rate of Omicron infections by ADT should be considered in the global testing strategy to preserve accurate diagnoses across the changing SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Design and Development of an Antigen Test for SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Protein to Validate the Viral Quality Assurance Panels.

The continuing mutability of the SARS-CoV-2 virus can result in failures of diagnostic assays. To address this, we describe a generalizable bioinformatics-to-biology pipeline developed for the calibration and quality assurance of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 variant panels provided to Radical Acceleration of Diagnostics programs (RADx)-radical program awardees. A heuristic genetic analysis based on variant-defining mutations demonstrated the lowest genetic variance in the Nucleocapsid protein (Np)-C-terminal domain (CTD) across all SARS-CoV-2 variants. We then employed the Shannon entropy method on (Np) sequences collected from the major variants, verifying the CTD with lower entropy (less prone to mutations) than other Np regions. Polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies were raised against this target CTD antigen and used to develop an Enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) test for SARS-CoV-2. Blinded Viral Quality Assurance (VQA) panels comprised of UV-inactivated SARS-CoV-2 variants (XBB.1.5, BF.7, BA.1, B.1.617.2, and WA1) and distractor respiratory viruses (CoV 229E, CoV OC43, RSV A2, RSV B, IAV H1N1, and IBV) were assembled by the RADx-rad Diagnostics core and tested using the ELISA described here. The assay tested positive for all variants with high sensitivity (limit of detection: 1.72-8.78 ng/mL) and negative for the distractor virus panel. Epitope mapping for the monoclonal antibodies identified a 20 amino acid antigenic peptide on the Np-CTD that an in-silico program also predicted for the highest antigenicity. This work provides a template for a bioinformatics pipeline to select genetic regions with a low propensity for mutation (low Shannon entropy) to develop robust 'pan-variant' antigen-based assays for viruses prone to high mutational rates.

Characterization of antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 Orf8 from three waves of COVID-19 outbreak in Thailand.

A dynamic of virus adaptation and a mass vaccination campaign could significantly reduce the severity of clinical manifestations of COVID-19 and transmission. Hence, COVID-19 may become an endemic disease globally. Moreover, mass infection as the COVID-19 pandemic progressed affected the serology of the patients as a result of virus mutation and vaccination. Therefore, a need exists to acquire accurate serological testing to monitor the emergence of new outbreaks of COVID-19 to promptly prevent and control the disease spreading. In this study, the anti-Orf8 antibodies among samples collected in Thailand's first, fourth, and fifth waves of COVID-19 outbreaks compared with pre-epidemic sera were determined by indirect ELISA. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the anti-Orf8 IgG ELISA for COVID-19 samples from the first, fourth, and fifth waves of outbreaks was found to be 100% compared with pre-epidemic sera. However, the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the anti-Orf8 IgG ELISA for a larger number of patient samples and controls from the fifth wave of outbreaks which were collected on day 7 and 14 after an RT-PCR positive result were 58.79 and 58.44% and 89.19 and 58.44%, respectively. Our data indicated that some of the controls might have antibodies from natural past infections. Our study highlighted the potential utility of anti-Orf8 IgG antibody testing for seroprevalence surveys but still warrants further investigations.

Taqman PACMAN: a simple molecular approach for positive rapid antigen test confirmation during periods of low prevalence.

Antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) were widely deployed to enhance SARS-CoV-2 testing capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Consistent with national guidance for low prevalence settings, positive Ag-RDTs were confirmed using nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) to avoid false positive results. However, increasing demands for positive Ag-RDT confirmation competed with other testing priorities in clinical laboratories. This work hypothesized that real-time RT-PCR without nucleic acid extraction (NAE) would be sufficiently sensitive to support positive Ag-RDT confirmation. Ag-RDT and NAAT results from community-based asymptomatic testing sites prior to the omicron variant wave were compared to calculate the weekly false positive rate (FPR) and false detection rate (FDR). Real-time RT-PCR was compared with and without NAE using 752 specimens previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 using commercial NAATs and 344 specimens from Ag-RDT-positive individuals. The impact of SARS-CoV-2 prevalence on laboratory resources required to sustain Ag-RDT confirmation was modeled for the RT-PCR with and without NAE. Overall, FPR was low [0.07% (222/330,763)] in asymptomatic testing sites, but FDR was high [30.7% (222/724)]. When RT-PCR was compared with and without NAE, 100% concordance was obtained with NAAT-positive specimens, including those from Ag-RDT-positive individuals. NAE-free RT-PCR significantly reduced time to results, human resources, and overall costs. A 30.7% FDR reaffirms the need for NAAT-based confirmation of positive Ag-RDT results during low SARS-CoV-2 prevalence. NAE-free RT-PCR was shown to be a simple and cost-sparing NAAT-based solution for positive Ag-RDT confirmation, and its implementation supported data-driven broader Ag-RDT deployment into communities, workplaces, and households. IMPORTANCE: Rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 was widely deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic. In settings of low prevalence, national guidance recommends that positive antigen test results be confirmed with molecular testing. Given the high testing burden on clinical laboratories during the COVID-19 pandemic, the high volume of positive antigen tests submitted for confirmatory testing posed challenges for laboratory workflow. This study demonstrated that a simple PCR method without prior nucleic acid purification is an accurate and cost-effective solution for positive rapid antigen test confirmation. Implementing this method allowed molecular confirmatory testing for positive antigen tests to be sustained as antigen testing was expanded into large populations such as workplaces, schools, and households.

Accelerated Development of a COVID-19 Lateral Flow Test in an Academic Setting: Lessons Learned.

ConspectusThe COVID-19 pandemic further demonstrated the need for usable, reliable, and cost-effective point-of-care diagnostics that can be broadly deployed, ideally for self-testing at home. Antigen tests using more-detectable reporter labels (usually at the cost of reader complexity) achieve better diagnostic sensitivity, supporting the value of higher-analytical-sensitivity reporter technologies in lateral flow.We developed a new approach to simple, inexpensive lateral flow assays (LFAs) of great sensitivity, based on the glow stick peroxyoxalate chemistry widely used in emergency settings and in children's toys. At the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, we had the opportunity to participate in the pandemic-driven NIH Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx) initiative aiming to develop a deployable lateral flow diagnostic for SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein based on our novel glow stick-inspired light-emitting reporter technology. During this project, we screened more than 250 antibody pairs for analytical sensitivity and specificity directly in LFA format, using recombinant nucleoprotein and then gamma-irradiated virions spiked into negative nasal swab extracts. Membranes and other LFA materials and swabs and extraction reagent components also were screened and selected. Optimization of conjugate preparation and spraying as well as pretreatment/conditioning of the sample pad led to the final optimized LFA strip. Technology development also included optimization of excitation liquid enclosed in disposable droppers, design of a custom cartridge and smartphone-based reader, and app development, even a prototype reader usable with any mobile phone. Excellent preclinical performance was first demonstrated with contrived samples and then with leftover clinical samples. Moving beyond traditional academic focus areas, we were able to establish a quality management system (QMS), produce large numbers of customized LFA cassettes by contract injection molding, build in-house facilities to assemble and store thousands of complete tests for verification and validation and usability studies, and source kitting/packaging services and quality standard reagents and build partnerships for clinical translation, regulatory guidance, scale up, and market deployment. We were not able to bring this early stage technology to the point of commercialization within the limited time and resources available, but we did achieve strong proof-of-concept and advance translational aspects of the platform including initial high-performance LFAs, reading by the iPhone app using only a $2 plastic dark box with no lens, and convenient, usable excitation liquid packaging in droppers manufacturable in very large numbers.In this Account, we aim to provide a concise overview of our 18-month sprint toward the practical development of a deployable antigen lateral flow assay under pandemic conditions and the challenges and successes experienced by our team. We highlight what it takes to coach a technically savvy but commercially inexperienced academic team through the accelerated translation of an early stage technology into a useful product. Finally, we provide a guided tutorial and workflow to empower others interested in the rapid development of translatable LFAs.

Clinical accuracy of instrument-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen diagnostic tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, antigen diagnostic tests were frequently used for screening, triage, and diagnosis. Novel instrument-based antigen tests (iAg tests) hold the promise of outperforming their instrument-free, visually-read counterparts. Here, we provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 iAg tests' clinical accuracy. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, medRxiv, and bioRxiv for articles published before November 7th, 2022, evaluating the accuracy of iAg tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection. We performed a random effects meta-analysis to estimate sensitivity and specificity and used the QUADAS-2 tool to assess study quality and risk of bias. Sub-group analysis was conducted based on Ct value range, IFU-conformity, age, symptom presence and duration, and the variant of concern. RESULTS: We screened the titles and abstracts of 20,431 articles and included 114 publications that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Additionally, we incorporated three articles sourced from the FIND website, totaling 117 studies encompassing 95,181 individuals, which evaluated the clinical accuracy of 24 commercial COVID-19 iAg tests. The studies varied in risk of bias but showed high applicability. Of 24 iAg tests from 99 studies assessed in the meta-analysis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity compared to molecular testing of a paired NP swab sample were 76.7% (95% CI 73.5 to 79.7) and 98.4% (95% CI 98.0 to 98.7), respectively. Higher sensitivity was noted in individuals with high viral load (99.6% [95% CI 96.8 to 100] at Ct-level ≤ 20) and within the first week of symptom onset (84.6% [95% CI 78.2 to 89.3]), but did not differ between tests conducted as per manufacturer's instructions and those conducted differently, or between point-of-care and lab-based testing. CONCLUSION: Overall, iAg tests have a high pooled specificity but a moderate pooled sensitivity, according to our analysis. The pooled sensitivity increases with lower Ct-values (a proxy for viral load), or within the first week of symptom onset, enabling reliable identification of most COVID-19 cases and highlighting the importance of context in test selection. The study underscores the need for careful evaluation considering performance variations and operational features of iAg tests.

Communicating the Imperfect Diagnostic Accuracy of COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Self-Tests: An Online Randomized Experiment.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the potential impacts of optimizing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) rapid antigen test (RAT) self-testing diagnostic accuracy information. DESIGN: Online randomized experiment using hypothetical scenarios: in scenarios 1 to 3 (RAT result positive), the posttest probability was considered to be very high (likely true positives), and in scenarios 4 and 5 (RAT result negative), the posttest probability was considered to be moderately high (likely false negatives). SETTING: December 12 to 22, 2022, during the mixed-variant Omicron wave in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Australian adults. Intervention: diagnostic accuracy of a COVID-19 self-RAT presented in a health literacy-sensitive way; usual care: diagnostic accuracy information provided by the manufacturer; control: no diagnostic accuracy information. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Intention to self-isolate. RESULTS: A total of 226 participants were randomized (control n = 75, usual care n = 76, intervention n = 75). More participants in the intervention group correctly interpreted the meaning of the diagnostic accuracy information (P = 0.08 for understanding sensitivity, P < 0.001 for understanding specificity). The proportion who would self-isolate was similar across scenarios 1 to 3 (likely true positives). The proportion was higher in the intervention group than in the control for scenarios 4 and 5 (likely false negatives). These differences were not statistically significant. The largest potential effect was seen in scenario 5 (dinner party with confirmed cases, the person has symptoms, negative self-RAT result), with 63% of the intervention group and 49% of the control group indicating they would self-isolate (absolute difference 13.3%, 95% confidence interval: -2% to 30%, P = 0.10). CONCLUSION: Health literacy sensitive formatting supported participant understanding and recall of diagnostic accuracy information. This may increase community intentions to self-isolate when there is a likely false-negative self-RAT result. Trial registration: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12622001517763). HIGHLIGHTS: Community-based diagnostic accuracy studies of COVID-19 self-RATs indicate substantially lower sensitivity (and higher risk of false-negative results) than the manufacturer-supplied information on most government public Web sites.This online randomized study found that a health literacy-sensitive presentation of the imperfect diagnostic accuracy COVID-19 self-RATs supported participant understanding and recall of diagnostic accuracy information.Health literacy-sensitive presentation may increase community intentions to self-isolate after a negative test result where the posttest probability is still moderately high (i.e., likely false-negative result).To prevent the onward spread of infection, efforts to improve communication about the high risk of false-negative results from COVID-19 self-RATs are urgently needed.

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.

Estimating SARS-CoV-2 infection probabilities with serological data and a Bayesian mixture model.

The individual results of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests measured after the first pandemic wave of 2020 cannot be directly interpreted as a probability of having been infected. Plus, these results are usually returned as a binary or ternary variable, relying on predefined cut-offs. We propose a Bayesian mixture model to estimate individual infection probabilities, based on 81,797 continuous anti-spike IgG tests from Euroimmun collected in France after the first wave. This approach used serological results as a continuous variable, and was therefore not based on diagnostic cut-offs. Cumulative incidence, which is necessary to compute infection probabilities, was estimated according to age and administrative region. In France, we found that a "negative" or a "positive" test, as classified by the manufacturer, could correspond to a probability of infection as high as 61.8% or as low as 67.7%, respectively. "Indeterminate" tests encompassed probabilities of infection ranging from 10.8 to 96.6%. Our model estimated tailored individual probabilities of SARS-CoV-2 infection based on age, region, and serological result. It can be applied in other contexts, if estimates of cumulative incidence are available.

Development of Detection Antibody Targeting the Linear Epitope in SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Protein with Ultra-High Sensitivity.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 highlighted the importance of reliable detection methods for disease control and surveillance. Optimizing detection antibodies by rational screening antigens would improve the sensitivity and specificity of antibody-based detection methods such as colloidal gold immunochromatography. In this study, we screened three peptide antigens with conserved sequences in the N protein of SARS-CoV-2 using bioinformatical and structural biological analyses. Antibodies that specifically recognize these peptides were prepared. The epitope of the peptide that had the highest binding affinity with its antibody was located on the surface of the N protein, which was favorable for antibody binding. Using the optimal antibody that can recognize this epitope, we developed colloidal gold immunochromatography, which can detect the N protein at 10 pg/mL. Importantly, this antibody could effectively recognize both the natural peptide antigen and mutated peptide antigen in the N protein, showing the feasibility of being applied in the large-scale population testing of SARS-CoV-2. Our study provides a platform with reference significance for the rational screening of detection antibodies with high sensitivity, specificity, and reliability for SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens.

Evaluation of CLINITEST® Rapid Covid-19 + Influenza antigen test in a cohort of symptomatic patients in an emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: Rapid management of patients with respiratory tract infections in hospital emergency departments is one of the main objectives since the concurrent circulation of respiratory viruses following the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The use of new combined point-of-care antigen tests for detecting influenza A/B and SARS-CoV-2 represents an advantage in response time over the molecular tests. The objective was to evaluate the suitability of the CLINITEST® Rapid Covid-19 + Influenza Antigen test (Siemens Healthineers, Germany) (RCIA test) by measuring the sensitivity, specificity, Cohen's kappa, and cut-off values. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal samples were collected from a randomised group of symptomatic patients of all ages at emergency department during January-February 2023. In parallel, these patients were screened for influenza A/B, and SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR. The Ct (cycle threshold) values were collected for positive [RT-PCR (+) /RCIA test (+)] and false negative [(RT-PCR (+) /RCIA test (-)] samples. A subanalysis was performed in the paediatric population (< 16 years-old). RESULTS: We included 545 patients (55.8% females) with a median age of 7 years-old (IQR: 1-66.5). The RCIA test showed a sensitivity of 59.7% [95%CI: 46.9-67.33] for influenza A, 65.6% [95%CI: 49.5-80.3] for influenza B, and 76.9% [95%CI: 45.8-84.8] for SARS-CoV-2. The specificity was between 90.7%-99.7% with a moderate/high level of agreement with RT-PCR (kappa score: 0.6-0.8) for the three respiratory viruses included in the RCIA test. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of the RCIA test is insufficient for screening of patients, including patients with low Ct values (Ct > 20). Despite its good specificity and Cohen's kappa value, its use as a screening test is not comparable to RT-PCR systems in the ED environment with a high number of false negative results.

Nucleocapsid and Spike Protein-Based Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Assay Performance in the Minority and Rural Coronavirus Insights Study: Characteristics of Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Populations with Health Disparities.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has had a devastating impact on Black, Hispanic, and other underserved, disadvantaged populations. Here anti-SARS-CoV-2 tests are characterized in disadvantaged patients to examine equivalence in US populations. METHODS: Underserved participant adults (age > 18 years) were enrolled before the availability of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in Federal Qualified Health Centers in California, Florida, Louisiana, Illinois, and Ohio and contributed samples to the Minority and Rural Coronavirus Insights Study (MRCIS). A subset coined the MRCIS SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Cohort of 2365 participants was tested with the Roche Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay (Cobas e601). Five hundred ninety-five of these were also tested with the Ortho Clinical Diagnostics VITROS Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay (VITROS-5600); 1770 were also tested with the Abbott ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay (ARCHITECT-2000). Assay-specific cutoffs classified negative/positive results. RESULTS: Eight point four percent (199/2365) of the MRCIS SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Cohort was SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive at enrollment. Agreement between the Ortho/Roche and the Abbott/Roche antibody testing did not vary by enrollment RNA status. The Ortho (anti-spike protein) vs Roche (anti-nucleocapsid protein) comparison agreed substantially: kappa = 0.63 (95% CI: 0.57-0.69); overall agreement, 83%. However, agreement was even better for the Abbott vs Roche assays (both anti-nucleocapsid protein tests): kappa = 0.85 (95% CI: 0.81-0.87); overall agreement, 95%. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 comparisons stratified by demographic criteria demonstrated no significant variability in agreement by sex, race/ethnicity, or age. CONCLUSIONS: Analytical agreement is 96.4% for anti-spike-protein vs anti-nucleocapsid-protein comparisons. Physiologically, seroreversion of anti-nucleocapsid reactivity after infection occurred in the disadvantaged population similarly to general populations. No anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays included demonstrated a clinically significant difference due to the demographics of the disadvantaged MRCIS SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Cohort.

Performance of 20 rapid antigen detection tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) and B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variants using a clinical specimen panel from January 2022, Berlin, Germany.

BackgroundThere are conflicting reports on the performance of rapid antigen detection tests (RDT) in the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant; however, these tests continue to be used frequently to detect potentially contagious individuals with high viral loads.AimThe aim of this study was to investigate comparative detection of the Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron variants by using a selection of 20 RDT and a limited panel of pooled combined oro- and nasopharyngeal clinical Delta and Omicron specimens.MethodsWe tested 20 CE-marked RDT for their performance to detect SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron by using a panel of pooled clinical specimens collected in January 2022 in Berlin, Germany.ResultsWe observed equivalent detection performance for Delta and Omicron for most RDT, and sensitivity was widely in line with our previous pre-Delta/Omicron evaluation. Some variation for individual RDT was observed either for Delta vs Omicron detection, or when compared with the previous evaluation, which may be explained both by different panel sizes resulting in different data robustness and potential limitation of batch-to-batch consistency. Additional experiments with three RDT using non-pooled routine clinical samples confirmed comparable performance to detect Delta vs Omicron. Overall, RDT that were previously positively evaluated retained good performance also for Delta and Omicron variants.ConclusionOur findings suggest that currently available RDT are sufficient for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron variants.