Screening for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Close Contacts of Individuals With Confirmed Infection: Performance and Operational Considerations.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care and decentralized testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is critical to inform public health responses. Performance evaluations in priority use cases such as contact tracing can highlight trade-offs in test selection and testing strategies. METHODS: A prospective diagnostic accuracy study was conducted among close contacts of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases in Brazil. Two anterior nares swabs (ANS), a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), and saliva were collected at all visits. Vaccination history and symptoms were assessed. Household contacts were followed longitudinally. Three rapid antigen tests and 1 molecular method were evaluated for usability and performance against reference reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on nasopharyngeal swab specimens. RESULTS: Fifty index cases and 214 contacts (64 household) were enrolled. Sixty-five contacts were RT-PCR positive during ≥1 visit. Vaccination did not influence viral load. Gamma variants were most prevalent; Delta variants emerged increasingly during implementation. The overall sensitivity of evaluated tests ranged from 33% to 76%. Performance was higher among symptomatic cases and those with cycle threshold (Ct) values <34 and lower among oligosymptomatic or asymptomatic cases. Assuming a 24-hour time to results for RT-PCR, the cumulative sensitivity of an anterior nares swab rapid antigen test was >70% and almost 90% after 4 days. CONCLUSIONS: The near-immediate time to results for antigen tests significantly offsets lower analytical sensitivity in settings where RT-PCR results are delayed or unavailable.

From biorepositories to data repositories: Open-access resources accelerate early R&D and validation of equitable diagnostic tools.

Diagnostics are critical tools that guide clinical decision-making for patient care and support disease surveillance. Despite its importance, developers and manufacturers often note that access to specimen panels and essential reagents is one of the key challenges in developing quality diagnostics, particularly in low-resource settings. A recent example, as the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded there was a need for clinical samples across the globe to support the rapid development of diagnostics. To address these challenges and gaps, PATH, a global nonprofit, along with its partners collaborated to create a COVID-19 biorepository to improve access to biological samples. Since then, the need for data resources to advance universal rapid diagnostic test (RDT) readers and noninvasive clinical measurement tools for screening children have also been identified and initiated. From biospecimens to data files, there are more similarities than differences in creating open-access repositories. And to ensure equitable technologies are developed, diverse sample panels and datasets are critical in the development process. Here we share one experience in creating open-access repositories as a case study to describe the steps taken, the key factors required to establish a biorepository, the ethical and legal frameworks that guided the initiative and the lessons learned. As diagnostic tools are evolving, more forms of data are critical to de-risk and accelerate early research and development (R&D) for products serving low resource settings. Creating physical and virtual repositories of freely available, well characterized, and high quality clinical and electronic data resources defray development costs to improve equitable access and test affordability.

Antigen concentration, viral load, and test performance for SARS-CoV-2 in multiple specimen types.

The relationship between N-antigen concentration and viral load within and across different specimens guides the clinical performance of rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) in different uses. A prospective study was conducted in Porto Velho, Brazil, to investigate RDT performance in different specimen types as a function of the correlation between antigen concentration and viral load. The study included 214 close contacts with recent exposures to confirmed cases, aged 12 years and older and with various levels of vaccination. Antigen concentration was measured in nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), anterior nares swab (ANS), and saliva specimens. Reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR was conducted on the NPS and saliva specimens, and two RDTs were conducted on ANS and one RDT on saliva. Antigen concentration correlated well with viral load when measured in the same specimen type but not across specimen types. Antigen levels were higher in symptomatic cases compared to asymptomatic/oligosymptomatic cases and lower in saliva compared to NPS and ANS samples. Discordant results between the RDTs conducted on ANS and the RT-PCR on NPS were resolved by antigen concentration values. The analytical limit-of-detection of RDTs can be used to predict the performance of the tests in populations for which the antigen concentration is known. The antigen dynamics across different sample types observed in SARS-CoV-2 disease progression support use of RDTs with nasal samples. Given lower antigen concentrations in saliva, rapid testing using saliva is expected to require improved RDT analytical sensitivity to achieve clinical sensitivity similar to rapid testing of nasal samples.