Analytical and clinical evaluations of SNIBE Maglumi chemiluminescent immunoassay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen in salivary samples.

OBJECTIVES: In this study, we describe the analytical and clinical performances of the SNIBE Maglumi SARS-CoV-2 antigen fully-automated chemiluminescent immunoassay (MAG-CLIA) on salivary samples. METHODS: Limit of detection (LOD), linearity and precision were tested for values close to or below the declared LOD. Clinical performance of MAG-CLIA was evaluated on leftover salivary samples from the healthcare workers (HCW) surveillance program, at the University-Hospital of Padova. Salivary samples were analyzed by Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag, and in case where the values exceeded 0.41 ng/L, further testing was conducted using TaqPathTM COVID-19 RT-PCR (Applied Biosystems, Thermo Fisher Scientific). RESULTS: The estimated MAG-CLIA LOD was 3 ng/L, with repeatability of 7.5 %. Good linearity was demonstrated by diluting two samples at 52.7 ng/L and 211.4 ng/L. Of the 228 HCW samples, 59/228 (25.9 %) were positive, 169/228 (74.1 %) were negative. MAG-CLIA SARS-CoV-2 sAg median level (and interquartile range [IQR]) was 5.03 ng/L (<0.001-35.8 ng/L) for positive and <0.001 ng/L (<0.001 ng/L) for negative samples. MAG-CLIA AUC was 0.795 (95 % CI: 0.720-0.871). Using the best cut-off, 3.5 ng/L, sensitivity and specificity were 57.1 % (95 % CI: 42.2-71.2 %) and 97.0 % (95 % CI: 93.2-99.0 %), respectively. The agreement with the molecular assay was 88.1 % (Cohen's kappa 0.606 [SE=0.066, p<0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: The analytical performances of MAG-CLIA are satisfactory, also when values below LOD were tested. In saliva samples, although specificity was elevated, clinical performance was not comparable with that on nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS).

Detailed tracking of antigen and antibody levels during coronavirus disease 2019 treatment in an immunosuppressed patient with anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody-associated vasculitis.

A 67-year-old woman with anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis was not vaccinated against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and was on multiple immunosuppressive drugs. She was hospitalized because of interstitial shadowing in the lungs and diagnosed with persistent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Despite treatment with a recombinant monoclonal antibody and antivirals, her symptoms persisted and she lacked a specific antibody response. She tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 antigen after the second antiviral treatment, and a subsequent chest radiograph showed improvement. However, the antibody levels did not change. This case highlights the importance of careful monitoring of the SARS-CoV-2 antigen and antibody levels during COVID-19 treatment in patients with immunosuppression.

Performance evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection in the post-pandemic era: multi-laboratory assessment.

OBJECTIVES: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen detection is an indispensable tool for epidemic surveillance in the post-pandemic era. Faced with irregular performance, a comprehensive external quality assessment (EQA) scheme was conducted by the National Center for Clinical Laboratories (NCCL) to evaluate the analytical performance and status of SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests. METHODS: The EQA panel included ten lyophilized samples containing serial 5-fold dilutions of inactivated SARS-CoV-2-positive supernatants of the Omicron BA.1 and BA.5 strains and negative samples, which were classified into "validating" samples and "educational" samples. Data were analyzed according to qualitative results for each sample. RESULTS: A total of 339 laboratories in China participated in this EQA scheme, and 378 effective results were collected. All validating samples were correctly reported by 90.56 % (307/339) of the participants and 90.21 % (341/378) of the datasets. The positive percent agreement (PPA) was >99 % for samples with concentrations of 2 × 107 copies/mL but was 92.20 % (697/756) for 4 × 106 copies/mL and 25.26 % (382/1,512) for 8 × 105 copies/mL samples. Colloidal gold was the most frequently used (84.66 %, 320/378) but showed the lowest PPAs (57.11 %, 1,462/2,560) for positive samples compared with fluorescence immunochromatography (90 %, 36/40) and latex chromatography (79.01 %, 335/424). Among 11 assays used in more than 10 clinical laboratories, ACON showed a higher sensitivity than other assays. CONCLUSIONS: The EQA study can help to validate whether it's necessary to update antigen detection assays for manufacturers and provide participants with information about the performance of assays to take the first step toward routine post-market surveillance.

Factors affecting the sensitivity of quantitative severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antigen test.

INTRODUCTION: The accuracy of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) is affected by various factors; however, studies examining the factors affecting the accuracy of quantitative severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen test (QAT) are limited. METHODS: A total of 347 nasopharyngeal samples were collected from patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and the date of onset was obtained from the electronic medical records. The SARS-CoV-2 antigen level was measured using Lumipulse Presto SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Presto), while NAAT was performed using the Ampdirect 2019-nCoV Detection Kit. RESULTS: Presto had a sensitivity rate of 95.1% (95% confidence interval: 92.8-97.4) in detecting the SARS-CoV-2 antigen in 347 samples. The number of days from symptom onset to sample collection was negatively correlated with the amount of antigen (r = -0.515) and sensitivity of Presto (r = -0.711). The patients' age was lower in the Presto-negative samples (median age, 39 years) compared with that in the Presto-positive samples (median age, 53 years; p < 0.01). A significant positive correlation was observed between age (excluding teenagers) and Presto sensitivity (r = 0.764). Meanwhile, no association was found between the mutant strain, sex, and Presto results. CONCLUSION: Presto is useful for the accurate diagnosis of COVID-19 owing to its high sensitivity when the number of days from symptom onset to sample collection is within 12 days. Furthermore, age may affect the results of Presto, and this tool has a relatively low sensitivity in younger patients.

Analytical performance evaluation of Lumipulse® SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay in 392 asymptomatic patients.

INTRODUCTION: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is one of the current public health care challenges. The main strategy adopted to prevent the spread of infection is the rapid identification of COVID-19-positive subjects. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of Lumipulse® antigen immunoassay with the real-time RT-PCR, the gold standard for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, in a strictly selected asymptomatic population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 392 consecutive oro-nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from patients with no symptoms related to COVID-19 at the Emergency Department of AORN Sant'Anna e San Sebastiano, Caserta, Italy to evaluate the analytical performance of Lumipulse® SARS-CoV-2 antigen compared to qualitative real-time RT-PCR in asymptomatic patients. RESULTS: Lumipulse® SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay shows an overall agreement rate of 97% with a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 98%, with a PPV and NPV of 97%. The sensitivity varies according to the cycle threshold (Ct )-value reaching 100% and 86% with 15 < Ct < 25 and Ct ≥ 25, respectively. The ROC analysis yielded an AUC value of 0.98, suggesting that the antigen test may accurately detect SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSION: Our data showed that Lumipulse® SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay might be an efficient tool in the identification and limitation of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in large asymptomatic populations.

Performance and application evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid detection is the gold standard for the laboratory diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, this method has high requirements for practitioners' skills and testing sites, so it is not easy to popularize and promote the application in places other than large hospitals. In addition, the detection flux of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid is small, and the whole detection process takes much time, which cannot meet the actual needs of rapid screening in large quantities. The WHO conditionally approved a batch of SARS-CoV-2 antigen reagents for clinical application to alleviate this contradiction. SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection offers a trade-off among clinical performance, speed and accessibility. With the gradual increase in clinical application, the accumulated clinical data show that the sensitivity and specificity of the SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay are over 80% and 97%, respectively, which can basically meet the requirements of the WHO. However, the sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay among asymptomatic people in low prevalence areas of COVID-19 cannot meet the standard, leading to a large number of missed diagnoses. In addition, the detection ability of SARS-CoV-2 antigen reagent for different SARS-CoV-2 mutant strains differs greatly, especially for those escaping the COVID-19 vaccines. In terms of results interpretation, it is highly reliable to exclude SARS-CoV-2 infection based on the high negative predictive value of the SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay. However, in the low prevalence environment, the probability of false positives of the SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay is high, so the positive results need to be confirmed by the SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid reagent. The SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay is only a supplement to SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection and can never completely replace it. To date, SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection continues to be the standard laboratory method for COVID-19 diagnosis.

Performance evaluation of Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen immunoassay for diagnostic of COVID-19.

One of the challenges for control and prevention of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is the early diagnostic at the point of care. Several tests based on qualitative antigen detection have been developed; one of these is Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics). In total, 523 nasopharyngeal swabs were randomly selected with the aims to evaluate sensitivity, specificity, cross-reactivity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV, NPV), and agreement of Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen immunoassay using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) STAT-NAT® coronavirus disease-2019 as reference test. Cross-reactivity was estimated using samples positive by RT-PCR to other respiratory viruses (influenza virus, parainfluenza virus, rhinovirus, coronavirus OC43, and HKU1). The overall sensitivity of Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen was 89.72% (288/321); specificity was 90.59% (183/202); and cross-reactivity to other respiratory viruses were not detected. Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen immunoassay showed a high sensitivity in samples with cycle threshold value <30, which ranged from 92.81% to 95.40%, independently of symptoms. PPV and NPV were 93.81% and 84.72%, respectively. The κ coefficient was 0.79 (95% confidence interval: 0.73-0.84), showing substantial agreement between both tests. The results suggest Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen immunoassay could be used as an alternative to RT-PCR testing, or in complement with it, to identify infectious individuals and reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

What is the true place of the SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care antigen test in the hospital setting? Lessons learned from real life.

To assist in the clinical management of patients and to support infection control, we tested the use of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) point-of-care antigen test (AgPOC) for unplanned hospitalization, coupled with a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) using specimens collected at the same time upon arrival. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of the AgPOC in this specific use compared to NAAT for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, in the context of the low prevalence of infection. For 5 months (between two peaks in France of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic), all patients admitted who undertook the AgPOC/NAAT paired tests were included in the study. AgPOC performances were determined considering the clinical status and the delay of symptoms onset. NAAT and AgPOC results were available for 4425 subjects. AgPOC results showed a homogeneous specificity (>97%) but a low sensitivity at 45.8%. Considering the national guidelines, sensitivity dropped to 32.5% in cases of symptomatic patients with symptoms older than 5 days or more. This study shows the poor performance of AgPOC for entry screening of patients in hospitals. AgPOC may represent a useful tool in the hospital setting only if the use is restricted to patients with consistent symptoms less than 4 days old.

Evaluation of a laboratory-based high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay.

OBJECTIVES: Antigen tests are an essential part of SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies. Rapid antigen tests are easy to use but less sensitive compared to nucleic acid amplification tests (NAT) and less suitable for large-scale testing. In contrast, laboratory-based antigen tests are suitable for high-throughput immunoanalyzers. Here we evaluated the diagnostic performance of the laboratory-based Siemens Healthineers SARS-CoV-2 Antigen (CoV2Ag) assay. METHODS: In a public test center, from 447 individuals anterior nasal swab specimens as well as nasopharyngeal swab specimens were collected. The nasal swab specimens were collected in sample inactivation medium and measured using the CoV2Ag assay. The nasopharyngeal swab specimens were measured by RT-PCR. Additionally, 9,046 swab specimens obtained for screening purposes in a tertiary care hospital were analyzed and positive CoV2Ag results confirmed by NAT. RESULTS: In total, 234/447 (52.3%) participants of the public test center were positive for SARS-CoV-2-RNA. Viral lineage B1.1.529 was dominant during the study. Sensitivity and specificity of the CoV2Ag assay were 88.5% (95%CI: 83.7-91.9%) and 99.5% (97.4-99.9%), respectively. Sensitivity increased to 93.7% (97.4-99.9%) and 98.7% (97.4-99.9%) for swab specimens with cycle threshold values <30 and <25, respectively. Out of 9,046 CoV2Ag screening tests from hospitalized patients, 21 (0.2%) swab specimens were determined as false-positive by confirmatory NAT. CONCLUSIONS: Using sample tubes containing inactivation medium the laboratory-based high-throughput CoV2Ag assay is a very specific and highly sensitive assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen in nasal swab specimens including the B1.1.529 variant. In low prevalence settings confirmation of positive CoV2Ag results by SARS-CoV-2-RNA testing is recommended.

Viral load may impact the diagnostic performance of nasal swabs in nucleic acid amplification test and quantitative antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 detection.

INTRODUCTION: Compared to nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), there has been insufficient evaluation of the diagnostic performance of nasal swabs (NS) for the detection of severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) and quantitative SARS-CoV-2 antigen test (QAT). METHODS: We prospectively compared healthcare worker-collected and flocked NS within nine days after symptom onset to paired NPS to detect SARS-CoV-2 in NAAT and QAT on the fully automated Lumipulse system. The agreement between sample types was evaluated, and cycle threshold (Ct) values and antigen levels were used as surrogate viral load measures. RESULTS: Sixty sets of NPS and NS samples were collected from 40 patients with COVID-19. The overall agreements between NAAT and QAT samples were 76.7% and 65.0%, respectively. In NAAT, the Ct value of NS was significantly higher, 5.9, than that of NPS. Thirty-nine (95.1%) NS tested positive in 41 positive-paired NPS with Ct ≤ 30. The negative correlation was observed between antigen levels of NS in QAT and Ct values of NS in NAAT (r = -0.88). In QAT, the antigen level of NS was significantly lower than that of NPS. Thirty-six (90.0%) NS tested positive in 40 positive-paired NPS with antigen levels >100 pg/mL, which were collected significantly earlier than those with antigen levels ≤100 pg/mL. CONCLUSIONS: In NAAT and QAT, NS had limited performance in detecting SARS-CoV-2 compared to NPS. However, NS may be helpful for patients with COVID-19 with high viral loads or those in the early stages of the illness.

Ultra-sensitive Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Antigen Detection for the Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Upper Respiratory Samples.

An ultra-sensitive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleocapsid antigen assay (S-PLEX, MesoScale Diagnostics) was evaluated in 250 retrospective and 200 prospective upper respiratory specimens. In samples with cycle threshold <35, there was 95%-98% positive and 93%-96% negative percent agreement with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. S-PLEX may provide a high-throughput alternative to nucleic acid-based testing for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis.

Effectiveness of Abbott BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen Test for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Infections in Outbreak among Horse Racetrack Workers, California, USA.

The Abbott BinaxNOW rapid antigen test is cheaper and faster than real-time reverse transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. We compared BinaxNOW with rRT-PCR in 769 paired specimens from 342 persons during a coronavirus disease outbreak among horse racetrack workers in California, USA. We found positive percent agreement was 43.3% (95% CI 34.6%-52.4%), negative percent agreement 100% (95% CI 99.4%-100%), positive predictive value 100% (95% CI 93.5%-100%), and negative predictive value 89.9% (95% CI 87.5%-92.0%). Among 127 rRT-PCR-positive specimens, the 55 with paired BinaxNOW-positive results had a lower mean cycle threshold than the 72 with paired BinaxNOW-negative results (17.8 vs. 28.5; p<0.001). Of 100 specimens with cycle threshold <30, a total of 51 resulted in positive virus isolation; 45 (88.2%) of those were BinaxNOW-positive. Our comparison supports immediate isolation for BinaxNOW-positive persons and confirmatory testing for negative persons.

Multicenter Postimplementation Assessment of the Positive Predictive Value of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-Based Point-of-Care Tests Used for Screening of Asymptomatic Continuing Care Staff.

Frequent screening of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among asymptomatic populations using antigen-based point-of-care tests (APOCTs) is occurring globally with limited clinical performance data. The positive predictive value (PPV) of two APOCTs used in the asymptomatic screening of SARS-CoV-2 among health care workers (HCWs) at continuing care (CC) sites across AB, Canada, was evaluated. Between 22 February and 2 May 2021, CC sites implemented SARS-CoV-2 voluntary screening of their asymptomatic HCWs. On-site testing with Abbott Panbio or BD Veritor occurred on a weekly or twice-weekly basis. Positive APOCTs were confirmed with a real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (rRT-PCR) reference method. A total of 71,847 APOCTs (17,689 Veritor and 54,158 Panbio) were performed among 369 CC sites. Eighty-seven (0.12%) APOCTs were positive, of which 39 (0.05%) were confirmed as true positives using rRT-PCR. Use of the Veritor and Panbio resulted in 76.6% and 30.0% false-positive detection, respectively (P < 0.001). This corresponded to PPVs of 23.4 and 70.0% for the Veritor and Panbio, respectively. Frequent screening of SARS-CoV-2 among asymptomatic HCWs in CC, using APOCTs, resulted in a very low detection rate and a high rate of detection of false positives. Careful assessment of the risks versus benefits of APOCT programs and the prevalence of infection in this population needs to be thoroughly considered before implementation.

Diagnosis value of SARS-CoV-2 antigen/antibody combined testing using rapid diagnostic tests at hospital admission.

The implementation of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) may enhance the efficiency of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing, as RDTs are widely accessible and easy to use. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of a diagnosis strategy based on a combination of antigen and immunoglobulin M (IgM) or immunoglobulin G (IgG) serological RDTs. Plasma and nasopharyngeal samples were collected between 14 March and 11 April 2020 at hospital admission from 45 patients with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) confirmed COVID-19 and 20 negative controls. SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Ag) was assessed in nasopharyngeal swabs using the Coris Respi-Strip. For IgM/IgG detection, SureScreen Diagnostics and Szybio Biotech RDTs were used in addition to laboratory assays (Abbott Alinity i SARS-CoV-2 IgG and Theradiag COVID-19 IgM enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay). Using the Ag RDT, 13 out of 45 (29.0%) specimens tested positive, the sensitivity was 87.0% for cycle threshold (Ct ) values ≤25% and 0% for Ct values greater than 25. IgG detection was associated with high Ct values and the amount of time after the onset of symptoms. The profile of isolated IgM on RDTs was more frequently observed during the first and second week after the onset of symptoms. The combination of Ag and IgM/IgG RDTs enabled the detection of up to 84.0% of COVID-19 confirmed cases at hospital admission. Antigen and antibody-based RDTs showed suboptimal performances when used alone. However when used in combination, they are able to identify most COVID-19 patients admitted in an emergency department.

Evaluation of a laboratory-based high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay for non-COVID-19 patient screening at hospital admission.

Several rapid antigen tests (RATs) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 were evaluated recently. However, reliable performance data for laboratory-based, high-throughput antigen tests are lacking. Therefore and in response to a short-term shortage of PCR reagents, we evaluated DiaSorin's LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 antigen test in comparison to RT-qPCR, and concerning the application of screening non-COVID-19 patients on hospital admission. Applying the manufacturer-recommended cut-off of 200 arbitrary units (AU/mL) the specificity of the LIAISON Test was 100%, the overall analytical sensitivity 40.2%. Lowering the cut-off to 100 AU/mL increased the sensitivity to 49.7% and decreased the specificity to 98.3%. Confining the analysis to samples with an RT-qPCR result < 25 Ct resulted in a sensitivity of 91.2%. The quality of the LIAISON test is very similar to that of good RATs described in the literature with the advantage of high throughput and the disadvantage of relatively long analysis time. It passes the WHO quality criteria for rapid antigen tests and is characterized by particularly high specificity. The LIAISON test can therefore be used for the same applications as recommended for RATs by the WHO. Due to limited sensitivity, the LIAISON test should only be used for screening, if PCR-based assays are not available.

Comparison of four commercial, automated antigen tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern.

A versatile portfolio of diagnostic tests is essential for the containment of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Besides nucleic acid-based test systems and point-of-care (POCT) antigen (Ag) tests, quantitative, laboratory-based nucleocapsid Ag tests for SARS-CoV-2 have recently been launched. Here, we evaluated four commercial Ag tests on automated platforms and one POCT to detect SARS-CoV-2. We evaluated PCR-positive (n = 107) and PCR-negative (n = 303) respiratory swabs from asymptomatic and symptomatic patients at the end of the second pandemic wave in Germany (February-March 2021) as well as clinical isolates EU1 (B.1.117), variant of concern (VOC) Alpha (B.1.1.7) or Beta (B.1.351), which had been expanded in a biosafety level 3 laboratory. The specificities of automated SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests ranged between 97.0 and 99.7% (Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Fujirebio): 97.03%, Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Roche Diagnostics): 97.69%; LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Diasorin) and SARS-CoV-2 Ag ELISA (Euroimmun): 99.67%). In this study cohort of hospitalized patients, the clinical sensitivities of tests were low, ranging from 17.76 to 52.34%, and analytical sensitivities ranged from 420,000 to 25,000,000 Geq/ml. In comparison, the detection limit of the Roche Rapid Ag Test (RAT) was 9,300,000 Geq/ml, detecting 23.58% of respiratory samples. Receiver-operating-characteristics (ROCs) and Youden's index analyses were performed to further characterize the assays' overall performance and determine optimal assay cutoffs for sensitivity and specificity. VOCs carrying up to four amino acid mutations in nucleocapsid were detected by all five assays with characteristics comparable to non-VOCs. In summary, automated, quantitative SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests show variable performance and are not necessarily superior to a standard POCT. The efficacy of any alternative testing strategies to complement nucleic acid-based assays must be carefully evaluated by independent laboratories prior to widespread implementation.

Evaluation of two rapid antigen tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 in a hospital setting.

Successful containment strategies for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic will depend on reliable diagnostic assays. Point-of-care antigen tests (POCT) may provide an alternative to time-consuming PCR tests to rapidly screen for acute infections on site. Here, we evaluated two SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests: the STANDARD™ F COVID-19 Ag FIA (FIA) and the SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (RAT). For diagnostic assessment, we used a large set of PCR-positive and PCR-negative respiratory swabs from asymptomatic and symptomatic patients and health care workers in the setting of two University Hospitals in Munich, Germany, i.e. emergency rooms, patient care units or employee test centers. For FIA, overall clinical sensitivity and specificity were 45.4% (n = 381) and 97.8% (n = 360), respectively, and for RAT, 50.3% (n = 445) and 97.7% (n = 386), respectively. For primary diagnosis of asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals, diagnostic sensitivities were 60.9% (FIA) (n = 189) and 64.5% (RAT) (n = 256). This questions these tests' utility for the reliable detection of acute SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals, in particular in high-risk settings. We support the proposal that convincing high-quality outcome data on the impact of false-negative and false-positive antigen test results need to be obtained in a POCT setting. Moreover, the efficacy of alternative testing strategies to complement PCR assays must be evaluated by independent laboratories, prior to widespread implementation in national and international test strategies.

Performance of antigen testing for diagnosis of COVID-19: a direct comparison of a lateral flow device to nucleic acid amplification based tests.

OBJECTIVES: The gold standard for diagnosing an infection with SARS-CoV-2 is detection of viral RNA by nucleic acid amplification techniques. Test capacities, however, are limited. Therefore, numerous easy-to-use rapid antigen tests based on lateral flow technology have been developed. Manufacturer-reported performance data seem convincing, but real-world data are missing. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed all prospectively collected antigen tests results performed between 23.06.2020 and 26.11.2020, generated by non-laboratory personnel at the point-of-care from oro- or nasopharyngeal swab samples at the University Hospital Augsburg and compared them to concomitantly (within 24 h.) generated results from molecular tests. RESULTS: For a total of 3630 antigen tests, 3110 NAAT results were available. Overall, sensitivity, specificity, NPV and PPV of antigen testing were 59.4%, 99.0%, 98.7% and 64.8%, respectively. Sensitivity and PPV were lower in asymptomatic patients (47.6% and 44.4%, respectively) and only slightly higher in patients with clinical symptoms (66.7% and 85.0%, respectively). Some samples with very low Ct-values (minimum Ct 13) were not detected by antigen testing. 31 false positive results occurred. ROC curve analysis showed that reducing the COI cut-off from 1, as suggested by the manufacturer, to 0.9 is optimal, albeit with an AUC of only 0.66. CONCLUSION: In real life, performance of lateral-flow-based antigen tests are well below the manufacturer's specifications, irrespective of patient's symptoms. Their use for detection of individual patients infected with SARS-CoV2 should be discouraged. This does not preclude their usefulness in large-scale screening programs to reduce transmission events on a population-wide scale.

IFCC interim guidelines on rapid point-of-care antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 detection in asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals.

With an almost unremittent progression of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections all around the world, there is a compelling need to introduce rapid, reliable, and high-throughput testing to allow appropriate clinical management and/or timely isolation of infected individuals. Although nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) remains the gold standard for detecting and theoretically quantifying SARS-CoV-2 mRNA in various specimen types, antigen assays may be considered a suitable alternative, under specific circumstances. Rapid antigen tests are meant to detect viral antigen proteins in biological specimens (e.g. nasal, nasopharyngeal, saliva), to indicate current SARS-CoV-2 infection. The available assay methodology includes rapid chromatographic immunoassays, used at the point-of-care, which carries some advantages and drawbacks compared to more conventional, instrumentation-based, laboratory immunoassays. Therefore, this document by the International Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Taskforce on COVID-19 aims to summarize available data on the performance of currently available SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid detection tests (Ag-RDTs), providing interim guidance on clinical indications and target populations, assay selection, and evaluation, test interpretation and limitations, as well as on pre-analytical considerations. This document is hence mainly aimed to assist laboratory and regulated health professionals in selecting, validating, and implementing regulatory approved Ag-RDTs.

Magnetic graphene quantum dots facilitate closed-tube one-step detection of SARS-CoV-2 with ultra-low field NMR relaxometry.

The rapid and sensitive diagnosis of the highly contagious severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is one of the crucial issues at the outbreak of the ongoing global pandemic that has no valid cure. Here, we propose a SARS-CoV-2 antibody conjugated magnetic graphene quantum dots (GQDs)-based magnetic relaxation switch (MRSw) that specifically recognizes the SARS-CoV-2. The probe of MRSw can be directly mixed with the test sample in a fully sealed vial without sample pretreatment, which largely reduces the testers' risk of infection during the operation. The closed-tube one-step strategy to detect SARS-CoV-2 is developed with home-made ultra-low field nuclear magnetic resonance (ULF NMR) relaxometry working at 118 µT. The magnetic GQDs-based probe shows ultra-high sensitivity in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 due to its high magnetic relaxivity, and the limit of detection is optimized to 248 Particles mL‒1. Meanwhile, the detection time in ULF NMR system is only 2 min, which can significantly improve the efficiency of detection. In short, the magnetic GQDs-based MRSw coupled with ULF NMR can realize a rapid, safe, and sensitive detection of SARS-CoV-2.