Evaluation of the INDICAID COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test in Symptomatic Populations and Asymptomatic Community Testing.

As the COVID-19 pandemic progresses, there is an increasing need for rapid, accessible assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection. We present a clinical evaluation and real-world implementation of the INDICAID COVID-19 rapid antigen test (INDICAID rapid test). A multisite clinical evaluation of the INDICAID rapid test using prospectively collected nasal (bilateral anterior) swab samples from symptomatic subjects was performed. The INDICAID rapid test demonstrated a positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) of 85.3% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 75.6% to 91.6%) and 94.9% (95% CI, 91.6% to 96.9%), respectively, compared to laboratory-based reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) using nasal specimens. The INDICAID rapid test was then implemented at COVID-19 outbreak screening centers in Hong Kong as part of a testing algorithm (termed "dual-track") to screen asymptomatic individuals for prioritization for confirmatory RT-PCR testing. In one approach, preliminary positive INDICAID rapid test results triggered expedited processing for laboratory-based RT-PCR, reducing the average time to confirmatory result from 10.85 h to 7.0 h. In a second approach, preliminary positive results triggered subsequent testing with an onsite rapid RT-PCR, reducing the average time to confirmatory result to 0.84 h. In 22,994 asymptomatic patients, the INDICAID rapid test demonstrated a PPA of 84.2% (95% CI, 69.6% to 92.6%) and an NPA of 99.9% (95% CI, 99.9% to 100%) compared to laboratory-based RT-PCR using combined nasal/oropharyngeal specimens. The INDICAID rapid test has excellent performance compared to laboratory-based RT-PCR testing and, when used in tandem with RT-PCR, reduces the time to confirmatory positive result. IMPORTANCE Laboratory-based RT-PCR, the current gold standard for COVID-19 testing, can require a turnaround time of 24 to 48 h from sample collection to result. The delayed time to result limits the effectiveness of centralized RT-PCR testing to reduce transmission and stem potential outbreaks. To address this, we conducted a thorough evaluation of the INDICAID COVID-19 rapid antigen test, a 20-minute rapid antigen test, in both symptomatic and asymptomatic populations. The INDICAID rapid test demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity with RT-PCR as the comparator method. A dual-track testing algorithm was also evaluated utilizing the INDICAID rapid test to screen for preliminary positive patients, whose samples were then prioritized for RT-PCR testing. The dual-track method demonstrated significant improvements in expediting the reporting of positive RT-PCR test results compared to standard RT-PCR testing without prioritization, offering an improved strategy for community testing and controlling SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks.

Evaluation of an Automated High-Throughput Liquid-Based RNA Extraction Platform on Pooled Nasopharyngeal or Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR.

SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR with pooled specimens has been implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic as a cost- and manpower-saving strategy for large-scale testing. However, there is a paucity of data on the efficiency of different nucleic acid extraction platforms on pooled specimens. This study compared a novel automated high-throughput liquid-based RNA extraction (LRE) platform (PHASIFY™) with a widely used magnetic bead-based total nucleic acid extraction (MBTE) platform (NucliSENS® easyMAG®). A total of 60 pools of nasopharyngeal swab and 60 pools of posterior oropharyngeal saliva specimens, each consisting of 1 SARS-CoV-2 positive and 9 SARS-CoV-2 negative specimens, were included for the comparison. Real-time RT-PCR targeting the SARS-CoV-2 RdRp/Hel gene was performed, and GAPDH RT-PCR was used to detect RT-PCR inhibitors. No significant differences were observed in the Ct values and overall RT-PCR positive rates between LRE and MBTE platforms (92.5% (111/120] vs. 90% (108/120]), but there was a slightly higher positive rate for LRE (88.3% (53/60]) than MBTE (81.7% (49/60]) among pooled saliva. The automated LRE method is comparable to a standard MBTE method for the detection of SAR-CoV-2 in pooled specimens, providing a suitable alternative automated extraction platform. Furthermore, LRE may be better suited for pooled saliva specimens due to more efficient removal of RT-PCR inhibitors.