Model for Interpreting Discordant SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostic Test Results.

We devised a model to interpret discordant SARS-CoV-2 test results. We estimate that, during March 2020-May 2022, a patient in the United States who received a positive rapid antigen test result followed by a negative nucleic acid test result had only a 15.4% (95% CI 0.6%-56.7%) chance of being infected.

Clinical performance of rapid antigen tests in comparison to RT-PCR for SARS-COV-2 diagnosis in Omicron variant: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The Omicron variant of concern has a high level of mutations in different genes that has raised awareness about the performance of immunological products such as vaccines and antigen detection kits. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we investigated whether Omicron had a significant influence on rapid antigen test (RAT) performance in comparison to PCR. We registered this systematic review and meta-analysis in PROSPERO with the registration number CRD42022355510. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases systematically to 1 August 2022. After article screening, we assessed the quality of the included studies based on the JBI checklist. Following data extraction, we performed a meta-analysis using R software. We included 18 qualified articles presenting sufficient data about RATs performance in comparison to RT-PCR in Omicron infections. The pooled specificity and sensitivity of RATs were 1.000 (0.997-1.000) and 0.671 (0.595-0.721), respectively. The FDA-approved kits showed a better performance than WHO-approved ones with a sensitivity of 0.728 (0.620-0.815). The use of RATs with nasal swabs showed a higher sensitivity compared with nasopharyngeal swabs. The sensitivity for samples with a CT-value >25 was 0.108 (0.048-0.227). Rapid antigen tests show impaired performance for COVID-19 diagnosis when the Omicron variant is circulating, particularly in samples with low viral loads.

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.

A high throughput immuno-affinity mass spectrometry method for detection and quantitation of SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein in human saliva and its comparison with RT-PCR, RT-LAMP, and lateral flow rapid antigen test.

OBJECTIVES: Many reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) methods exist that can detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA in different matrices. RT-PCR is highly sensitive, although viral RNA may be detected long after active infection has taken place. SARS-CoV-2 proteins have shorter detection windows hence their detection might be more meaningful. Given salivary droplets represent a main source of transmission, we explored the detection of viral RNA and protein using four different detection platforms including SISCAPA peptide immunoaffinity liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (SISCAPA-LC-MS) using polyclonal capture antibodies. METHODS: The SISCAPA-LC MS method was compared to RT-PCR, RT-loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), and a lateral flow rapid antigen test (RAT) for the detection of virus material in the drool saliva of 102 patients hospitalised after infection with SARS-CoV-2. Cycle thresholds (Ct) of RT-PCR (E gene) were compared to RT-LAMP time-to-positive (TTP) (NE and Orf1a genes), RAT optical densitometry measurements (test line/control line ratio) and to SISCAPA-LC-MS for measurements of viral protein. RESULTS: SISCAPA-LC-MS showed low sensitivity (37.7 %) but high specificity (89.8 %). RAT showed lower sensitivity (24.5 %) and high specificity (100 %). RT-LAMP had high sensitivity (83.0 %) and specificity (100.0 %). At high initial viral RNA loads (<20 Ct), results obtained using SISCAPA-LC-MS correlated with RT-PCR (R2 0.57, p-value 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein in saliva was less frequent than the detection of viral RNA. The SISCAPA-LC-MS method allowed processing of multiple samples in <150 min and was scalable, enabling high throughput.

Testing Frequency Matters: An Evaluation of the Diagnostic Performance of a Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Rapid Antigen Test in US Correctional Facilities.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends serial rapid antigen assay collection within congregate facilities. Although modeling and observational studies from communities and long-term care facilities have shown serial collection provides adequate sensitivity and specificity, the accuracy within correctional facilities remains unknown. METHODS: Using Connecticut Department of Correction data from 21 November 2020 to 15 June 2021, we estimated the accuracy of a rapid assay, BinaxNOW (Abbott), under 3 collection strategies: single test collection and serial collection of 2 and 3 tests separated by 1-4 days. The sensitivity and specificity of the first (including single), second, and third serially collected BinaxNOW tests were estimated relative to RT-PCRs collected ≤1 day of the BinaxNOW test. The accuracy metrics of the testing strategies were then estimated as the sum (sensitivity) and product (specificity) of tests in each strategy. RESULTS: Of the 13 112 residents who contributed ≥1 BinaxNOW test during the study period, 3825 contributed ≥1 RT-PCR paired BinaxNOW test. In relation to RT-PCR, the 3-rapid-antigen-test strategy had a sensitivity of 95.9% (95% CI: 93.6-97.5%) and specificity of 98.3% (95% CI: 96.7-99.1%). The sensitivities of the 2- and 1-rapid-antigen-test strategies were 88.8% and 66.8%, and the specificities were 98.5% and 99.4%, respectively. The sensitivity was higher among symptomatic residents and when RT-PCRs were collected before BinaxNOW tests. CONCLUSIONS: We found serial antigen test collection resulted in high diagnostic accuracy. These findings support serial collection for outbreak investigation, screening, and when rapid detection is required (such as intakes or transfers).

Persistence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Omicron Variant in Children and Utility of Rapid Antigen Testing as an Indicator of Culturable Virus.

We screened 65 longitudinally collected nasal swab samples from 31 children aged 0-16 years who were positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Omicron BA.1. By day 7 after onset of symptoms, 48% of children remained positive by rapid antigen test. In a sample subset, we found 100% correlation between antigen test results and virus culture.

The development of a highly sensitive and quantitative SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test applying newly developed monoclonal antibodies to an automated chemiluminescent flow-through membrane immunoassay device.

BACKGROUND: Rapid and accurate diagnosis of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection is an effective way to prevent and control the spread of COVID-19. Although the detection of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA by RT-qPCR is the gold standard for COVID-19 testing, the use of antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) is emerging as a complementary surveillance tool as Omicron case numbers skyrocket worldwide. However, the results from Ag-RDTs are less accurate in individuals with low viral loads. RESULTS: To develop a highly sensitive and accurate Ag-RDT, 90 monoclonal antibodies were raised from guinea pigs immunized with SARS CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (CoV-2-NP). By applying a capture antibody recognizing the structural epitope of the N-terminal domain of CoV-2-NP and a detection antibody recognizing the C-terminal tail of CoV-2-NP to an automated chemiluminescence flow-through membrane immunoassay device, we developed a novel Ag-RDT, CoV-2-POCube. The CoV-2-POCube exclusively recognizes CoV-2-NP variants but not the nucleocapsid proteins of other human coronaviruses. The CoV-2-POCube achieved a limit of detection sensitivity of 0.20 ~ 0.66 pg/mL of CoV-2-NPs, demonstrating more than 100 times greater sensitivity than commercially available SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs. CONCLUSIONS: CoV-2-POCube has high analytical sensitivity and can detect SARS-CoV-2 variants in 15 min without observing the high-dose hook effect, thus meeting the need for early SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis with lower viral load. CoV-2-POCube is a promising alternative to currently available diagnostic devices for faster clinical decision making in individuals with suspected COVID-19 in resource-limited settings.

Sensitivity of rapid antigen tests against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron and Delta variants.

Rapid antigen tests (RATs) have become an invaluable tool for combating the COVID-19 pandemic. However, concerns have been raised regarding the ability of existing RATs to effectively detect emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. We compared the performance of 10 commercially available, emergency use authorized RATs against the Delta and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants using both individual patient and serially diluted pooled clinical samples. The RATs exhibited lower sensitivity for Omicron samples when using PCR cycle threshold (CT) value (a rough proxy for RNA concentration) as the comparator. Interestingly, however, they exhibited similar sensitivity for Omicron and Delta samples when using quantitative antigen concentration as the comparator. We further found that the Omicron samples had lower ratios of antigen to RNA, which offers a potential explanation for the apparent lower sensitivity of RATs for that variant when using C T value as a reference. Our findings underscore the complexity in assessing RAT performance against emerging variants and highlight the need for ongoing evaluation in the face of changing population immunity and virus evolution.

SARS-CoV-2 Virus Culture, Genomic and Subgenomic RNA Load, and Rapid Antigen Test in Experimentally Infected Syrian Hamsters.

The duration of SARS-CoV-2 genomic RNA shedding is much longer than that of infectious SARS-CoV-2 in most COVID-19 patients. It is very important to determine the relationship between test results and infectivity for efficient isolation, contact tracing, and post-isolation. We characterized the duration of viable SARS-CoV-2, viral genomic and subgenomic RNA (gRNA and sgRNA), and rapid antigen test positivity in nasal washes, oropharyngeal swabs, and feces of experimentally infected Syrian hamsters. The duration of viral genomic RNA shedding is longer than that of viral subgenomic RNA, and far longer than those of rapid antigen test (RAgT) and viral culture positivity. The rapid antigen test results were strongly correlated with the viral culture results. The trend of subgenomic RNA is similar to that of genomic RNA, and furthermore, the subgenomic RNA load is highly correlated with the genomic RNA load. IMPORTANCE Our findings highlight the high correlation between rapid antigen test and virus culture results. The rapid antigen test would be an important supplement to real-time reverse transcription-RCR (RT-PCR) in early COVID-19 screening and in shortening the isolation period of COVID-19 patients. Because the subgenomic RNA load can be predicted from the genomic RNA load, measuring sgRNA does not add more benefit to determining infectivity than a threshold determined for gRNA based on viral culture.

Evaluation of the performance of a rapid antigen test (Roche) for COVID-19 diagnosis in an emergency setting in Sweden.

During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, rapid and reliable detection of SARS-CoV-2 is important to enable proper care of patients and to prevent further transmission. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (Ag-RDT) in an emergency care setting during a high pandemic period. The analytical performance of the Ag-RDT was compared to real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR). A total of 132 patient samples, previously analyzed with rRT-PCR, were reanalyzed with the Ag-RDT. Tenfold serial dilutions of five different patient strains containing the pangolin variants BA.1, BA.2, B.1.1.7, B.1.160, and B.1.177 were analyzed in parallel with the Ag-RDT and rRT-PCR. A clinical evaluation was performed in which 1911 consecutive patients admitted to the emergency wards in Region Gävleborg, Sweden, were included. Paired samples were collected and analyzed with the Ag-RDT on-site and with rRT-PCR at the microbiology laboratory. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the Ag-RDT in the clinical evaluation were 71.3% and 99.7%, respectively. When samples with cycle threshold (Ct) values above 30 were excluded, the sensitivity was 86.5%. Eleven of the admitted patients who were positive for both the Ag-RDT and rRT-PCR (Ct-range 16.9-30.4) showed no symptoms of COVID-19. Using the Ag-RDT shortened the detection time by an average of 11 h. The Ag-RDT is a useful tool for preliminary screening of SARS-CoV-2 because it enables rapid detection in infectious individuals and therefore, can counteract unnecessary spread of infection at an early stage.

Sensitivity of rapid antigen tests for Omicron subvariants of SARS-CoV-2.

Diagnosis by rapid antigen tests (RATs) is useful for early initiation of antiviral treatment. Because RATs are easy to use, they can be adapted for self-testing. Several kinds of RATs approved for such use by the Japanese regulatory authority are available from drug stores and websites. Most RATs for COVID-19 are based on antibody detection of the SARS-CoV-2 N protein. Since Omicron and its subvariants have accumulated several amino acid substitutions in the N protein, such amino acid changes might affect the sensitivity of RATs. Here, we investigated the sensitivity of seven RATs available in Japan, six of which are approved for public use and one of which is approved for clinical use, for the detection of BA.5, BA.2.75, BF.7, XBB.1, and BQ.1.1, as well as the delta variant (B.1.627.2). All tested RATs detected the delta variant with a detection level between 7500 and 75 000 pfu per test, and all tested RATs showed similar sensitivity to the Omicron variant and its subvariants (BA.5, BA.2.75, BF.7, XBB.1, and BQ.1.1). Human saliva did not reduce the sensitivity of the RATs tested. Espline SARS-CoV-2 N showed the highest sensitivity followed by Inspecter KOWA SARS-CoV-2 and V Trust SARS-CoV-2 Ag. Since the RATs failed to detect low levels of infectious virus, individuals whose specimens contained less infectious virus than the detection limit would be considered negative. Therefore, it is important to note that RATs may miss individuals shedding low levels of infectious virus.

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.

High performance of the automated ADVIA Centaur Systems SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay in nasopharyngeal samples with high viral load.

ADVIA Centaur SARS-CoV-2 Antigen (COV2Ag) Assay (Siemens Healthineers) was evaluated for SARS-CoV-2 detection. A total of 141 nasopharyngeal samples were analyzed by this technique and results were compared with those obtained by quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The overall sensitivity and specificity of the test were 68.70% and 70%, respectively. Regarding cycle threshold (Ct) values, the COV2Ag test showed a sensitivity of 93.75% and 100% for nasopharyngeal samples with Ct < 25 and < 20, respectively. ADVIA Centaur COV2Ag Assay is a useful, automated, and rapid technique for early SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis and isolation of the infected individuals, avoiding its transmission.

Comparison of a novel antigen detection test with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay for laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Molecular diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in respiratory specimens is considered the gold standard method. This method is highly sensitive and specific but it has some limitations such as being expensive and requiring special laboratory equipment and skilled personnel. RapidFor™ Antigen Rapid Test Kit is a commercially available Ag-RDT which is produced in Turkey and designed to detect the nucleocapsid antigen of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab samples. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of this novel SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection considering the RT-PCR method as the gold standard. Four hundred forty-four nasopharyngeal swab samples which were collected from the patients who met clinical criteria of COVID-19 from ten centers in Turkey between September 2020 and February 2021 were included in the study. All the nasopharyngeal swab samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA using commercial RT-PCR kits (Bioeksen and A1 Lifesciences, Istanbul, Turkey) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Viral loads were assessed according to the cycle threshold (Ct) values. RapidFor™ SARS-CoV-2 antigen test (Vitrosens Biotechnology, Istanbul, Turkey) was used to investigate the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antigen in all samples following the manufacturer's instructions. Out of 444 nasopharyngeal swab samples tested, 346 (77.9%) were positive and 98 (22.1%) were negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by RTPCR. Overall sensitivity of the RapidFor™. Antigen Rapid Test Kit was 80.3% whereas specificity was found to be 87.8%. Positivity rate of rapid antigen test in samples with Ct values over 25 and below 30 was 82.7%, while it increased to 95.7% in samples 20 ≤ Ct < 25 and reached 100% in samples with Ct values below 20. RapidFor™ SARS-CoV-2 Ag test might be a good choice in the screening of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients and their contacts for taking isolation measures early, with advantages over RT-PCR as being rapid, easy and being applicable in every laboratory and even at point of care.

A pilot surveillance report of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test results among volunteers in Germany, 1st week of July 2022.

PURPOSE: We hypothesized that SARS-CoV-2 infection numbers reported by governmental institutions are underestimated due to high dark figures as only results from polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests are incorporated in governmental statistics and testing capacities were further restricted as of July, 2022. METHODS: A point prevalence investigation was piloted by rapid antigen testing (RAT) among participants of the VACCELERATE volunteer registry. 2400 volunteers were contacted, of which 500 received a RAT including instructions for self-testing in the first week of July, 2022. Results were self-reported via e-mail. RESULTS: 419 valid RAT results were collected until July 7th, 2022. Between July-1 and July-7, 2022, 7/419 (1.67%) tests were positive. Compared to reports of the German Federal Government, our results suggest a more than twofold higher prevalence. Three out of seven positive individuals did not have a PCR test and are therefore likely not to be displayed in governmental statistics. CONCLUSION: Our findings imply that the actual prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 may be higher than detected by current surveillance systems, so that current pandemic surveillance and testing strategies may be adapted.

Vaccine-hesitant individuals accumulate additional COVID-19 risk due to divergent perception and behaviors related to SARS-CoV-2 testing: a population-based, cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the perception of SARS-CoV-2 detection methods, information sources, and opinions on appropriate behavior after receiving negative or positive test results. METHODS: In a questionnaire-based, cross-sectional study conducted between September 1 and November 17, 2021, epidemiological, behavioral, and COVID-19-related data were acquired from the public in Munich, Germany. RESULTS: Most of the 1388 participants obtained information from online media (82.8%) as well as state and federal authorities (80.3%). 93.4% believed in the accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing and 41.2% in the accuracy of rapid antigen tests (RATs). However, RATs were preferred for testing (59.1%) over PCR (51.1%). 24.0% of all individuals were willing to ignore hygiene measures and 76.9% were less afraid of SARS-CoV-2 transmission after receiving a negative PCR test (5.9% and 48.8% in case of a negative RAT). 28.8% reported not to self-isolate after receiving a positive RAT. Multivariate analyses revealed that non-vaccinated individuals relied less on information from governmental authorities (p = 0.0004) and more on social media (p = 0.0216), disbelieved in the accuracy of the PCR test (p ≤ 0.0001) while displaying strong preference towards using RATs (p ≤ 0.0001), were more willing to abandon pandemic-related hygiene measures (p ≤ 0.0001), less afraid of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 after a negative RAT (p ≤ 0.0001), and less likely to isolate after a positive RAT (p ≤ 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Insights into preferred information sources as well as perception, preferences, and behavior related to SARS-CoV-2 testing and hygiene measures are key to refining public health information and surveillance campaigns. Non-vaccinated individuals' divergent believes and behaviors possibly increase their COVID-19 risk.

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.

Should rapid antigen tests be first-line for COVID-19 testing? Results of a prospective urban cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A highly accurate, rapid, and low-cost COVID-19 test is essential for guiding isolation measures. To date, the most widely used tests are either nucleic acid amplification tests or antigen tests. The objective of this study is to further assess the diagnostic performance of the Binax-CoV2 rapid antigen test in comparison to the current gold standard reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), with additional analysis of symptomatology and cycle threshold utility. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study performed between November and December 2020. Individuals who presented to COVID-19 testing events and received both RT-qPCR and a rapid antigent test were included. Testing occurred at the emergency department of an urban hospital and at a community mobile unit. No fees or appointments were required. Individuals self-reported the presence or absence of symptoms and history of positive COVID-19 test within the previous two weeks. Trained staff collected two subsequent nasopharyngeal swabs of both nares. One set of swabs underwent RT-qPCR and the other underwent Binax-CoV2 assay per manufacturer guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 390 patients were included, of which 302 were from the community site. Of these 302, 42 (14%) were RT-qPCR positive. Of the 42 RT-qPCR positive, 30 (71.4%) were also positive by Binax-CoV2. The Binax-CoV2 test had a sensitivity of 71.4% (95% CI: 55%-84%) and a specificity of 99.6% (95% CI: 98%-100%) in this population. Performance of the Binax-CoV2 test performed better in individuals with higher viral load. For symptomatic patients with cycle threshold < 20, sensitivity reached 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The Binax-CoV2 assay's specificity and sensitivity in individuals with high viral load makes it a suitable first-line test for detecting COVID-19. However, given the assay's measured sensitivity, a negative result on the Binax-CoV2 assay may warrant additional testing with more sensitive tests, such as the RT-qPCR. This is particularly the case with high clinical suspicion for an active SARS-CoV-2 infection even after a negative Binax-CoV2 result.

Potential usage of anterior nasal sampling in clinical practice with three rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2.

INTRODUCTION: Anterior nasal sampling (AN) might be more convenient for patients than NP sampling to diagnose coronavirus disease. This study investigated the feasibility of rapid antigen tests for AN sampling, and the factors affecting the test accuracy. METHODS: This single-center prospective study evaluated one qualitative (ESP) and two quantitative (LUMI and LUMI-P) rapid antigen tests using AN and NP swabs. Symptomatic patients aged 20 years or older, who were considered eligible for reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction using NP samples within 9 days of onset were recruited. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative concordance rates between AN and NP samples were assessed for the rapid antigen tests. We investigated the characteristics that affected the concordance between AN and NP sampling results. RESULTS: A total of 128 cases were recruited, including 28 positive samples and 96 negative samples. The sensitivity and specificity of AN samples using ESP were 0.81 and 1.00, while those of NP samples were 0.94 and 1.00. The sensitivity of AN and NP samples was 0.91 and 0.97, respectively, and specificity was 1.00, for both LUMI and LUMI-P. The positive concordance rates of AN to NP sampling were 0.87, 0.94, and 0.85 for ESP, LUMI, and LUMI-P, respectively. No factor had a significant effect on the concordance between the sampling methods. CONCLUSIONS: ESP, LUMI, and LUMI-P showed practical diagnostic accuracy for AN sampling compared to NP sampling. There was no significant factor affecting the concordance between AN and NP sampling for these rapid antigen tests.

Analysis of diagnostic performance and factors causing nonspecific reactions in SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen detection tests.

INTRODUCTION: Early diagnosis and appropriate infection control are important to prevent the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In this study, we aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen detection (RAD) tests and the factors that cause nonspecific reactions. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal swab specimens (n = 100), sputum specimens (n = 10), and lithium-heparin plasma samples (n = 100) were collected. We evaluated Espline®SARS-CoV-2 (Espline) and SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test that also known as STANDARD Q® (STANDARD Q), with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and Lumipulse® Presto SARS-CoV-2 Ag as reference tests. In addition, we investigated the effects of inadequate pretreatment methods and five potential causes of nonspecific reactions. RESULTS: The sensitivities of Espline and STANDARD Q were 60% and 57%, respectively, and their specificity was 100%. It was confirmed that the judgment line for the positive insufficiently mixed specimens was faint. A false-positive result was observed with STANDARD Q when sputum was used as a specimen to investigate judgment the effect of viscosity. CONCLUSIONS: Espline and STANDARD Q show good sensitivity for specimens with Ct values less than 25, but specimens collected within 9 days of symptom onset may still give false negatives. The test should be performed carefully, and the results should be judged comprehensively, taking into account clinical symptoms and patient background.