Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection would be a useful tool to help manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Testing strategies that use rapid antigen tests to detect current infection have the potential to increase access to testing, speed detection of infection, and inform clinical and public health management decisions to reduce transmission. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020.To assess the diagnostic accuracy of rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included setting and indication for testing, assay format, sample site, viral load, age, timing of test, and study design.We searched the COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) on 08 March 2021. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions.We included studies of people with either suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, known SARS-CoV-2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen tests. We included evaluations of single applications of a test (one test result reported per person) and evaluations of serial testing (repeated antigen testing over time). Reference standards for presence or absence of infection were any laboratory-based molecular test (primarily reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)) or pre-pandemic respiratory sample.We used standard screening procedures with three people. Two people independently carried out quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and extracted study results. Other study characteristics were extracted by one review author and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test, and pooled data using the bivariate model. We investigated heterogeneity by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status.We included 155 study cohorts (described in 166 study reports, with 24 as preprints). The main results relate to 152 evaluations of single test applications including 100,462 unique samples (16,822 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly conducted in Europe (101/152, 66%), and evaluated 49 different commercial antigen assays. Only 23 studies compared two or more brands of test. Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (40, 26%); interpretation of the index test (6, 4%); weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection (119, 78%); and participant flow and timing 41 (27%). Characteristics of participants (45, 30%) and index test delivery (47, 31%) differed from the way in which and in whom the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (91%) used a single RT-PCR result to define presence or absence of infection. The 152 studies of single test applications reported 228 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies, with consistently high specificities. Average sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (73.0%, 95% CI 69.3% to 76.4%; 109 evaluations; 50,574 samples, 11,662 cases) compared to asymptomatic participants (54.7%, 95% CI 47.7% to 61.6%; 50 evaluations; 40,956 samples, 2641 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (80.9%, 95% CI 76.9% to 84.4%; 30 evaluations, 2408 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (53.8%, 95% CI 48.0% to 59.6%; 40 evaluations, 1119 cases). For those who were asymptomatic at the time of testing, sensitivity was higher when an epidemiological exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was suspected (64.3%, 95% CI 54.6% to 73.0%; 16 evaluations; 7677 samples, 703 cases) compared to where COVID-19 testing was reported to be widely available to anyone on presentation for testing (49.6%, 95% CI 42.1% to 57.1%; 26 evaluations; 31,904 samples, 1758 cases). Average specificity was similarly high for symptomatic (99.1%) or asymptomatic (99.7%) participants. We observed a steady decline in summary sensitivities as measures of sample viral load decreased. Sensitivity varied between brands. When tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, average sensitivities by brand ranged from 34.3% to 91.3% in symptomatic participants (20 assays with eligible data) and from 28.6% to 77.8% for asymptomatic participants (12 assays). For symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities for seven assays were 80% or more (meeting acceptable criteria set by the World Health Organization (WHO)). The WHO acceptable performance criterion of 97% specificity was met by 17 of 20 assays when tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, 12 of which demonstrated specificities above 99%. For asymptomatic participants the sensitivities of only two assays approached but did not meet WHO acceptable performance standards in one study each; specificities for asymptomatic participants were in a similar range to those observed for symptomatic people. At 5% prevalence using summary data in symptomatic people during the first week after symptom onset, the positive predictive value (PPV) of 89% means that 1 in 10 positive results will be a false positive, and around 1 in 5 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence using summary data for asymptomatic people, where testing was widely available and where epidemiological exposure to COVID-19 was suspected, resulting PPVs would be 38% to 52%, meaning that between 2 in 5 and 1 in 2 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed.Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. Assays that meet appropriate performance standards, such as those set by WHO, could replace laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. However, they are more suitable for use as triage to RT-PCR testing. The variable sensitivity of antigen tests means that people who test negative may still be infected. Many commercially available rapid antigen tests have not been evaluated in independent validation studies. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts has increased, however sensitivity is lower and there is a paucity of evidence for testing in different settings. Questions remain about the use of antigen test-based repeat testing strategies. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of screening programmes at reducing transmission of infection, whether mass screening or targeted approaches including schools, healthcare setting and traveller screening. 

Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection

Monkeypox was declared a public health emergency of international concern by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 23 July 2022. Between 1 January and 23 July 2022, 16,016 laboratory confirmed cases of monkeypox and five deaths were reported to WHO from 75 countries on all continents. Public health authorities are proactively identifying cases and tracing their contacts to contain its spread. As with COVID-19, PCR is the only method capable of being deployed at sufficient speed to provide timely feedback on any public health interventions. However, at this point, there is little information on how those PCR assays are being standardised between laboratories. A likely reason is that testing is still limited on a global scale and that detection, not quantification, of monkeypox virus DNA is the main clinical requirement. Yet we should not be complacent about PCR performance. As testing requirements increase rapidly and specimens become more diverse, it would be prudent to ensure PCR accuracy from the outset to support harmonisation and ease regulatory conformance. Lessons from COVID-19 should aid implementation with appropriate material, documentary and methodological standards offering dynamic mechanisms to ensure testing that most accurately guides public health decisions. 

/pdf/monkeypox-another-test-for-pcr-385dwtsg.pdf

Monkeypox: another test for PCR

An important aspect of vaccine effectiveness is its impact on pathogen transmissibility, harboring major implications for public health policies. As viral load is a prominent factor affecting infectivity, its laboratory surrogate, qRT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct), can be used to investigate the infectivity-related component of vaccine effectiveness. While vaccine waning has previously been observed for viral load during the Delta wave, less is known regarding how Omicron viral load is affected by vaccination status, and whether vaccine-derived and natural infection protection are sustained. By analyzing results of more than 460,000 individuals, we show that while recent vaccination reduces Omicron viral load, its effect wanes rapidly. In contrast, a significantly slower waning rate is demonstrated for recovered COVID-19 individuals. Thus, while the vaccine is effective in decreasing morbidity and mortality, its relatively small effect on transmissibility of Omicron (as measured here by Ct) and its rapid waning call for reassessment of future booster campaigns. 

/pdf/viral-load-dynamics-of-sars-cov-2-delta-and-omicron-variants-150gu9s5.pdf

Viral load dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron variants following multiple vaccine doses and previous infection

The emergence of new SARS-COV-2 variants is of public health concern in case of vaccine escape. Described are three patients with advanced HIV-1 and chronic SARS-CoV-2 infection in whom there is evidence of selection and persistence of novel mutations which are associated with increased transmissibility and immune escape.

/pdf/generation-of-novel-sars-cov-2-variants-on-b-1-1-7-lineage-kqc52509.pdf

Generation of novel SARS-CoV-2 variants on B.1.1.7 lineage in three patients with advanced HIV disease

Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine and the Korea Disease Prevention and Control Agency have announced guidelines for diagnosing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in clinical laboratories in Korea. With the ongoing pandemic, we propose an update of the previous guidelines based on new scientific data. This update includes recommendations for tests that were not included in the previous guidelines, including the rapid molecular test, antigen test, antibody test, and self-collected specimens, and a revision of the previous recommendations. This update will aid clinical laboratories in performing laboratory tests for diagnosing COVID-19.

https://www.annlabmed.org/journal/download_pdf.php?doi=10.3343/alm.2022.42.4.391

Update of Guidelines for Laboratory Diagnosis of COVID-19 in Korea

Background SARS-CoV-2 RNA quantities, measured by reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR), have been proposed to stratify clinical risk or determine analytical performance targets. We investigated reproducibility and how setting diagnostic cut-offs altered the clinical sensitivity of COVID-19 testing. Methods Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 RNA distributions (Cq and copies/mL) from more than 6000 patients from three clinical laboratories in UK, Belgium and the Republic of Korea were analyzed. Impact of Cq cut-offs on clinical sensitivity was assessed. The June/July 2020 INSTAND EQA scheme SARS-CoV-2 materials were used to estimate laboratory reported copies/mL and to estimate the variation in copies/mL for a given Cq. Results When the WHO suggested Cq cut-off of 25 was applied, the clinical sensitivity dropped to as little as about 16%. Clinical sensitivity also dropped to as little as about 27% when a simulated LOD of 106 copies/mL was applied. The inter-laboratory variation for a given Cq value was >1000 fold in copies/mL (99% CI). Conclusion While RT-qPCR has been instrumental in the response to COVID-19, we recommend Cq (Ct or Cp) values not be used to set clinical cut-offs, or diagnostic performance targets, due to poor inter-laboratory reproducibility; calibrated copy-based units (used elsewhere in virology) offer more reproducible alternatives. We also report a phenomenon where diagnostic performance may change relative to the effective reproduction number (R). Our findings indicate that the disparities between patient populations across time are an important consideration when evaluating or deploying diagnostic tests. This is especially relevant to the emergency situation of an evolving pandemic.

The dangers of using Cq to quantify nucleic acid in biological samples; a lesson from COVID-19.

Reverse transcriptase quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) is the main diagnostic assay used to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA in respiratory samples. RT-qPCR is performed by specifically targeting the viral genome using complementary oligonucleotides called primers and probes. This approach relies on prior knowledge of the genetic sequence of the target. Viral genetic variants with changes to the primer/probe binding region may reduce the performance of PCR assays and have the potential to cause assay failure. In this work we demonstrate how two single nucleotide variants (SNVs) altered the amplification curve of a diagnostic PCR targeting the Nucleocapsid (N) gene and illustrate how threshold setting can lead to false-negative results even where the variant sequence is amplified. We also describe how in silico analysis of SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences available in the COVID-19 Genomics UK Consortium (COG-UK) and GISAID databases was performed to predict the impact of sequence variation on the performance of 22 published PCR assays. The vast majority of published primer and probe sequences contain sequence mismatches with at least one SARS-CoV-2 lineage. We recommend that visual observation of amplification curves is included as part of laboratory quality procedures, even in high throughput settings where thresholds are set automatically and that in silico analysis is used to monitor the potential impact of new variants on established assays. Ideally comprehensive in silico analysis should be applied to guide selection of highly conserved genomic regions to target with future SARS-CoV-2 PCR assays.

Nathaniel Storey

Papers

The dangers of using Cq to quantify nucleic acid in biological samples; a lesson from COVID-19.

Single base mutations in the nucleocapsid gene of SARS-CoV-2 affects amplification efficiency of sequence variants and may lead to assay failure