Search

Background There are conflicting reports on the performance of rapid antigen detection tests (RDT) in the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant; however, these tests continue to be used frequently to detect potentially contagious individuals with high viral loads. Aim The aim of this study was to investigate comparative detection of the Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron variants by using a selection of 20 RDT and a limited panel of pooled combined oro- and nasopharyngeal clinical Delta and Omicron specimens. Methods We tested 20 CE-marked RDT for their performance to detect SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron by using a panel of pooled clinical specimens collected in January 2022 in Berlin, Germany. Results We observed equivalent detection performance for Delta and Omicron for most RDT, and sensitivity was widely in line with our previous pre-Delta/Omicron evaluation. Some variation for individual RDT was observed either for Delta vs Omicron detection, or when compared with the previous evaluation, which may be explained both by different panel sizes resulting in different data robustness and potential limitation of batch-to-batch consistency. Additional experiments with three RDT using non-pooled routine clinical samples confirmed comparable performance to detect Delta vs Omicron. Overall, RDT that were previously positively evaluated retained good performance also for Delta and Omicron variants. Conclusion Our findings suggest that currently available RDT are sufficient for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron variants.

The online workshop on IVD regulation was performed to broaden the understanding of the technical documentation needed for IVD licensing and the strategies to asses it.Testing of blood donors and donations significantly reduces the risk of transmitting transfusion-transmissible infections. Many test systems are commercially available, but not all meet the recommended sensitivity and specificity standards. Many African countries either lack functional structures for the regulation of IVDs this poses a threat to the quality of the blood supply.The Paul-Ehrlich-Institut BloodTrain organised an online workshop in September 2021 to introduce staff from several National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) in Africa to the regulation of IVD and the technical information that need to be provided by the manufacturers of blood screening IVD. Their evaluation was trained in practical exercises.This online workshop brought together over hundred participants from NRAs of 12 African countries. Speakers from PEI, Blood Train, WHO and academia, with experience in IVD regulation trained participants in the various topics addressed during this workshop.This workshop presented a great starting point for most participating NRAs to set up and/or strengthen their regulatory structures for IVDs.

Introduction The detection of SARS-CoV-2 with rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) has become an important tool to identify infected people and break infection chains. These RDT are usually based on antigen detection in a lateral flow approach. Aim We aimed to establish a comprehensive specimen panel for the decentralised technical evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests. Methods While for PCR diagnostics the validation of a PCR assay is well established, there is no common validation strategy for antigen tests, including RDT. In this proof-of-principle study we present the establishment of a panel of 50 pooled clinical specimens that cover a SARS-CoV-2 concentration range from 1.1 × 109 to 420 genome copies per mL of specimen. The panel was used to evaluate 31 RDT in up to six laboratories. Results Our results show that there is considerable variation in the detection limits and the clinical sensitivity of different RDT. We show that the best RDT can be applied to reliably identify infectious individuals who present with SARS-CoV-2 loads down to 106 genome copies per mL of specimen. For the identification of infected individuals with SARS-CoV-2 loads corresponding to less than 106 genome copies per mL, only three RDT showed a clinical sensitivity of more than 60%. Conclusions Sensitive RDT can be applied to identify infectious individuals with high viral loads but not to identify all infected individuals.