Background
Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection could contribute to clinical and public health strategies to manage the COVID‐19 pandemic. Point‐of‐care antigen and molecular tests to detect current infection could increase access to testing and early confirmation of cases, and expediate clinical and public health management decisions that may reduce transmission.

Objectives
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point‐of‐care antigen and molecular‐based tests for diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups.

Search methods
Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register and the COVID‐19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 30 Sept 2020. We checked repositories of COVID‐19 publications and included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics and the Diagnostics Global Health website to 16 Nov 2020. We did not apply language restrictions.

Selection criteria
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 or molecular tests suitable for a point‐of‐care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards that define the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) tests and established diagnostic criteria).

Data collection and analysis
Studies were screened independently in duplicate with disagreements resolved by discussion with a third author. Study characteristics were extracted by one author and checked by a second; extraction of study results and assessments of risk of bias and applicability (made using the QUADAS‐2 tool) were undertaken independently in duplicate. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and pooled data using the bivariate model separately for antigen and molecular‐based tests. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status.

Main results
Seventy‐eight study cohorts were included (described in 64 study reports, including 20 pre‐prints), reporting results for 24,087 samples (7,415 with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2). Studies were mainly from Europe (n = 39) or North America (n = 20), and evaluated 16 antigen and five molecular assays.

We considered risk of bias to be high in 29 (37%) studies because of participant selection; in 66 (85%) because of weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection; and in 29 (37%) for participant flow and timing. Studies of antigen tests were of a higher methodological quality compared to studies of molecular tests, particularly regarding the risk of bias for participant selection and the index test. Characteristics of participants in 35 (45%) studies differed from those in whom the test was intended to be used and the delivery of the index test in 39 (50%) studies differed from the way in which the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (97%) defined the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 based on a single RT‐PCR result, and none included participants meeting case definitions for probable COVID‐19.

Antigen tests

Forty‐eight studies reported 58 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies. There were differences between symptomatic (72.0%, 95% CI 63.7% to 79.0%; 37 evaluations; 15530 samples, 4410 cases) and asymptomatic participants (58.1%, 95% CI 40.2% to 74.1%; 12 evaluations; 1581 samples, 295 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (78.3%, 95% CI 71.1% to 84.1%; 26 evaluations; 5769 samples, 2320 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (51.0%, 95% CI 40.8% to 61.0%; 22 evaluations; 935 samples, 692 cases). Sensitivity was high in those with cycle threshold (Ct) values on PCR ≤25 (94.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 96.7%; 36 evaluations; 2613 cases) compared to those with Ct values >25 (40.7%, 95% CI 31.8% to 50.3%; 36 evaluations; 2632 cases). Sensitivity varied between brands. Using data from instructions for use (IFU) compliant evaluations in symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities ranged from 34.1% (95% CI 29.7% to 38.8%; Coris Bioconcept) to 88.1% (95% CI 84.2% to 91.1%; SD Biosensor STANDARD Q). Average specificities were high in symptomatic and asymptomatic participants, and for most brands (overall summary specificity 99.6%, 95% CI 99.0% to 99.8%).

At 5% prevalence using data for the most sensitive assays in symptomatic people (SD Biosensor STANDARD Q and Abbott Panbio), positive predictive values (PPVs) of 84% to 90% mean that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 6 positive results will be a false positive, and between 1 in 4 and 1 in 8 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence applying the same tests in asymptomatic people would result in PPVs of 11% to 28% meaning that between 7 in 10 and 9 in 10 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed.

No studies assessed the accuracy of repeated lateral flow testing or self‐testing.

Rapid molecular assays

Thirty studies reported 33 evaluations of five different rapid molecular tests. Sensitivities varied according to test brand. Most of the data relate to the ID NOW and Xpert Xpress assays. Using data from evaluations following the manufacturer’s instructions for use, the average sensitivity of ID NOW was 73.0% (95% CI 66.8% to 78.4%) and average specificity 99.7% (95% CI 98.7% to 99.9%; 4 evaluations; 812 samples, 222 cases). For Xpert Xpress, the average sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 88.1% to 100%) and average specificity 97.2% (95% CI 89.4% to 99.3%; 2 evaluations; 100 samples, 29 cases). Insufficient data were available to investigate the effect of symptom status or time after symptom onset.

Authors' conclusions
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. The assays shown to meet appropriate criteria, such as WHO's priority target product profiles for COVID‐19 diagnostics (‘acceptable’ sensitivity ≥ 80% and specificity ≥ 97%), can be considered as a replacement for laboratory‐based RT‐PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT‐PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. Positive predictive values suggest that confirmatory testing of those with positive results may be considered in low prevalence settings. Due to the variable sensitivity of antigen tests, people who test negative may still be infected.

Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts was limited. Test accuracy studies cannot adequately assess the ability of antigen tests to differentiate those who are infectious and require isolation from those who pose no risk, as there is no reference standard for infectiousness. A small number of molecular tests showed high accuracy and may be suitable alternatives to RT‐PCR. However, further evaluations of the tests in settings as they are intended to be used are required to fully establish performance in practice.

Several important studies in asymptomatic individuals have been reported since the close of our search and will be incorporated at the next update of this review. Comparative studies of antigen tests in their intended use settings and according to test operator (including self‐testing) are required.

/pdf/rapid-point-of-care-antigen-and-molecular-based-tests-for-2a2qjx1fq9.pdf

Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

https://escholarship.org/content/qt1k5378ws/qt1k5378ws.pdf?t=qnu6z3

Amplification-free detection of SARS-CoV-2 with CRISPR-Cas13a and mobile phone microscopy.

Nucleic acid detection by isothermal amplification and the collateral cleavage of reporter molecules by CRISPR-associated enzymes is a promising alternative to quantitative PCR. Here, we report the clinical validation of the specific high-sensitivity enzymatic reporter unlocking (SHERLOCK) assay using the enzyme Cas13a from Leptotrichia wadei for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-in 154 nasopharyngeal and throat swab samples collected at Siriraj Hospital, Thailand. Within a detection limit of 42 RNA copies per reaction, SHERLOCK was 100% specific and 100% sensitive with a fluorescence readout, and 100% specific and 97% sensitive with a lateral-flow readout. For the full range of viral load in the clinical samples, the fluorescence readout was 100% specific and 96% sensitive. For 380 SARS-CoV-2-negative pre-operative samples from patients undergoing surgery, SHERLOCK was in 100% agreement with quantitative PCR with reverse transcription. The assay, which we show is amenable to multiplexed detection in a single lateral-flow strip incorporating an internal control for ribonuclease contamination, should facilitate SARS-CoV-2 detection in settings with limited resources.

/pdf/clinical-validation-of-a-cas13-based-assay-for-the-detection-eqdh6iazr2.pdf

Clinical validation of a Cas13-based assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA.

The accurate and timely diagnosis of disease is a prerequisite for efficient therapeutic intervention and epidemiological surveillance. Diagnostics based on the detection of nucleic acids are among the most sensitive and specific, yet most such assays require costly equipment and trained personnel. Recent developments in diagnostic technologies, in particular those leveraging clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR), aim to enable accurate testing at home, at the point of care and in the field. In this Review, we provide a rundown of the rapidly expanding toolbox for CRISPR-based diagnostics, in particular the various assays, preamplification strategies and readouts, and highlight their main applications in the sensing of a wide range of molecular targets relevant to human health.

/pdf/crispr-based-diagnostics-4r70xy687r.pdf

CRISPR-based diagnostics.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted that new diagnostic technologies are essential for controlling disease transmission. Here, we develop SHINE (Streamlined Highlighting of Infections to Navigate Epidemics), a sensitive and specific diagnostic tool that can detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA from unextracted samples. We identify the optimal conditions to allow RPA-based amplification and Cas13-based detection to occur in a single step, simplifying assay preparation and reducing run-time. We improve HUDSON to rapidly inactivate viruses in nasopharyngeal swabs and saliva in 10 min. SHINE’s results can be visualized with an in-tube fluorescent readout — reducing contamination risk as amplification reaction tubes remain sealed — and interpreted by a companion smartphone application. We validate SHINE on 50 nasopharyngeal patient samples, demonstrating 90% sensitivity and 100% specificity compared to RT-qPCR with a sample-to-answer time of 50 min. SHINE has the potential to be used outside of hospitals and clinical laboratories, greatly enhancing diagnostic capabilities. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for user-friendly diagnostic techniques. Here, the authors present SHINE, a streamlined and optimised Cas13-based method with accompanying smartphone app for visual diagnosis.

/pdf/streamlined-inactivation-amplification-and-cas13-based-298ugoceoe.pdf

Streamlined inactivation, amplification, and Cas13-based detection of SARS-CoV-2

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 with a CRISPR-Based Test A new method for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 combines simplified extraction of RNA with isothermal amplification and CRISPR (clustered regularly int...

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMc2026172

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 with SHERLOCK One-Pot Testing.

The recent outbreak of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, can be diagnosed using RT-qPCR, but inadequate access to reagents and equipment has slowed disease detection and impeded efforts to mitigate viral spread. Alternative approaches based on combinations of isothermal amplification and CRISPR-mediated detection, such as the SHERLOCK ( S pecific H igh S ensitivity E nzymatic R eporter Un LOCK ing) technique, offer reduced dependence on RT-qPCR equipment, but previously reported methods required multiple fluid handling steps, complicating their deployment outside clinical labs. Here we developed a simple test chemistry called STOP (SHERLOCK Testing in One Pot) for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in one hour that is suitable for point-of-care use. This simplified test, STOPCovid, provides sensitivity comparable to RT-qPCR-based SARS-CoV-2 tests and has a limit of detection of 100 copies of viral genome input in saliva or nasopharyngeal swabs per reaction. Using lateral flow readout, the test returns result in 70 minutes, and using fluorescence readout, the test returns result in 40 minutes. Moreover, we validated STOPCovid using nasopharyngeal swabs from COVID-19 patients and were able to correctly diagnose 12 positive and 5 negative patients out of 3 replicates. We envision that implementation of STOPCovid will significantly aid "test-trace-isolate" efforts, especially in low-resource settings, which will be critical for long-term public health safety and effective reopening of the society.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/05/08/2020.05.04.20091231.full.pdf

Point-of-care testing for COVID-19 using SHERLOCK diagnostics

Cyber security has been difficult to quantify from the perspective of defenders. The effort to develop a cyber - attack with some ability, function, or consequence has not been rigorously investigated in Operational Technologies. This specification defines a testing structure that allows conformal and repeatable cyber testing on equipment. The purpose of the ETE is to prov ide data necessary to analy ze and reconstruct cyber - attack timelines, effects, and observables for training and development of Cyber Security Operation Centers. Standardizing the manner in which cyber security on equipment is investigated will allow a grea ter understanding of the progression of cyber - attacks and potential mitigation and detection strategies in a scientifically rigorous fashion. 

Robert Bruneau

Papers

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 with SHERLOCK One-Pot Testing.

Point-of-care testing for COVID-19 using SHERLOCK diagnostics

Equipment Testing Environment.