COVID-19 Ag Research Articles

The Establishment of the Spiking Method to Evaluate the Rapid Diagnostic Test Antigen (Ag-RDT) Product for COVID-19 Detection

The quality control of the COVID-19 Rapid Diagnostic Test (Ag-RDT) product is regarded as one of the government’s responsibilities. The Indonesian government establishes rules for Ag-RDT post-market validation, where it should be performed by two designated laboratories, using the spiking technique. The usage of this technique raises concerns, especially if it does not represent the precise product quality, due to the sample dilution. In addition, the requisite of using fresh samples that should be prepared for less than 48 hours is considered costly and time-consuming. In response to this, we tested two samples from different age groups on the Ag-RDT brand recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO); Panbio™ Covid-19 Ag Rapid Test (Abbott) and standard Q Ag-RDT (SD Biosensor, Roche). In both Ag-RDT products, the samples observed in the cycle threshold (Ct) values≤25 groups exhibit >80%sensitivity and >97% specificity as in compliance with the WHO recommendation. Meanwhile, as observed in the Ct>25 groups, the sensitivity of the two Ag-RDT products was below 25%, which was not in compliance with the WHO recommendation. Overall, this study indicated that the Spiking technique is eligible to be used for evaluating the performance of Ag-RDT, especially at Ct≤25. Additionally, the samples’ life span of up to 2 weeks of storage at -80oC can be used for post-market validation of Ag-RDT. Furthermore, the quality control assay for longer sample storage is interesting to be carried out.

Evaluation of Rapid Antigen Testing (Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device) for COVID-19 Diagnosis in a Tertiary Hospital

Evaluation of Rapid Antigen Testing (Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device) for COVID-19 Diagnosis in a Tertiary Hospital

Evaluation of Rapid Antigen Testing (Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device) for COVID-19 Diagnosis in a Tertiary Hospital

Evaluation of Rapid Antigen Testing (Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device) for COVID-19 Diagnosis in a Tertiary Hospital

RT-PCR Testi ile doğrulanmış COVID-19 olgularında hızlı antikor testi uyumluluğunun değerlendirilmesi

INTRODUCTION: It was aimed to determine the reliability of rapid antibody detection test (RADT) results and compatibility with RT-PCR assay in the screening and control of COVID-19 infection. METHODS: The retrospective study was performed with the permission of the Ministry of Health and the local ethics committee of our hospital. Between May 2020 and August 2021, 624 health staffs laboratory results were recorded. Data processing hospital (HIS) and laboratory information system (LIS) records of our hospital were used as data collection method. The level of agreement between tests was estimated using Cohen's κ index. Statistical analyzes were performed using SPSS open source software. RESULTS: The mean age of the participants in the study was 28,46 ± 2,35. 54% were female (337), 46% (n=287) were male, and they had no additional disease. Both rapid antibody testing and RT-PCR tests were negative in 86% (n=540) of all tests. Two nasopharyngeal specimens were collected from each case to perform the RADT and RT-PCR. 13,6% (n=102) of the included patients had positive RT-PCR results. The RADT detected 84 of the 102 RT-PCR-positive cases and there were no false positive results. Overall sensitivity and specificity were 84,7% and 100%, respectively. Sensitivity was found >95% in symptomatic cases. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The Weimi Bio-Tech COVID-19 Ag RADT can be useful in screening for COVID-19, especially in cases in the first or second weeks of symptomatic infection.

Reliability of the rapid antigen test for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in Tunisia.

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. To evaluate the effectiveness of a rapid antigen test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs in Tunisia. 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 (RT‑PCR). 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. 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.

SARS-CoV-2 vaccine breakthrough infection and the evaluation of safety precaution practice before and after vaccination among healthcare workers in South West, Nigeria

IntroductionWorldwide, it has been reported that fully vaccinated people still die of COVID-19-associated symptoms, generating public uncertainty about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines. Hence, this research is aimed at assessing the incidence of COVID-19 breakthrough infection among vaccinated Health Workers and the possible effect of changes in the practice of post-vaccination safety precautions.MethodThis was a Health facility-based descriptive cross-sectional study. Data were collected using self-administered questionnaires distributed at the participant’s work unit across the selected health facilities. The nasopharyngeal specimen was also obtained from the participants and analysed using STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test rapid chromatographic immunoassay for the detection of antigens to SARS-CoV-2. All data were input and analyzed using SPSS version 20.ResultsThere was a statistically significant relationship between the vaccination status of respondents and the post-vaccination test result (χ2 = 6.816, df = 1, p = 0.009). The incidence of COVID-19 infection among the vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs was 2% and 8% respectively. 5 of the 15 respondents who tested positive for COVID-19 had been fully vaccinated. However, all 5 of them did not practice safety measures after vaccination. None of the respondents who practised safety measures after vaccination tested positive for COVID-19. The remaining 10 respondents that tested positive for COVID-19 had not been vaccinated though they practised safety precautions.ConclusionVaccination and the practice of safety precautions will go a long way to preventing future COVID-19 breakthrough infections.

Diagnostic performance of rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2: the COVid-19 AntiGen (COVAG) extension study.

This study is the extension of the COVAG study. We compared two RATs, the Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (Abbott) and the SD Biosensor Q SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche), against RT-PCR on the foil of new variants. We included 888 all-comers at a diagnostic center between October 20, 2021, and March 18, 2022. RT-PCR-positive samples with a Ct value ≤32 were examined for SARS-CoV-2 variants. The sensitivity of the Abbott-RAT and Roche-RAT were 65 and 67%, respectively. For both RATs, lower Ct values were significantly correlated with higher sensitivity. For samples with Ct values ≤25, the sensitivities of the Roche-RAT and of the Abbott-RAT were 96 and 95%, for Ct values 25-30 both were 19%, and for Ct values ≥30 they were 6 and 2%, respectively. The RATs had substantially higher sensitivities in symptomatic than asymptomatic participants (76, 77%, vs. 29, 31%, for Abbott-RAT, Roche-RAT, respectively) and in participants referred to testing by their primary care physician (84, 85%) compared to participants who sought testing due to referral by the health department (55, 58%) or a warning by the Corona-Warn-App (49, 49%). In persons with self-reported previous COVID-19 sensitivities were markedly lower than in patients without previous COVID-19: 27% vs. 75% for Roche-RAT and 27% vs. 73% for Abbott-RAT. We did not find significant correlation between vaccination status and sensitivity. The Omicron variant was detected with a sensitivity of 94 and 92%, the delta variant with a sensitivity of 80 and 80% for Abbott-RAT and Roche-RAT, respectively. This difference is attributable to the lower Ct values of the Omicron samples compared to the Delta samples. When adjusted for the Ct value, a multivariate logistic regression did not show a significant difference between Omicron and Delta. In terms of sensitivity, we found no significant difference between the wild-type and the Omicron and Delta variants, but a significantly lower sensitivity to the alpha variant compared to the other variants.The specificities were > 99% overall.

Non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viral detection and whole genome sequencing from COVID-19 rapid antigen test devices: a laboratory evaluation study

There has been high uptake of rapid antigen test device use for point-of-care COVID-19 diagnosis. Individuals who are symptomatic but test negative on COVID-19 rapid antigen test devices might have a different respiratory viral infection. We aimed to detect and sequence non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viruses from rapid antigen test devices, which could assist in the characterisation and surveillance of circulating respiratory viruses in the community. We applied archival clinical nose and throat swabs collected between Jan 1, 2015, and Dec 31, 2022, that previously tested positive for a common respiratory virus (adenovirus, influenza, metapneumovirus, parainfluenza, rhinovirus, respiratory syncytial virus [RSV], or seasonal coronavirus; 132 swabs and 140 viral targets) on PCR to two commercially available COVID-19 rapid antigen test devices, the Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device and Roche SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Self-Test. In addition, we collected 31 COVID-19 rapid antigen test devices used to test patients who were symptomatic at The Royal Melbourne Hospital emergency department in Melbourne, Australia. We extracted total nucleic acid from the device paper test strips and assessed viral recovery using multiplex real-time PCR (rtPCR) and capture-based whole genome sequencing. Sequence and genome data were analysed through custom computational pipelines, including subtyping. Of the 140 respiratory viral targets from archival samples, 89 (64%) and 88 (63%) were positive on rtPCR for the relevant taxa following extraction from Panbio or Roche rapid antigen test devices, respectively. Recovery was variable across taxa: we detected influenza A in nine of 18 samples from Panbio and seven of 18 from Roche devices; parainfluenza in 11 of 20 samples from Panbio and 12 of 20 from Roche devices; human metapneumovirus in 11 of 16 from Panbio and 14 of 16 from Roche devices; seasonal coronavirus in eight of 19 from Panbio and two of19from Roche devices; rhinovirus in 24 of 28 from Panbio and 27 of 28 from Roche devices; influenza B in fourof 15 in both devices; and RSV in 16 of 18 in both devices. Of the 31 COVID-19 devices collected from The Royal Melbourne Hospital emergency department, 11 tested positive for a respiratory virus on rtPCR, including one device positive for influenza A virus, one positive for RSV, four positive for rhinovirus, and five positive for SARS-CoV-2. Sequences of target respiratory viruses from archival samples were detected in 55 (98·2%) of 56samples from Panbio and 48 (85·7%) of 56 from Roche rapid antigen test devices. 98 (87·5%) of 112 viral genomes were completely assembled from these data, enabling subtyping for RSV and influenza viruses. All 11samples collected from the emergency department had viral sequences detected, with near-complete genomes assembled for influenza A and RSV. Non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viruses can be detected and sequenced from COVID-19 rapid antigen devices. Recovery of near full-length viral sequences from these devices provides a valuable opportunity to expand genomic surveillance programmes for public health monitoring of circulating respiratory viruses. Australian Government Medical Research Future Fund and Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Performance Evaluation of the STANDARD i-Q COVID-19 Ag Test with Nasal and Oral Swab Specimens from Symptomatic Patients.

We evaluated the diagnostic performance of the STANDARD i-Q COVID-19 Ag Test, which was developed to detect viral antigens, using nasal and oral swabs. Sixty positive and 100 negative samples were analyzed. We determined the distribution of the Ct values according to the day of sample collection after symptom onset, the diagnostic performance of the total samples and subgroups separated by Ct value or time of sample collection, and the Ct value at which maximal accuracy was expected. No differences were observed in Ct values, except for the samples obtained on the day of symptom onset. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the oral swabs were 75.0 and 100.0%, respectively, whereas those of the nasal swabs were 85.0 and 98.0%, respectively. The sensitivity was higher in samples with a high viral load collected earlier than those collected later, although the difference was not significant. False-negative results were confirmed in all samples with a Ct value ≥ 30.0. These results indicate that tests using oral and nasal swabs are helpful for diagnosing acute symptomatic cases with suspected high viral loads. Our tests exhibited relatively low sensitivity but high specificity rates, indicating the need to assess negative antigen test results.

Performance of two rapid antigen tests against SARS-CoV-2 in neighborhoods of socioeconomic vulnerability from a middle-income country.

As new and improved antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection (Ag-RDT) continue to be developed, assessing their diagnostic performance is necessary to increase test options with accurate and rapid diagnostic capacity especially in resource-constrained settings. This study aimed to assess the performance of two Ag-RDTs in a population-based study. We conducted a diagnostic accuracy study in neighborhoods with high socioeconomic vulnerability in Salvador-Brazil, including individuals aged ≥12 years old who attended primary health services, between July and December 2022, with COVID-19 symptoms or who had been in contact with a confirmed case. Two Ag-RDTs were compared in parallel using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as reference standard, the PanbioTM COVID-19 Ag test (Abbott®) and Immuno-Rapid COVID-19 Ag (WAMA Diagnostic®). Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated. For the Abbott test the sensitivity was 52.7% (95% CI: 44.3% - 61.0%), specificity 100% (95% CI: 98.7% - 100%), PPV 100% (95% CI: 95.4% - 100%) and NPV 80.4% (95% CI: 75.9% - 84.4%). For the WAMA test, the sensitivity was 53.4% (95% CI: 45.0% - 61.6%), specificity 100% (95% CI: 98.7% - 100%), PPV 100% (95% CI: 95.4% - 100%) and NPV 80.7% (95% CI: 76.2% - 84.6%). Sensitivity for the group with Cycle Threshold (CT) <24 was 82.3% (95%CI: 72.1-90.0, n = 83) for PanbioTM COVID-19 Ag test and 87.3% (95%CI: 77.9-93.8, n = 83) for Immuno-Rapid COVID-19 Ag test. Sensitivity for both Ag-RDT was lower than reported by manufacturers. In the stratified analysis, sensitivity was higher among those with lower CT values <24. Specificity was high for both rapid antigen tests. Both Ag-RDT showed to be useful for rapid diagnostic of potential cases of COVID-19. Negative results must be assessed carefully according to clinical and epidemiological information.

The sensitivity and specificity of Abbott Panbio™ COVID 19 Ag Rapid test in the context of four SARS-CoV-2 variants

Rapid antigen tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 are commonly used for the diagnosis of Covid-19. Previously published data showed a wide range of sensitivity and specificity of RATs, but these studies were performed on relatively small numbers of samples and using only limited numbers of virus variants. The aim of the study was to evaluate the main parameters of a commonly used RAT for 4 different virus variants in comparison with PCR. Material and methodsA set of 2874 samples obtained from Covid-19 patients were examined both by PCR and RAT. Two commercial PCR kits (Generi Biotech, Diana Biotechnologies) and one RAT – Abbott Panbio™ COVID 19 Ag Rapid – were compared for their sensitivity and specificity in samples positive for one of the four different SARS-CoV-2 variants – B.1.258 (n = 496), Alpha (n = 645), Delta/Delta+ (n = 687), and Omicron (n = 1046). ResultsThe sensitivity of Panbio™ COVID19 Ag Rapid test varied from 80.0 % in Omicron to 88.92 % in Alpha variants. The specificities of the RAT for all variants reached above 93 %. Statistically significant differences were found between the results from RAT assay in select virus variants. In addition, significantly higher sensitivity (p < 0.05) was detected in samples with higher viral loads than in those with lower. ConclusionDespite the different sensitivity and specificity of Panbio™ COVID19 Ag Rapid test (Abbott ®) for different SARS-CoV-2 variants, this test sensitivity was proven to be always above the 80 % suggested by WHO, which makes it suitable for common use, regardless of the virus variability.

Evaluation of Multiplex Rapid Antigen Tests for the Simultaneous Detection of SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza A/B Viruses.

Single-target rapid antigen tests (RATs) are commonly used to detect highly transmissible respiratory viruses (RVs), such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and influenza viruses. The simultaneous detection of RVs presenting overlapping symptoms is vital in making appropriate decisions about treatment, isolation, and resource utilization; however, few studies have evaluated multiplex RATs for SARS-CoV-2 and other RVs. We assessed the diagnostic performance of multiplex RATs targeting both the SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B viruses with the GenBody Influenza/COVID-19 Ag Triple, InstaView COVID-19/Flu Ag Combo (InstaView), STANDARDTM Q COVID-19 Ag Test, and STANDARDTM Q Influenza A/B Test kits using 974 nasopharyngeal swab samples. The cycle threshold values obtained from the real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction results showed higher sensitivity (72.7-100%) when the values were below, rather than above, the cut-off values. The InstaView kit exhibited significantly higher positivity rates (80.21% for SARS-CoV-2, 61.75% for influenza A, and 46.15% for influenza B) and cut-off values (25.57 for SARS-CoV-2, 21.19 for influenza A, and 22.35 for influenza B) than the other two kits, and was able to detect SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariants. Therefore, the InstaView kit is the best choice for routine screening for both SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B in local communities.

Rapid antigen test as a screening tool for SARS-CoV-2 infection: Head-to-head comparison with qRT-PCR in Ethiopia

ObjectiveThis study aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the antigen rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) as a screening tool for SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to Quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). MethodsThis study was conducted at six referral hospitals in Oromia Region, Ethiopia. One thousand seven hundred twenty-one patients who visited the hospitals for various medical conditions were tested with qRT-PCR and/or Ag-RDTs. Qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen was performed using the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag rapid test device. ResultsCompared with qRT-PCR, Ag-RDTs had a sensitivity of 33.3 % (95%CI: 30.9%–35.9 %) and a specificity of 99.3 % (95%CI: 98.8%–99.7 %) to detect active SARS-CoV-2 infection. The area under the receiver operator curve was 0.67 (95%CI: 0.63–0.69). The sensitivity of Ag-RDTs appeared high in patients with shortness of breath (73.3 %) and those presenting with all three symptoms – fever, cough, and dyspnea (71.4 %). In all instances, specificity was more than 98 %. The Ag-RDT positivity rate also correlated well with viral load: 51.7 % in cases with cycle threshold (Ct) < 25 (high viral load) and only 3.4 % when Ct > 25 (low viral load). ConclusionAlthough Ag-RDT for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 is a good option as a point-of-care screening tool, it has a low sensitivity to detect active infections. Using Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid test for diagnostic and treatment decisions may lead to a false negative, resulting in patient misdiagnosis, ultimately contributing to disease spread and poor patient outcome.

A single-center experience on long-term clinical performance of a rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection Test, STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test

The COVID-19 pandemic in Korea has dynamically changed with the occurrence of more easily transmissible variants. A rapid and reliable diagnostic tool for detection of SARS-CoV-2 is needed. While RT-PCR is currently the gold standard for detecting SARS-CoV-2, the procedure is time-consuming and requires expert technicians. The rapid antigen detection test (RADT) was approved as a confirmatory test on 14 March 2022 due to rapid dissemination of the Omicron variant. The benefits of the RADT are speed, simplicity, and point-of-care feasibility. The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical performance of RADT compared to RT-PCR in a single center over 15 months, fully covering the SARS-CoV-2 ‘Variants of Concern (VOC).’ A total of 14,194 cases was simultaneously tested by RT-PCR and RADT from January 2021 to March 2022 in Gangnam Severance Hospital and were retrospectively reviewed. PowerChek SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A&B Multiplex Real-time PCR Kit, and STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test were used. Positive rates, sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values (PPV), and negative predictive values (NPV) were estimated for five periods (3 months/period). Receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was performed, and Spearman’s rank test assessed the correlation between RT-PCR Ct values and semi-quantitative RADT results. The overall positive rate of RT-PCR was 4.64%. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 0.577 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.539–0.614] and 0.991 [95% CI 0.989–0.993], respectively. ROC analysis resulted in an area under the curve of 0.786 (P < 0.0001, Yuden’s index = 0.568). The PCR positive rates were estimated as 0.11%, 0.71%, 4.51%, 2.02%, and 13.72%, and PPV was estimated as 0.045, 0.421, 0.951, 0.720, and 0.798 in Periods 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. A significant and moderate negative correlation between PCR Ct values and semi-quantitative RADT results was observed (Spearman’s ρ = − 0.646, P < 0.0001). The RADT exhibited good performance in specimens with low Ct values (Ct ≤ 25.00) by RT-PCR. The PPV was significantly higher in Periods 3 and 5, which corresponds to rapid dissemination of the Delta and Omicron variants. The high PPV implies that individuals with a positive RADT result are very likely infected with SARS-CoV-2 and would require prompt quarantine rather than additional RT-PCR testing. The sensitivity of 0.577 indicates that RADT should not replace RT-PCR. Nonetheless, given the high PPV and the ability to track infected persons through rapid results, our findings suggest that RADT could play a significant role in control strategies for further SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Impact of Omicron variant sublineage BA.2.75 on the OnSite COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test: the applicability of rapid antigen test with universal transport media

Background Rapid antigen testing (RAT) is one of the most powerful tools for SARS-CoV-2 detection. The OnSite COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test is an antigen-based, point-of-care test approved by the WHO for Emergency Use Listing. The Nucleocapsid (N) gene mutations found in the emerging Omicron sublineages lead to the question of RAT performance. Objective To ensure the diagnostic performance of the study RAT during rapidly mutated Omicron variants. Results We independently evaluated the performance of this assay in 1098 archived samples collected in Thailand during October 2022–February 2023, which were 798 and 300 COVID-19 real-time RT-PCR positive and negative, respectively. The assay performed with 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity using a cycle threshold (Ct) of <20 for the RT-PCR. The sensitivity decreased to 88% when using Ct <30. Most of the SARS-CoV-2 found were Omicron BA.2 (99%), harboring six known N mutations (P13L, E31del, S33del, R203K, G204R and S413R). Eight samples containing hybrid variants (XBB.1*, XBB.2 and XBJ) were detected by the study RAT. This RAT detects all Omicron sublineages known to be circulating in Thailand. Conclusions These results confirmed the good performance of the study RAT for detecting Omicron variants and its appropriateness for individual diagnosis and for genomic surveillance.

The diversification of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants and evaluation of their detection with molecular and rapid antigen assays.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic saw the rapid rise, global spread, and diversification of the omicron variant in 2022. Given the overwhelming dominance of this variant globally and its diverse lineages, there is an urgent need to ensure that diagnostic assays are capable of detecting widely circulating omicron sub-lineages. Remnant clinical VTM samples from SARS-CoV-2 PCR confirmed infections (n=733) collected in Wisconsin (n=94), New York (n=267), and South Carolina (n=372) throughout 2022 were sequenced, classified, and tested with m2000 RealTime SARS-CoV-2, Alinity m SARS-CoV-2, ID NOW COVID-19 v2.0, BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card, and Panbio COVID-19 Rapid Test Device assays. Sequences and lineage classifications were obtained for n=641/733 (87.4%) samples and included delta (n=6) and representatives from all major SARS-CoV-2 omicron variants circulating in 2022 (BA.1, BA.2, BA.3, BA.4, BA.5, BE, BF, BQ.1, and XBB). Panels of diverse omicron lineages were tested by molecular assays RealTime (n=624), Alinity m (n=80), and ID NOW v2.0 (n=88) with results showing 100% detection for all samples. BinaxNOW and Panbio had sensitivities of 494/533 (92.7%) and 416/469 (88.7%), respectively for specimens with >4 log10 copies/test, consistent with expected performance for frozen specimens. Furthermore, BinaxNOW demonstrated SARS-CoV-2 detection in clinical samples 1-4 days, and up to 18 days post-symptom onset in BA.1 infected patients with >4 log10 copies/test. This data highlights the rise and diversification of SARS-CoV-2 omicron variants over the course of 2022 and demonstrate that each of the 5 tested assays can detect the breadth of omicron variants circulating globally.

Clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic test using SERS-based lateral flow immunoassay

Background‘ACROSIS COVID-19 Ag (NPS)’ kit (SG Medical, Seoul, Korea) is a newly developed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen-detection rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) using surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS)-based lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA). We evaluated its clinical performance compared with STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag (SD Biosensor, Suwon, Korea), a previously approved Ag-RDT. MethodsA total of 286 nasopharyngeal swab specimens were collected: 104 positive and 182 negative specimens in SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse-transcription polymerase-chain-reaction (rRT-PCR). SARS-CoV-2-positive specimens were divided according to the cycle threshold (Ct) value in rRT-PCR. The clinical performance of ACROSIS was compared with that of STANDARD Q. ResultsACROSIS showed significantly higher sensitivity than STANDARD Q (92.3% vs. 85.6%, P = 0.02), especially in specimens with 25 ≤ Ct < 30 (78.6% vs. 42.9%). The Ct values of RdRp/S genes for 95% detection rates by ACROSIS and STANDARD Q were 25.8 and 23.0, respectively. ConclusionsThis is the first study that evaluated the performance of ACROSIS compared with STANDARD Q. The overall clinical performance of ACROSIS was superior to that of STANDARD Q, especially in specimens with 25 ≤ Ct < 30. ACROSIS could be useful for SARS-CoV-2 Ag detection even in relatively low viral load specimens.

Performance of rapid antigen tests in identifying Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 infections in South Africa.

Concerns around accuracy and performance of rapid antigen tests continue to be raised with the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants. To evaluate the performance of two widely used SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests during BA.4/BA.5 SARS-CoV-2 wave in South Africa (May - June 2022). A prospective field evaluation compared the SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid test from Hangzhou AllTest Biotech (nasal swab) and the Standard Q COVID-19 Rapid Antigen test from SD Biosensor (nasopharyngeal swab) to the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay (nasopharyngeal swab) on samples collected from 540 study participants. Overall 28.52% (154/540) were SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive with median cycle number value of 12.30 (IQR 9.30-19.40). Out of the 99 successfully sequenced SARS-CoV-2 positive samples, 18 were classified as BA.4 and 56 were classified as BA.5. The overall sensitivities of the AllTest SARS-CoV-2 Ag test and Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test were 73.38% (95% CI 65.89-79.73) and 74.03% (95% CI 66.58-80.31) and their specificities were 97.41% (95% CI 95.30-98.59) and 99.22% (95% CI 97.74-99.74) respectively. Sensitivity was >90% when the cycle number value was <20. The sensitivity of both rapid tests was >90% in samples infected with Omicron sub-lineage BA.4 and BA.5. Accuracy of tested rapid antigen tests that target the nucleocapsid SARS-CoV-2 protein, were not adversely affected by BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron sub-variants.

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF RAPID SARS COV 2 ANTIGEN DETECTION TEST &amp; REAL TIME PCR TEST FOR DIAGNOSIS OF COVID-19 IN TERTIARY CARE INSTITUTE AT KOTA, SOUTH-EAST RAJASTHAN, INDIA

Background:The 2019 (Covid19) pandemic of coronavirus disease was caused by SARS Cov 2 Virus. The emergence of the disease was started from the Wuhan city of China in December 20191. This infection causes asymptomatic and mild diseases more than severe pneumonia. A Rapid Lateral flow immunoassays using monoclonal anti-SARS CoV- 2 antibodies, targeting SARS-CoV-2 antigens, can be used as complementary screening tests if their accuracy comes comparable to that of gold standard real-time RT-PCR assays. Objective:The present study has been conducted retrospectively on the data of patients who underwent for Covid 19 diagnosis by RAT at the Microbiology Department Central Laboratory, Maharao Bhim Singh Hospital Nayapura Kota. Material and Method: Respiratory samples from suspected 5219 COVID-19 patients, mainly nasopharyngeal and throat swabs were collected. COVID-19 Ag Confirmit™ kit (Alpine biomedicals) is a rapidchromatographic immunoassay for the detection ofSARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein (N) antigen in respiratoryspecimens. Multiplex Real-time RT-PCR kit (TRIVITRON healthcare) was used, whichtargets envelope gene (E), and Orf1ab gene of SARS-CoV-2 genome and RPP30 Human gene as internal control, was used for SARS-CoV-2RNA detection. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the usefulness of rapid diagnostic tests. For that online MedCalcs Diagnostic test evaluation statistical tool10. Result: Among all 5219 samples (n=5219) tested by RT-PCR 785 (15.4%) samples were positive and 4434 (84.95%) were negative. Samples tested by RAT 813 (15.57%) samples were positive &amp; 4406 (84.42%) were negative, in our study we found discordant results in 36 samples. The sensitivity and specificity of the COVID-19 Ag Confirmit™ kit (Alpine biomedicals) were 99.49% and 99.28% respectively. Discussion: Out of 785 RT-PCR-positive samples in our study, the 4 false negative results were tested for SARS-CoV-2 antigen seven days after disease onset. The RT-PCR result of these samples had relatively high Ct-values. Without the present population prevalence of COVID-19, the positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) of the assay could not be accurately calculated. Conclusions: There is comparable Sensitivity and Specificity between Rapid assay for SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection (COVID-19 Ag Confirmit™ kit) and real-time RT-PCR assay.

COVID-19 self-testing using antigen rapid diagnostic tests: Feasibility evaluation among health-care workers and general population in Malawi.

COVID-19 testing is critical for identifying cases to prevent transmission. COVID-19 self-testing has the potential to increase diagnostic testing capacity and to expand access to hard-to-reach areas in low-and-middle-income countries. We investigated the feasibility and acceptability of COVID-19 self-sampling and self-testing using SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-Rapid Diagnostic Tests (Ag-RDTs). From July 2021 to February 2022, we conducted a mixed-methods cross-sectional study examining self-sampling and self-testing using Standard Q and Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device in Urban and rural Blantyre, Malawi. Health care workers and adults (18y+) in the general population were non-randomly sampled. Overall, 1,330 participants were enrolled of whom 674 (56.0%) were female and 656 (54.0%) were male with 664 for self-sampling and 666 for self-testing. Mean age was 30.7y (standard deviation [SD] 9.6). Self-sampling usability threshold for Standard Q was 273/333 (82.0%: 95% CI 77.4% to 86.0%) and 261/331 (78.8%: 95% CI 74.1% to 83.1%) for Panbio. Self-testing threshold was 276/335 (82.4%: 95% CI 77.9% to 86.3%) and 300/332 (90.4%: 95% CI 86.7% to 93.3%) for Standard Q and Panbio, respectively. Agreement between self-sample results and professional test results was 325/325 (100%) and 322/322 (100%) for Standard Q and Panbio, respectively. For self-testing, agreement was 332/333 (99.7%: 95% CI 98.3 to 100%) for Standard Q and 330/330 (100%: 95% CI 99.8 to 100%) for Panbio. Odds of achieving self-sampling threshold increased if the participant was recruited from an urban site (odds ratio [OR] 2.15 95% CI 1.44 to 3.23, P < .01. Compared to participants with primary school education those with secondary and tertiary achieved higher self-testing threshold OR 1.88 (95% CI 1.17 to 3.01), P = .01 and 4.05 (95% CI 1.20 to13.63), P = .02, respectively. One of the first studies to demonstrate high feasibility and acceptability of self-testing using SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs among general and health-care worker populations in low- and middle-income countries potentially supporting large scale-up. Further research is warranted to provide optimal delivery strategies of self-testing.