Search

Places of worship serve as a venue for both mass and routine gathering around the world, and therefore are associated with risk of large-scale SARS-CoV-2 transmission. However, such routine gatherings also offer an opportunity to distribute self-tests to members of the community to potentially help mitigate transmission and reduce broader community spread of SARS-CoV-2. Over the past four years, self-testing strategies have been an impactful tool for countries' response to the COVID-19 pandemic, especially early on to mitigate the spread when vaccination and treatment options were limited. We used an agent-based mathematical model to estimate the impact of various strategies of symptomatic and asymptomatic self-testing for a fixed percentage of weekly routine gatherings at places of worship on community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Brazil, Georgia, and Zambia. Testing strategies assessed included weekly and bi-weekly self-testing across varying levels of vaccine effectiveness, vaccine coverage, and reproductive numbers to simulate developing stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Self-testing symptomatic people attending routine gatherings can cost-effectively reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 within places of worship and the community, resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $69-$303 USD. This trend is especially true in contexts where population level attendance at such gatherings is high, demonstrating that a distribution approach is more impactful when a greater proportion of the population is reached. Asymptomatic self-testing of attendees at 100% of places of worship in a country results in the greatest percent of infections averted and is consistently cost-effective but remains costly. Budgetary needs for asymptomatic testing are expensive and likely unaffordable for lower-middle income countries (520-1550x greater than that of symptomatic testing alone), promoting that strategies to strengthen symptomatic testing should remain a higher priority., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results. The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the WHO., (Copyright: © 2024 Hansen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, antigen diagnostic tests were frequently used for screening, triage, and diagnosis. Novel instrument-based antigen tests (iAg tests) hold the promise of outperforming their instrument-free, visually-read counterparts. Here, we provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 iAg tests' clinical accuracy., Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, medRxiv, and bioRxiv for articles published before November 7th, 2022, evaluating the accuracy of iAg tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection. We performed a random effects meta-analysis to estimate sensitivity and specificity and used the QUADAS-2 tool to assess study quality and risk of bias. Sub-group analysis was conducted based on Ct value range, IFU-conformity, age, symptom presence and duration, and the variant of concern., Results: We screened the titles and abstracts of 20,431 articles and included 114 publications that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Additionally, we incorporated three articles sourced from the FIND website, totaling 117 studies encompassing 95,181 individuals, which evaluated the clinical accuracy of 24 commercial COVID-19 iAg tests. The studies varied in risk of bias but showed high applicability. Of 24 iAg tests from 99 studies assessed in the meta-analysis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity compared to molecular testing of a paired NP swab sample were 76.7% (95% CI 73.5 to 79.7) and 98.4% (95% CI 98.0 to 98.7), respectively. Higher sensitivity was noted in individuals with high viral load (99.6% [95% CI 96.8 to 100] at Ct-level ≤ 20) and within the first week of symptom onset (84.6% [95% CI 78.2 to 89.3]), but did not differ between tests conducted as per manufacturer's instructions and those conducted differently, or between point-of-care and lab-based testing., Conclusion: Overall, iAg tests have a high pooled specificity but a moderate pooled sensitivity, according to our analysis. The pooled sensitivity increases with lower Ct-values (a proxy for viral load), or within the first week of symptom onset, enabling reliable identification of most COVID-19 cases and highlighting the importance of context in test selection. The study underscores the need for careful evaluation considering performance variations and operational features of iAg tests., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The widespread use of antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) has revolutionized SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) testing, particularly through the option of self-testing. The full extent of Ag-RDT utilization for self-testing, however, remains largely unexplored. To inform the development of WHO guidance on COVID-19 self-testing, we conducted a global consultation to gather the views and experiences of policy makers, researchers, and implementers worldwide. The consultation was conducted by disseminating a WHO questionnaire through professional networks via email and social media, encouraging onward sharing. We used a cross-sectional design with both closed and open-ended questions related to policy and program information concerning the regulation, availability, target population, indications, implementation, benefits, and challenges of COVID-19 self-testing (C19ST). We defined self-testing as tests performed and interpreted by an untrained individual, often at home. Descriptive summaries, cross-tabulations, and proportions were used to calculate outcomes at the global level and by WHO region and World Bank income classifications. All information was collated and reported according to WHO guideline development standards and practice for global consultations. Between 01 and 11 February 2022, 844 individuals from 139 countries responded to the survey, with 45% reporting affiliation with governments and 47% operating at the national level. 504 respondents from 101 countries reported policies supporting C19ST for a range of use cases, including symptomatic and asymptomatic populations. More respondents from low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs) than high-income countries (HICs) reported a lack of an C19ST policy (61 vs 11 countries) and low population-level reach of C19ST. Respondents with C19ST experience perceived that the tests were mostly acceptable to target populations, provided significant benefits, and highlighted several key challenges to be addressed for increased success. Reported costs varied widely, ranging from specific programmes enabling free access to certain users and others with high costs via the private sector. Based on this consultation, systems for the regulatory review, policy development and implementation of C19ST appeared to be much more common in HIC when compared to LIC in early 2022, though most respondents indicated self-testing was available to some extent (101 out of 139 countries) in their country. Addressing such global inequities is critical for ensuring access to innovative and impactful interventions in the context of a public health emergency of international concern. The challenges and opportunities highlighted by key stakeholders could be valuable to consider as future testing strategies are being set for outbreak-prone diseases., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Sakala et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Objectives: To determine the most epidemiologically effective and cost-effective school-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) self-testing strategies among teachers and students., Design: Mathematical modelling and economic evaluation., Setting and Participants: Simulated school and community populations were parameterised to Brazil, Georgia and Zambia, with SARS-CoV-2 self-testing strategies targeted to teachers and students in primary and secondary schools under varying epidemic conditions., Interventions: SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT self-testing strategies for only teachers or teachers and students-only symptomatically or symptomatically and asymptomatically at 5%, 10%, 40% or 100% of schools at varying frequencies., Outcome Measures: Outcomes were assessed in terms of total infections and symptomatic days among teachers and students, as well as total infections and deaths within the community under the intervention compared with baseline. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for infections prevented among teachers and students., Results: With respect to both the reduction in infections and total cost, symptomatic testing of all teachers and students appears to be the most cost-effective strategy. Symptomatic testing can prevent up to 69·3%, 64·5% and 75·5% of school infections in Brazil, Georgia and Zambia, respectively, depending on the epidemic conditions, with additional reductions in community infections. ICERs for symptomatic testing range from US$2 to US$19 per additional school infection averted as compared with symptomatic testing of teachers alone., Conclusions: Symptomatic testing of teachers and students has the potential to cost-effectively reduce a substantial number of school and community infections., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Self-testing is an effective tool to bridge the testing gap for several infectious diseases; however, its performance in detecting SARS-CoV-2 using antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) has not been systematically reviewed. This study aimed to inform WHO guidelines by evaluating the accuracy of COVID-19 self-testing and self-sampling coupled with professional Ag-RDT conduct and interpretation. Articles on this topic were searched until November 7th, 2022. Concordance between self-testing/self-sampling and fully professional-use Ag-RDTs was assessed using Cohen's kappa. Bivariate meta-analysis yielded pooled performance estimates. Quality and certainty of evidence were evaluated using QUADAS-2 and GRADE tools. Among 43 studies included, twelve reported on self-testing, and 31 assessed self-sampling only. Around 49.6% showed low risk of bias. Overall concordance with professional-use Ag-RDTs was high (kappa 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88-0.94]). Comparing self-testing/self-sampling to molecular testing, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 70.5% (95% CI 64.3-76.0) and 99.4% (95% CI 99.1-99.6), respectively. Higher sensitivity (i.e., 93.6% [95% CI 90.4-96.8] for Ct < 25) was estimated in subgroups with higher viral loads using Ct values as a proxy. Despite high heterogeneity among studies, COVID-19 self-testing/self-sampling exhibits high concordance with professional-use Ag-RDTs. This suggests that self-testing/self-sampling can be offered as part of COVID-19 testing strategies.Trial registration: PROSPERO: CRD42021250706., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors declare that they are employees of FIND.

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic triggered a rapid scale-up in the use of genomic surveillance as a pandemic preparedness and response tool. As a result, the number of countries with in-country SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequencing capability increased by 40% from February 2021 to July 2022. The Global Genomic Surveillance Strategy for Pathogens with Pandemic and Epidemic Potential 2022-2032 was launched by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March 2022 to bring greater coherence to ongoing work to strengthen genomic surveillance. This paper describes how WHO's tailored regional approaches contribute to expanding and further institutionalizing the use of genomic surveillance to guide pandemic preparedness and response measures as part of a harmonized global undertaking. Challenges to achieving this vision include difficulties obtaining sequencing equipment and supplies, shortages of skilled staff, and obstacles to maximizing the utility of genomic data to inform risk assessment and public health action. WHO is helping to overcome these challenges in collaboration with partners. Through its global headquarters, six regional offices, and 153 country offices, WHO is providing support for country-driven efforts to strengthen genomic surveillance in its 194 Member States, with activities reflecting regional specificities. WHO's regional offices serve as platforms for those countries in their respective regions to share resources and knowledge, engage stakeholders in ways that reflect national and regional priorities, and develop regionally aligned approaches to implementing and sustaining genomic surveillance within public health systems., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Akande, Carter, Abubakar, Achilla, Barakat, Gumede, Guseinova, Inbanathan, Kato, Koua, Leite, Marklewitz, Mendez-Rico, Monamele, Musul, Nahapetyan, Naidoo, Ochola, Ozel, Raftery, Vicari, Wijesinghe, Zwetyenga, Safreed-Harmon, Barnadas, Mulders, Pereyaslov, Sacks, Warren, Cognat, Briand and Samaan.)

Serological assays have been used in seroprevalence studies to inform the dynamics of COVID-19. Lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) tests are a very practical technology to use for this objective; however, one of their challenges may be variable diagnostic performance. Given the numerous available LFIA tests, evaluation of their accuracy is critical before real-world implementation. We performed a retrospective diagnostic evaluation study to independently determine the diagnostic accuracy of 4 different antibody-detection LFIA tests: Now Check (Bionote), CareStart (Access bio), Covid-19 BSS (Biosynex) and OnSite (CTK Biotech). The sample panel was comprised of specimens collected and stored in biobanks; specifically, specimens that were RT-PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2 collected at various times throughout the COVID-19 disease course and those that were collected before the pandemic, during 2018 or earlier, from individuals with upper respiratory symptoms but were negative for tuberculosis. Clinical performance (sensitivity and specificity) was analyzed overall, and subset across individual antibody isotypes, and days from symptoms onset. A very high specificity (98% - 100%) was found for all four tests. Overall sensitivity was variable, ranging from 29% [95% CI: 21%-39%] to 64% [95% CI: 54%-73%]. When considering detection of IgM only, the highest sensitivity was 42% [95% CI: 32%-52%], compared to 57% [95% CI: 47%-66%] for IgG only. When the analysis was restricted to at least 15 days since symptom onset, across any isotype, the sensitivity reached 90% for all four brands. All four LFIA tests proved effective for identifying COVID-19 antibodies when two conditions were met: 1) at least 15 days have elapsed since symptom onset and 2) a sample is considered positive when either IgM or IgG is present. With these considerations, the use of this assays could help in seroprevalence studies or further exploration of its potential uses., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Calderon-Flores et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Objectives: To assess the real-world diagnostic performance of nasal and nasopharyngeal swabs for SD Biosensor STANDARD Q COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Test (Ag-RDT)., Methods: Individuals ≥5 years with COVID-19 compatible symptoms or history of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 presenting at hospitals in Lesotho received two nasopharyngeal and one nasal swab. Ag-RDT from nasal and nasopharyngeal swabs were performed as point-of-care on site, the second nasopharyngeal swab used for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as the reference standard., Results: Out of 2198 participants enrolled, 2131 had a valid PCR result (61% female, median age 41 years, 8% children), 84.5% were symptomatic. Overall PCR positivity rate was 5.8%. The sensitivity for nasopharyngeal, nasal, and combined nasal and nasopharyngeal Ag-RDT result was 70.2% (95%CI: 61.3-78.0), 67.3% (57.3-76.3) and 74.4% (65.5-82.0), respectively. The respective specificity was 97.9% (97.1-98.4), 97.9% (97.2-98.5) and 97.5% (96.7-98.2). For both sampling modalities, sensitivity was higher in participants with symptom duration ≤ 3days versus ≤ 7days. Agreement between nasal and nasopharyngeal Ag-RDT was 99.4%., Conclusions: The STANDARD Q Ag-RDT showed high specificity. Sensitivity was, however, below the WHO recommended minimum requirement of ≥ 80%. The high agreement between nasal and nasopharyngeal sampling suggests that for Ag-RDT nasal sampling is a good alternative to nasopharyngeal sampling., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Labhardt et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Increasing the availability of antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is key to alleviating global SARS-CoV-2 testing inequity (median testing rate in December 2021-March 2022 when the Omicron variant was spreading in multiple countries: high-income countries = 600 tests/100 000 people/day; LMICs = 14 tests/100 000 people/day). However, target testing levels and effectiveness of asymptomatic community screening to impact SARS-CoV-2 transmission in LMICs are unclear., Methods: We used Propelling Action for Testing and Treating (PATAT), an LMIC-focused agent-based model to simulate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemics, varying the amount of Ag-RDTs available for symptomatic testing at healthcare facilities and asymptomatic community testing in different social settings. We assumed that testing was a function of access to healthcare facilities and availability of Ag-RDTs. We explicitly modelled symptomatic testing demand from individuals without SARS-CoV-2 and measured impact based on the number of infections averted due to test-and-isolate., Results: Testing symptomatic individuals yields greater benefits than any asymptomatic community testing strategy until most symptomatic individuals who sought testing have been tested. Meeting symptomatic testing demand likely requires at least 200-400 tests/100 000 people/day, on average, as symptomatic testing demand is highly influenced by individuals without SARS-CoV-2. After symptomatic testing demand is satisfied, excess tests to proactively screen for asymptomatic infections among household members yield the largest additional infections averted., Conclusions: Testing strategies aimed at reducing transmission should prioritize symptomatic testing and incentivizing test-positive individuals to adhere to isolation to maximize effectiveness., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. J. A. S., A. T., N. H., and E. H. are employed by Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), the global alliance for diagnostics. A. X. H. reports consulting fees from Boston University (paid to author). The other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

The first step in SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance is testing to identify people who are infected. However, global testing rates are falling as we emerge from the acute health emergency and remain low in many low- and middle-income countries (mean = 27 tests per 100,000 people per day). We simulated COVID-19 epidemics in a prototypical low- and middle-income country to investigate how testing rates, sampling strategies and sequencing proportions jointly impact surveillance outcomes, and showed that low testing rates and spatiotemporal biases delay time to detection of new variants by weeks to months and can lead to unreliable estimates of variant prevalence, even when the proportion of samples sequenced is increased. Accordingly, investments in wider access to diagnostics to support testing rates of approximately 100 tests per 100,000 people per day could enable more timely detection of new variants and reliable estimates of variant prevalence. The performance of global SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance programs is fundamentally limited by access to diagnostic testing., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Before the international spread of monkeypox in May 2022, PCR kits for the detection of orthopoxviruses, and specifically monkeypox virus, were rarely available. Here we describe the evaluation of 11 recently developed commercially available PCR kits for the detection of monkeypox virus DNA. All tested kits are currently intended for research use only and clinical performance still needs to be assessed in more detail, but all were suitable for diagnostics of monkeypox virus, with variations in specificity rather than sensitivity.

Access to reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) testing, the gold standard for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection, is limited throughout the world, due to restricted resources, available infrastructure, and high costs. Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) overcome some of these barriers, but independent clinical validations in settings of intended use are scarce. To inform the World Health Organization's (WHO) emergency use listing (EUL) procedure and ensure affordable, high-quality Ag-RDTs, we assessed the performance and ease of use of the SureStatus for SARS-CoV-2. For this prospective, multicenter diagnostic accuracy study, we recruited unvaccinated participants with presumed SARS-CoV-2 infection in India and Germany from December 2020 to March 2021, when the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant was predominantly circulating. Paired swabs were performed for (i) routine clinical RT-PCR testing (sampling was either nasopharyngeal [NP] or combined NP and oropharyngeal [NP/OP]) and (ii) Ag-RDT (sampling was NP). Performance of the Ag-RDT was compared to RT-PCR overall and by predefined subgroups, e.g., cycle threshold ( C T ) value, symptoms, and days from symptom onset. To understand the usability, a system usability scale (SUS) questionnaire and ease-of-use (EoU) assessment were performed. A total of 1,119 participants were included in the analysis, of whom 205 (18.3%) were RT-PCR positive. SureStatus detected 169 out of 205 RT-PCR-positive participants, reporting a sensitivity of 82.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 76.6% to 87.1%) and a specificity of 98.5% (95% CI: 97.4% to 99.1%). In the first 7 days post-symptom onset, the sensitivity was 90.7% (95% CI: 83.5% to 94.9%), when C T values were low and viral loads were high. The test was characterized as easy to use (SUS, 85/100) and considered suitable for point-of-care settings, although quality concerns were raised due to visibly contaminated packaging of swabs included in the test kits. The SureStatus diagnostic test can be considered a reliable test during the first week of SARS-CoV-2 infection, with high sensitivity in combination with excellent usability. IMPORTANCE Our manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study assessed clinical performance in participants presumed to have a SARS-CoV-2 infection at three study sites in two countries. We assessed the accuracy overall and in predefined subgroups ( C T values and symptom duration). SureStatus performed with high sensitivity. Its sensitivity was particularly high in the first 3 days after symptom onset and when C T values were low (i.e., the viral load was high). The system usability and ease-of-use assessment complements the accuracy assessment of the test and highlights critical factors to facilitate the widespread use of SureStatus in point-of-care settings. The high sensitivity demonstrated by the evaluated Ag-RDT within the first days of symptoms, when most transmission occurs, supports the role of Ag-RDTs for public health-relevant screening. Evidence from this study was used to inform the World Health Organization Emergency Use Listing procedure.

Objective: Over the past several years, only approximately 50% of HIV-exposed infants received an early infant diagnosis test within the first two months of life. While high attrition and mortality account for some of the shortcomings in identifying HIV-infected infants early and putting them on life-saving treatment, fragmented and challenging laboratory systems are an added barrier. We sought to determine the accuracy of using HIV viral load assays for infant diagnosis of HIV., Methods: We enrolled 866 Ugandan infants between March-April 2018 for this study after initial laboratory diagnosis. The median age was seven months, while 33% of infants were less than three months of age. Study testing was done using either the Roche or Abbott molecular technologies at the Central Public Health Laboratory. Dried blood spot samples were prepared according to manufacturer-recommended protocols for both the qualitative and quantitative assays. Viral load test samples for the Roche assay were processed using two different buffers: phosphate-buffered saline (PBS: free virus elution viral load protocol [FVE]) and Sample Pre-Extraction Reagent (SPEX: qualitative buffer). Dried blood spot samples were processed for both assays on the Abbott using the manufacturer's standard infant diagnosis protocol. All infants received a qualitative test for clinical management and additional paired quantitative tests., Results: 858 infants were included in the analysis, of which 50% were female. Over 75% of mothers received antiretroviral therapy, while approximately 65% of infants received infant prophylaxis. The Roche SPEX and Abbott technologies had high sensitivity (>95%) and specificity (>98%). The Roche FVE had lower sensitivity (85%) and viral load values., Conclusions: To simplify and streamline laboratory practices, HIV viral load may be used to diagnose HIV infection in infants, particularly using the Roche SPEX and Abbott technologies., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Comprehensive information about the accuracy of antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is essential to guide public health decision makers in choosing the best tests and testing policies. In August 2021, we published a systematic review and meta-analysis about the accuracy of Ag-RDTs. We now update this work and analyze the factors influencing test sensitivity in further detail., Methods and Findings: We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched preprint and peer-reviewed databases for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 until August 31, 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing as a reference. To evaluate factors influencing test sensitivity, we performed 3 different analyses using multivariable mixed-effects meta-regression models. We included 194 studies with 221,878 Ag-RDTs performed. Overall, the pooled estimates of Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 72.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.8 to 74.2) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6 to 99.1). When manufacturer instructions were followed, sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.7 to 78.7). Sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values (97.9% [95% CI 96.9 to 98.9] and 90.6% [95% CI 88.3 to 93.0] for Ct-values <20 and <25, compared to 54.4% [95% CI 47.3 to 61.5] and 18.7% [95% CI 13.9 to 23.4] for Ct-values ≥25 and ≥30) and was estimated to increase by 2.9 percentage points (95% CI 1.7 to 4.0) for every unit decrease in mean Ct-value when adjusting for testing procedure and patients' symptom status. Concordantly, we found the mean Ct-value to be lower for true positive (22.2 [95% CI 21.5 to 22.8]) compared to false negative (30.4 [95% CI 29.7 to 31.1]) results. Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (81.9% [95% CI 77.7 to 85.5]) compared to testing after 1 week (51.8%, 95% CI 41.5 to 61.9). Similarly, sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (76.2% [95% CI 73.3 to 78.9]) compared to asymptomatic (56.8% [95% CI 50.9 to 62.4]) persons. However, both effects were mainly driven by the Ct-value of the sample. With regards to sample type, highest sensitivity was found for nasopharyngeal (NP) and combined NP/oropharyngeal samples (70.8% [95% CI 68.3 to 73.2]), as well as in anterior nasal/mid-turbinate samples (77.3% [95% CI 73.0 to 81.0]). Our analysis was limited by the included studies' heterogeneity in viral load assessment and sample origination., Conclusions: Ag-RDTs detect most of the individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2, and almost all (>90%) when high viral loads are present. With viral load, as estimated by Ct-value, being the most influential factor on their sensitivity, they are especially useful to detect persons with high viral load who are most likely to transmit the virus. To further quantify the effects of other factors influencing test sensitivity, standardization of clinical accuracy studies and access to patient level Ct-values and duration of symptoms are needed., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: CMD is a member of the Editorial Board of PLOS Medicine. CMD also declares a payment from Roche Diagnostics that she accepted as German law requires a manufacturer to pay for the use of data for regulatory purposes. Data was generated as part of an independent evaluation by CMD and team. AM, BE, SC, JAS and SO are employees of FIND, the global alliance for diagnostics.

Objectives: Assess whether near-point-of-care (POC) viral load testing at the first antenatal care visit (ANC1) increased the proportion of women taking antiretroviral therapy who were virally suppressed at delivery through expedited clinical action., Design: Difference-in-difference analysis., Methods: At 20 public sector facilities in Zimbabwe, 10 implemented near-POC viral load testing at ANC1 (August 2019 to November 2020) and 10 used centralized viral load testing at ANC1. Study endpoints included time to result received, clinical action, and unsuppressed viral load (UVL; >1000 copies/ml) at delivery., Results: Of 1782 women, only 46% came for ANC1 before their third trimester. Preimplementation, 28% of women received viral load testing at ANC1, increasing to 86% during implementation. In the near-POC viral load arm, women were more likely to receive their result within 30 days of ANC1 sample collection compared with the centralized laboratory arm [54 versus 14%, relative risk (RR): 4.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.82-9.55], as well as receive clinical action among those with UVL (63 versus 8%, RR 7.88; 95% CI 1.53-40.47). However, we did not observe significant changes in risk of UVL at delivery with near-POC viral load (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95-1.10)., Conclusion: ANC1 viral load coverage was initially low. Near-POC viral load testing at ANC1 dramatically improved the timeliness of result receipt by patients and clinical action for those with an UVL. Although we did not observe a significant impact of provision of near-POC viral load at ANC1 on re-suppression at delivery, potentially because of late presentation for ANC1, continued near-POC viral load testing during pregnancy and delivery may reduce UVL and mother-to-child transmission risk., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Rapid antigen-detecting tests (Ag-RDTs) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can transform pandemic control. Thus far, sensitivity (≤ 85%) of lateral-flow assays has limited scale-up. Conceivably, microfluidic immunofluorescence Ag-RDTs could increase sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection., Methods: This multi-centre diagnostic accuracy study investigated performance of the microfluidic immunofluorescence LumiraDx™ assay, enrolling symptomatic and asymptomatic participants with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants collected a supervised nasal mid-turbinate (NMT) self-swab for Ag-RDT testing, in addition to a professionally collected nasopharyngeal (NP) swab for routine testing with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Results were compared to calculate sensitivity and specificity. Sub-analyses investigated the results by viral load, symptom presence and duration. An analytical study assessed exclusivity and limit-of-detection (LOD). In addition, we evaluated ease-of-use., Results: The study was conducted between November 2nd 2020 and 4th of December 2020. 761 participants were enrolled, with 486 participants reporting symptoms on testing day. 120 out of 146 RT-PCR positive cases were detected positive by LumiraDx™, resulting in a sensitivity of 82.2% (95% CI 75.2-87.5%). Specificity was 99.3% (CI 98.3-99.7%). Sensitivity was increased in individuals with viral load ≥ 7 log10 SARS-CoV2 RNA copies/ml (93.8%; CI 86.2-97.3%). Testing against common respiratory commensals and pathogens showed no cross-reactivity and LOD was estimated to be 2-56 PFU/mL. The ease-of-use-assessment was favourable for lower throughput settings., Conclusion: The LumiraDx™ assay showed excellent analytical sensitivity, exclusivity and clinical specificity with good clinical sensitivity using supervised NMT self-sampling., Trial Registration Number and Registration Date: DRKS00021220 and 01.04.2020., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Diagnostic assays for various infectious diseases, including COVID-19, have been challenged for their utility as standalone point-of-care diagnostic tests due to suboptimal accuracy, complexity, high cost or long turnaround times for results. It is therefore critical to optimise their use to meet the needs of users. We used a simulation approach to estimate diagnostic outcomes, number of tests required and average turnaround time of using two-test algorithms compared with singular testing; the two tests were reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and an antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT). A web-based application of the model was developed to visualise and compare diagnostic outcomes for different disease prevalence and test performance characteristics (sensitivity and specificity). We tested the model using hypothetical prevalence data for COVID-19, representing low- and high-prevalence contexts and performance characteristics of RT-PCR and Ag-RDTs. The two-test algorithm when RT-PCR was applied to samples negative by Ag-RDT predicted gains in sensitivity of 27% and 7%, respectively, compared with Ag-RDT and RT-PCR alone. Similarly, when RT-PCR was applied to samples positive by Ag-RDT, specificity gains of 2.9% and 1.9%, respectively, were predicted. The algorithm using Ag-RDT followed by RT-PCR as a confirmatory test for positive patients limited the requirement of RT-PCR testing resources to 16,400 and 3,034 tests when testing a population of 100,000 with an infection prevalence of 20% and 0.05%, respectively. A two-test algorithm comprising a rapid screening test followed by confirmatory laboratory testing can reduce false positive rate, produce rapid results and conserve laboratory resources, but can lead to large number of missed cases in high prevalence setting. The web application of the model can identify the best testing strategies, tailored to specific use cases and we also present some examples how it was used as part of the Access to Covid-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator Diagnostics Pillar., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: SD, JS, CE, AT, KK, MSMF declare that they are employed by Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND). SP, LJW, SIM, SCA declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright: © 2022 Pokharel et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: There are an abundance of commercially available lateral flow assays (LFAs) that detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Whilst these are usually evaluated by the manufacturer, externally performed diagnostic accuracy studies to assess performance are essential. Herein we present an evaluation of 12 LFAs., Methods: Sera from 100 SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) positive participants were recruited through the FASTER study. A total of 105 pre-pandemic sera from participants with other infections were included as negative samples., Results: At presentation sensitivity against RT-PCR ranged from 37.4 to 79% for IgM/IgG, 30.3-74% for IgG, and 21.2-67% for IgM. Sensitivity for IgM/IgG improved ≥ 21 days post symptom onset for 10/12 tests. Specificity ranged from 74.3 to 99.1% for IgM/IgG, 82.9-100% for IgG, and 75.2-98% for IgM. Compared to the EuroImmun IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), sensitivity and specificity ranged from 44.6 to 95.4% and 85.4-100%, respectively., Conclusion: There are many LFAs available with varied sensitivity and specificity. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of these tests will be vital as we come to rely more on the antibody status of a person moving forward, and as such manufacturer-independent evaluations are crucial., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Emily R. Adams is Director of Epidemics and NTDs at Mologic., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Near-point-of-care (POC) testing for early infant diagnosis (EID) and viral load expedites clinical action and improves outcomes but requires capital investment. We assessed whether excess capacity on existing near-POC devices used for TB diagnosis could be leveraged to increase near-POC HIV molecular testing, termed integrated testing, without compromising TB services., Design: Preimplementation/postimplementation studies in 10 health facilities in Malawi and 8 in Zimbabwe., Methods: Timeliness of EID and viral load test results and clinical action were compared between centralized and near-POC testing using Somers' D tests (continuous indicators) and risk ratios (RR, binary indicators); TB testing/treatment rates and timeliness were analyzed preintegration/postintegration., Results: With integration, average device utilization increased but did not exceed 55%. Despite the addition of HIV testing, TB test volumes, timeliness, and treatment initiations were maintained. Although few HIV-positive infants were identified, near-POC EID testing improved treatment initiation within 1 month by 57% compared with centralized EID [Malawi RR: 1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98-2.52], and near-POC viral load testing significantly increased the proportion of patients with elevated viral load receiving clinical action within 1 month (Zimbabwe RR: 5.26, 95% CI 3.38-8.20; Malawi RR: 3.90, 95% CI 2.58-5.91)., Conclusion: Integrating TB/HIV testing using existing multidisease platforms is feasible and enables increased access to rapid diagnostics without disrupting existing TB services. Our results serve as an example of a novel, efficient implementation model that can increase access to critical testing services across disease silos and should be considered for additional clinical applications., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests can diagnose COVID-19 rapidly and at low cost, but lower sensitivity compared with reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has limited clinical adoption., Methods: We compared antigen testing, PCR testing, and clinical judgment alone for diagnosing symptomatic COVID-19 in an outpatient setting (10% COVID-19 prevalence among the patients tested, 3-day PCR turnaround) and a hospital setting (40% prevalence, 24-hour PCR turnaround). We simulated transmission from cases and contacts, and relationships between time, viral burden, transmission, and case detection. We compared diagnostic approaches using a measure of net benefit that incorporated both clinical and public health benefits and harms of the intervention., Results: In the outpatient setting, we estimated that using antigen testing instead of PCR to test 200 individuals could be equivalent to preventing all symptomatic transmission from one person with COVID-19 (one "transmission-equivalent"). In a hospital, net benefit analysis favored PCR and testing 25 patients with PCR instead of antigen testing achieved one transmission-equivalent of benefit. In both settings, antigen testing was preferable to PCR if PCR turnaround time exceeded 2 days. Both tests provided greater net benefit than management based on clinical judgment alone unless intervention carried minimal harm and was provided equally regardless of diagnostic approach., Conclusions: For diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19, we estimated that the speed of diagnosis with antigen testing is likely to outweigh its lower accuracy compared with PCR, wherever PCR turnaround time is 2 days or longer. This advantage may be even greater if antigen tests are also less expensive., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Most SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests require nasopharyngeal sampling, which is frequently perceived as uncomfortable and requires healthcare professionals, thus limiting scale-up. Nasal sampling could enable self-sampling and increase acceptability. The term nasal sampling is often not used uniformly and sampling protocols differ., Methods: This manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study, compared professional anterior nasal and nasal mid-turbinate sampling for a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test. The second group of participants collected a nasal mid-turbinate sample themselves and underwent a professional nasopharyngeal swab for comparison. The reference standard was real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) using combined oro-/nasopharyngeal sampling. Individuals with high suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection were tested. Sensitivity, specificity, and percent agreement were calculated. Self-sampling was observed without intervention. Feasibility was evaluated by observer and participant questionnaires., Results: Among 132 symptomatic adults, both professional anterior nasal and nasal mid-turbinate sampling yielded a sensitivity of 86.1% (31/36 RT-PCR positives detected; 95%CI: 71.3-93.9) and a specificity of 100.0% (95%CI: 95.7-100). The positive percent agreement was 100% (95%CI: 89.0-100). Among 96 additional adults, self nasal mid-turbinate and professional nasopharyngeal sampling yielded an identical sensitivity of 91.2% (31/34; 95%CI 77.0-97.0). Specificity was 98.4% (95%CI: 91.4-99.9) with nasal mid-turbinate and 100.0% (95%CI: 94.2-100) with nasopharyngeal sampling. The positive percent agreement was 96.8% (95%CI: 83.8-99.8). Most participants (85.3%) considered self-sampling as easy to perform., Conclusion: Professional anterior nasal and nasal mid-turbinate sampling are of equivalent accuracy for an antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test in ambulatory symptomatic adults. Participants were able to reliably perform nasal mid-turbinate sampling themselves, following written and illustrated instructions. Nasal self-sampling will facilitate scaling of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing.

During the last year, mass screening campaigns have been carried out to identify immunological response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and establish a possible seroprevalence. The obtained results gained new importance with the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination campaign, as the lack of doses has persuaded several countries to introduce different policies for individuals who had a history of COVID-19. Lateral flow assays (LFAs) may represent an affordable tool to support population screening in low-middle-income countries, where diagnostic tests are lacking and epidemiology is still widely unknown. However, LFAs have demonstrated a wide range of performance, and the question of which one could be more valuable in these settings still remains. We evaluated the performance of 11 LFAs in detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection, analyzing samples collected from 350 subjects. In addition, samples from 57 health care workers collected at 21 to 24 days after the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine were also evaluated. LFAs demonstrated a wide range of specificity (92.31% to 100%) and sensitivity (50% to 100%). The analysis of postvaccination samples was used to describe the most suitable tests to detect IgG response against S protein receptor binding domain (RBD). Tuberculosis (TB) therapy was identified as a potential factor affecting the specificity of LFAs. This analysis identified which LFAs represent a valuable tool not only for the detection of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection but also for the detection of IgG elicited in response to vaccination. These results demonstrated that different LFAs may have different applications and the possible risks of their use in high-TB-burden settings. IMPORTANCE Our study provides a fresh perspective on the possible employment of SARS-CoV-2 LFA antibody tests. We developed an in-depth, large-scale analysis comparing LFA performance to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) and evaluating their sensitivity and specificity in identifying COVID-19 patients at different time points from symptom onset. Moreover, for the first time, we analyzed samples of patients undergoing treatment for endemic poverty-related diseases, especially tuberculosis, and we evaluated the impact of this therapy on test specificity in order to assess possible performance in TB high-burden countries.

In the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic there has been an increase of the use of antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT). The performance of Ag-RDT vary greatly between manufacturers and evaluating their analytical limit of detection (LOD) has become high priority. Here we describe a manufacturer-independent evaluation of the LOD of 19 marketed Ag-RDT using live SARS-CoV-2 spiked in different matrices: direct culture supernatant, a dry swab, and a swab in Amies. Additionally, the LOD using dry swab was investigated after 7 days' storage at - 80 °C of the SARS-CoV-2 serial dilutions. An LOD of ≈ 5.0 × 10 2  pfu/ml (1.0 × 10 6  genome copies/ml) in culture media is defined as acceptable by the World Health Organization. Fourteen of 19 Ag-RDTs (ActiveXpress, Espline, Excalibur, Innova, Joysbio, Mologic, NowCheck, Orient, PanBio, RespiStrip, Roche, Standard-F, Standard-Q and Sure-Status) exceeded this performance criteria using direct culture supernatant applied to the Ag-RDT. Six Ag-RDT were not compatible with Amies media and a decreased sensitivity of 2 to 20-fold was observed for eleven tests on the stored dilutions at - 80 °C for 7 days. Here, we provide analytical sensitivity data to guide appropriate test and sample type selection for use and for future Ag-RDT evaluations., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: In response to the current COVID-19 pandemic, multiple companies marketed serological tests. Rigorous, independent and comparative performances of these assays on defined clinical specimens are needed., Methods: In a first preliminary phase, we investigated 16 IgG, IgM, IgA and pan Ig serological ELISA using a panel of 180 sera, comprising 97 sera from patients with a positive RT-PCR, and 83 negative sera sampled before November 1, 2019. In a second phase and to complete the evaluation on the full panel (100 positive and 300 negative), tests that passed pre-defined exclusion criteria of 90% sensitivity and 97% specificity were further evaluated on 220 additional sera chosen to assess possible cross-reactivity with other human viral infections., Results: Among the 16 tests evaluated in the preliminary phase, two were excluded due to insufficient sensitivity at 15 days post-symptom onset and one was excluded due to poor specificity. Of the 13 tests evaluated using the full panel comprised of a diverse pool of sera including those reactive against known respiratory viruses, no systematic cross-reactivity was observed. However, heterogeneities across tests were found. Consistent with kinetics of antibody expression, maximal sensitivity was found two weeks post-symptom onset., Conclusion: In this independent evaluation, we compared the performance of 16 SARS-CoV-2 serological tests using well-characterized sera and found 13 tests with more than 90% sensitivity at 15 days post-symptom onset and 97% specificity across a diverse range of negative samples., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being integrated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs., Methods and Findings: We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix, bioRvix, and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 up until 30 April 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses, and rated study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 assessment tool. From a total of 14,254 articles, we included 133 analytical and clinical studies resulting in 214 clinical accuracy datasets with 112,323 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 71.2% (95% CI 68.2% to 74.0%) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6% to 99.1%), respectively. Sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.1% to 79.2%) if analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers' instructions. LumiraDx showed the highest sensitivity, with 88.2% (95% CI 59.0% to 97.5%). Of instrument-free Ag-RDTs, Standard Q nasal performed best, with 80.2% sensitivity (95% CI 70.3% to 87.4%). Across all Ag-RDTs, sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, i.e., <20 (96.5%, 95% CI 92.6% to 98.4%) and <25 (95.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 97.8%), in comparison to those with Ct ≥ 25 (50.7%, 95% CI 35.6% to 65.8%) and ≥30 (20.9%, 95% CI 12.5% to 32.8%). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (83.8%, 95% CI 76.3% to 89.2%) compared to testing after 1 week (61.5%, 95% CI 52.2% to 70.0%). The best Ag-RDT sensitivity was found with anterior nasal sampling (75.5%, 95% CI 70.4% to 79.9%), in comparison to other sample types (e.g., nasopharyngeal, 71.6%, 95% CI 68.1% to 74.9%), although CIs were overlapping. Concerns of bias were raised across all datasets, and financial support from the manufacturer was reported in 24.1% of datasets. Our analysis was limited by the included studies' heterogeneity in design and reporting., Conclusions: In this study we found that Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2-infected persons within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load. Thus, they can have high utility for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease, making them a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization in conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: CMD is a member of the Editorial Board of PLOS Medicine.

In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended two SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow antigen-detecting rapid diagnostics tests (Ag-RDTs), both initially with nasopharyngeal (NP) sample collection. Independent head-to-head studies are necessary for SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT nasal sampling to demonstrate comparability of performance with nasopharyngeal (NP) sampling. We conducted a head-to-head comparison study of a supervised, self-collected nasal mid-turbinate (NMT) swab and a professional-collected NP swab, using the Panbio™ Ag-RDT (distributed by Abbott). We calculated positive and negative percent agreement between the sampling methods as well as sensitivity and specificity for both sampling techniques compared to the reference standard reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). A SARS-CoV-2 infection could be diagnosed by RT-PCR in 45 of 290 participants (15.5%). Comparing the NMT and NP sampling the positive percent agreement of the Ag-RDT was 88.1% (37/42 PCR positives detected; CI 75.0-94.8%). The negative percent agreement was 98.8% (245/248; CI 96.5-99.6%). The overall sensitivity of Panbio with NMT sampling was 84.4% (38/45; CI 71.2-92.3%) and 88.9% (40/45; CI 76.5-95.5%) with NP sampling. Specificity was 99.2% (243/245; CI 97.1-99.8%) for both, NP and NMT sampling. The sensitivity of the Panbio test in participants with high viral load (> 7 log 10 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/mL) was 96.3% (CI 81.7-99.8%) for both, NMT and NP sampling. For the Panbio supervised NMT self-sampling yields comparable results to NP sampling. This suggests that nasal self-sampling could be used for to enable scaled-up population testing.Clinical Trial DRKS00021220., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Considering the possibility of nasal self-sampling and the ease of use in performing SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs), self-testing is a feasible option., Objective: The goal of this study was a head-to-head comparison of diagnostic accuracy of patient self-testing with professional testing using a SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT., Study Design: We performed a manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study of nasal mid-turbinate self-sampling and self-testing with symptomatic adults using a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. Procedures were observed without intervention. For comparison, Ag-RDTs with nasopharyngeal sampling were professionally performed. Estimates of agreement, sensitivity, and specificity relative to RT-PCR on a combined oro-/nasopharyngeal sample were calculated. Feasibility was evaluated by observer and participant questionnaires., Results: Among 146 symptomatic adults, 40 (27.4%) were RT-PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2. Sensitivity with self-testing was 82.5% (33/40; 95% CI 68.1-91.3), and 85.0% (34/40; 95% CI 70.9-92.9) with professional testing. At high viral load (≥7.0 log 10 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/ml), sensitivity was 96.6% (28/29; 95% CI 82.8-99.8) for both self- and professional testing. Deviations in sampling and testing were observed in 25 out of the 40 PCR-positives. Most participants (80.9%) considered the Ag-RDT as easy to perform., Conclusion: Laypersons suspected for SARS-CoV-2 infection were able to reliably perform the Ag-RDT and test themselves. Procedural errors might be reduced by refinement of the instructions for use or the product design/procedures. Self-testing allows more wide-spread and frequent testing. Paired with the appropriate information of the public about the benefits and risks, self-testing may have significant impact on the pandemic., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 offer new opportunities for testing in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) are the reference sample type, but oropharyngeal swabs (OPS) may be a more acceptable sample type in some patients., Methods: We conducted a prospective study in a single screening center to assess the diagnostic performance of the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (Abbott) on OPS compared with reverse-transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) using NPS during the second pandemic wave in Switzerland., Results: 402 outpatients were enrolled in a COVID-19 screening center, of whom 168 (41.8%) had a positive RT-qPCR test. The oropharyngeal Ag-RDT clinical sensitivity compared to nasopharyngeal RT-qPCR was 81% (95%CI: 74.2-86.6). Two false positives were noted out of the 234 RT-qPCR negative individuals, which resulted in a clinical specificity of 99.1% (95%CI: 96.9-99.9) for the Ag-RDT. For cycle threshold values ≤ 26.7 (≥ 1E6 SARS-CoV-2 genomes copies/mL, a presumed cut-off for infectious virus), 96.3% sensitivity (95%CI: 90.7-99.0%) was obtained with the Ag-RDT using OPS., Interpretation: Based on our findings, the diagnostic performance of the Panbio™ Covid-19 RDT with OPS samples, if taken by a trained person and high requirements regarding quality of the specimen, meet the criteria required by the WHO for Ag-RDTs (sensitivity ≥80% and specificity ≥97%) in a high incidence setting in symptomatic individuals., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Objectives: Diagnostics are essential for controlling the pandemic. Identifying a reliable and fast diagnostic device is needed for effective testing. We assessed performance and ease-of-use of the Abbott PanBio antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT)., Methods: This prospective, multi-centre diagnostic accuracy study enrolled at two sites in Germany. Following routine testing with reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), a second study-exclusive swab was performed for Ag-RDT testing. Routine swabs were nasopharyngeal (NP) or combined NP/oropharyngeal (OP) whereas the study-exclusive swabs were NP. To evaluate performance, sensitivity and specificity were assessed overall and in predefined sub-analyses accordingly to cycle-threshold values, days after symptom onset, disease severity and study site. Additionally, an ease-of-use assessment (EoU) and System Usability Scale (SUS) were performed., Results: 1108 participants were enrolled between Sept 28 and Oct 30, 2020. Of these, 106 (9.6%) were PCR-positive. The Abbott PanBio detected 92/106 PCR-positive participants with a sensitivity of 86.8% (95% CI: 79.0% - 92.0%) and a specificity of 99.9% (95% CI: 99.4%-100%). The sub-analyses indicated that sensitivity was 95.8% in Ct-values <25 and within the first seven days from symptom onset. The test was characterized as easy to use (SUS: 86/100) and considered suitable for point-of-care settings., Conclusion: The Abbott PanBio Ag-RDT performs well for SARS-CoV-2 testing in this large manufacturer independent study, confirming its WHO recommendation for Emergency Use in settings with limited resources., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) can complement molecular diagnostics for COVID-19. The recommended temperature for storage of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs ranges between 2-30 °C. In the global South, mean temperatures can exceed 30 °C. In the global North, Ag-RDTs are often used in external testing facilities at low ambient temperatures. We assessed analytical sensitivity and specificity of eleven commercially-available SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs using different storage and operational temperatures, including short- or long-term storage and operation at recommended temperatures or at either 2-4 °C or at 37 °C. The limits of detection of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs under recommended conditions ranged from 1.0×10 6 - 5.5×10 7 genome copies/mL of infectious SARS-CoV-2 cell culture supernatant. Despite long-term storage at recommended conditions, 10 min pre-incubation of Ag-RDTs and testing at 37 °C resulted in about ten-fold reduced sensitivity for five out of 11 SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs, including both Ag-RDTs currently listed for emergency use by the World Health Organization. After 3 weeks of storage at 37 °C, eight of the 11 SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs exhibited about ten-fold reduced sensitivity. Specificity of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs using cell culture supernatant from common respiratory viruses was not affected by storage and testing at 37 °C, whereas false-positive results occurred at outside temperatures of 2-4 °C for two out of six tested Ag-RDTs, again including an Ag-RDT recommended by the WHO. In summary, elevated temperatures impair sensitivity, whereas low temperatures impair specificity of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs. Consequences may include false-negative test results at clinically relevant virus concentrations compatible with transmission and false-positive results entailing unwarranted quarantine assignments. Storage and operation of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs at recommended conditions is essential for successful usage during the pandemic., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Determine the diagnostic accuracy of two antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) for SARS-CoV-2 at the point of care and define individuals' characteristics providing best performance., Methods: We performed a prospective, single-center, point of care validation of two Ag-RDT in comparison to RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs., Results: Between October 9th and 23rd, 2020, 1064 participants were enrolled. The PanbioTM Covid-19 Ag Rapid Test device (Abbott) was validated in 535 participants, with 106 positive Ag-RDT results out of 124 positive RT-PCR individuals, yielding a sensitivity of 85.5% (95% CI: 78.0-91.2). Specificity was 100.0% (95% CI: 99.1-100) in 411 RT-PCR negative individuals. The Standard Q Ag-RDT (SD Biosensor, Roche) was validated in 529 participants, with 170 positive Ag-RDT results out of 191 positive RT-PCR individuals, yielding a sensitivity of 89.0% (95%CI: 83.7-93.1). One false positive result was obtained in 338 RT-PCR negative individuals, yielding a specificity of 99.7% (95%CI: 98.4-100). For individuals presenting with fever 1-5 days post symptom onset, combined Ag-RDT sensitivity was above 95%. Lower sensitivity of 88.2% was seen on the same day of symptom development (day 0)., Conclusions: We provide an independent validation of two widely available commercial Ag-RDTs, both meeting WHO criteria of ≥80% sensitivity and ≥97% specificity. Although less sensitive than RT-PCR, these assays could be beneficial due to their rapid results, ease of use, and independence from existing laboratory structures. Testing criteria focusing on patients with typical symptoms in their early symptomatic period onset could further increase diagnostic value., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Testing plays a critical role in treatment and prevention responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to nucleic acid tests (NATs), antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) can be more accessible, but typically have lower sensitivity and specificity. By quantifying these trade-offs, we aimed to inform decisions about when an Ag-RDT would offer greater public health value than reliance on NAT., Methods: Following an expert consultation, we selected two use cases for analysis: rapid identification of people with COVID-19 amongst patients admitted with respiratory symptoms in a 'hospital' setting and early identification and isolation of people with mildly symptomatic COVID-19 in a 'community' setting. Using decision analysis, we evaluated the health system cost and health impact (deaths averted and infectious days isolated) of an Ag-RDT-led strategy, compared to a strategy based on NAT and clinical judgement. We adopted a broad range of values for 'contextual' parameters relevant to a range of settings, including the availability of NAT and the performance of clinical judgement. We performed a multivariate sensitivity analysis to all of these parameters., Results: In a hospital setting, an Ag-RDT-led strategy would avert more deaths than a NAT-based strategy, and at lower cost per death averted, when the sensitivity of clinical judgement is less than 90%, and when NAT results are available in time to inform clinical decision-making for less than 85% of patients. The use of an Ag-RDT is robustly supported in community settings, where it would avert more transmission at lower cost than relying on NAT alone, under a wide range of assumptions., Conclusions: Despite their imperfect sensitivity and specificity, Ag-RDTs have the potential to be simultaneously more impactful, and have a lower cost per death and infectious person-days averted, than current approaches to COVID-19 diagnostic testing.

Introduction: Point-of-care (POC) early infant diagnosis (EID) testing has been shown to dramatically decrease turnaround times from sample collection to caregiver result receipt and time to ART initiation for HIV-positive infants compared to centralized laboratory testing. As governments in sub-Saharan Africa implement POC EID technologies, we report on the feasibility and effectiveness of POC EID testing and the impact of same-day result delivery on rapid ART initiation within national programmes across six countries., Methods: This pre-/post-evaluation compared centralized laboratory-based (pre) with POC (post) EID testing in 52 facilities across Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Senegal and Zimbabwe between April 2017 and October 2019 (country-dependent). Data were collected retrospectively from routine records at health facilities for all infants tested under two years of age. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to compare time-to-event outcomes, visualized with Kaplan-Meier curves, and the Somers' D test was used to compare continuous outcomes., Results: Data were collected for 2892 EID tests conducted on centralized laboratory-based platforms and 4610 EID tests on POC devices with 127 (4%) and 192 (4%) HIV-positive infants identified, respectively. POC EID significantly reduced the time from sample collection to caregiver result receipt (POC median: 0 days, IQR: 0 to 0 vs. centralized: 35 days, IQR: 26 to 56) and time from sample collection to ART initiation for HIV-positive infants (POC median: 1 day, IQR: 0 to 7 vs. centralized: 39 days, IQR: 26 to 57). With POC testing, 72% of infants received results on the same day as sample collection; HIV-positive infants with a same-day diagnosis had six times the rate of ART initiation compared to those diagnosed one or more days after sample collection (HR: 6.39; 95% CI: 3.44 to 11.85)., Conclusions: Same-day diagnosis and treatment initiation for infants is possible with POC EID within routine government-led and -supported public sector healthcare facilities in resource-limited settings. Given that POC EID allows for rapid ART initiation, aligning to the World Health Organization's recommendation of ART initiation within seven days, its use in public sector programmes has the potential to reduce overall mortality for infants with HIV through early treatment initiation., (© 2021 The Authors. Journal of the International AIDS Society published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the International AIDS Society.)

Introduction: Point-of-care (POC) technologies in resource-limited settings can circumvent challenges of centralized laboratory testing, improving clinical management. However, higher device costs and uncertain indications for use have inhibited scaling up POC modalities. To address this gap, we investigated the feasibility and cost of targeted near-POC viral load (VL) testing in 2 large HIV clinics in Lilongwe, Malawi., Methods: VL testing using GeneXpert was targeted for patients suspected of treatment failure or returning to care after a previously elevated VL (>1000 copies/mL). Descriptive analysis of retrospective clinical and cost data is presented., Results: Two thousand eight hundred thirteen near-POC VL tests were conducted. One thousand five hundred eleven (54%) tests were for patients for whom results and reason for the test were documented: 57% (794/1389) of tests were to confirm a previously high VL, and 33% (462/1389) were due to clinical indications. Sixty-one percent (926/1511) of patients had a high VL, of whom 78% (719/926) had a recorded clinical action: 77% (557/719) switched to second line antiretroviral therapy, and 15% (194/719) were referred for intensive adherence counseling. Eighty-two percent (567/687) of patients received a clinical action on the same day as testing. The "all-in" cost was $33.71 for a valid POC VL test, compared with an international benchmark for a centralized VL test of $28.62., Conclusion: Targeted, near-POC VL testing was feasible and consistently enabled prompt clinical action. The difference between the "all-in" cost of near-POC VL and centralized testing of $5.09 could be further reduced in an optimized national program by combining targeted near-POC testing and centralized testing., Competing Interests: The authors have no funding or conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Introduction: In many low- and middle-income countries, HIV viral load (VL) testing occurs at centralized laboratories and time-to-result-delivery is lengthy, preventing timely monitoring of HIV treatment adherence. Near point-of-care (POC) devices, which are placed within health facility laboratories rather than clinics themselves (i.e. "true" POC), can offer VL in conjunction with centralized laboratories to expedite clinical decision making and improve outcomes, especially for patients at high risk of treatment failure. We assessed impacts of near-POC VL testing on result receipt and clinical action in public sector programmes in Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Malawi, Senegal, Tanzania and Zimbabwe., Methods: Routine health data were collected retrospectively after introducing near-POC VL testing at 57 public sector health facilities (2017 to 2019, country-dependent). Where possible, key indicators were compared to data from patients receiving centralized laboratory testing using hazard ratios and the Somers' D test., Results: Data were collected from 6795 tests conducted on near-POC and 17614 tests on centralized laboratory-based platforms. Thirty-one percent (2062/6694) of near-POC tests were conducted for high-risk populations: pregnant and breastfeeding women, children and those with suspected failure. Compared to conventional testing, near-POC improved the median time from sample collection to return of results to patient [six vs. sixty-eight days, effect size: -32.2%; 95% CI: -41.0% to -23.4%] and to clinical action for individuals with an elevated HIV VL [three vs. fourty-nine days, effect size: -35.4%; 95% CI: -46.0% to -24.8%]. Near-POC VL results were two times more likely to be returned to the patient within 90 days compared to centralized tests [50% (1781/3594) vs. 27% (4172/15271); aHR: 2.22, 95% CI: 2.05 to 2.39]. Thirty-seven percent (340/925) of patients with an elevated near-POC HIV VL result had documented clinical follow-up actions within 30 days compared to 7% (167/2276) for centralized testing., Conclusions: Near-POC VL testing enabled rapid test result delivery for high-risk populations and led to significant improvements in the timeliness of patient result receipt compared to centralized testing. While there was some improvement in time-to-clinical action with near-POC VL testing, major gaps remained. Strengthening of systems supporting the utilization of results for patient management are needed to truly capitalize on the benefits of decentralized testing., (© 2021 The Authors. Journal of the International AIDS Society published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the International AIDS Society.)

Accurate serologic tests to detect host antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will be critical for the public health response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Many use cases are envisaged, including complementing molecular methods for diagnosis of active disease and estimating immunity for individuals. At the population level, carefully designed seroepidemiologic studies will aid in the characterization of transmission dynamics and refinement of disease burden estimates and will provide insight into the kinetics of humoral immunity. Yet, despite an explosion in the number and availability of serologic assays to test for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, most have undergone minimal external validation to date. This hinders assay selection and implementation, as well as interpretation of study results. In addition, critical knowledge gaps remain regarding serologic correlates of protection from infection or disease, and the degree to which these assays cross-react with antibodies against related coronaviruses. This article discusses key use cases for SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection tests and their application to serologic studies, reviews currently available assays, highlights key areas of ongoing research, and proposes potential strategies for test implementation.

Background: Globally, nearly 22 million HIV-infected patients are currently accessing antiretroviral treatment; however, almost one million people living with HIV died of AIDS-related illnesses in 2018. Advanced HIV disease remains a significant issue to curb HIV-related mortality., Methods: We analyzed 864,389 CD4 testing records collected by 1,016 Alere Pima Analyzers implemented at a variety of facilities, including peripheral facilities, between January 2012 and December 2016 across four countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Routinely collected data and programmatic records were used to analyze the median CD4 counts and proportions of patients with advanced HIV disease by country, facility type, and year., Results: Median CD4 counts were between 409-444 cells/ul each year since 2012 with a median in 2016 of 444 cells/ul (n = 319,829). The proportion of test results returning CD4 counts above 500 cells/ul has increased slowly each year with 41.8% (95% CI: 41.6-41.9%) of tests having a CD4 count above 500 cells/ul in 2016. Median CD4 counts were similar across facility types. The proportion of test results indicating advanced HIV disease has remained fairly consistent: 19.4% (95% CI: 18.8-20.1%) in 2012 compared to 16.1% (95% CI: 16.0-16.3%) in 2016. The proportion of test results indicating advanced HIV disease annually ranged from 14.5% in Uganda to 29.8% in Cameroon. 6.9% (95% CI: 6.8-7.0%) of test results showed very advanced HIV disease (CD4<100 cells/ul) in 2016., Conclusions: The proportion of CD4 test results indicating advanced disease was relatively high and consistent across four high HIV burden countries., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction: Viral load testing is essential to manage HIV disease, especially in infants and children. Early infant diagnosis is performed using nucleic-acid testing in children under 18 months. Resource-limited health systems face severe challenges to scale-up both viral load and early infant diagnosis to unprecedented levels. Streamlining laboratory systems would be beneficial to improve access to quality testing and to increase efficiency of antiretroviral treatment programmes. We evaluated the performance of viral load testing to serve as an early infant diagnosis assay in children younger than 18 months., Methods: This study was an observational, prospective study, including children between one and 18 months of age who were born to HIV-positive mothers in 134 health facilities in Maputo City and Maputo Province, Mozambique. Dried blood spot specimens from heel or toe pricks were collected between January and April 2018, processed using SPEX buffer for both assays, and tested for routine EID and VL testing using the Roche CAP/CTM HIV-1 Qualitative v2 and Roche CAP/CTM HIV-1 Quantitative v2 assays respectively. The sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values were estimated using the EID results as the reference standard., Results: A total of 1021 infants were included in the study, of which 47% were female. Over 95% of mothers and children were on antiretroviral treatment or received antiretroviral prophylaxis respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of using the viral load assay to detect infection were 100% (95% CI: 96.2 to 100%) and 99.9% (95% CI: 99.4 to 100%). The positive and negative predictive values were 99.0% (95% CI: 94.3 to 100%) and 100% (95% CI: 99.6 to 100%). The McNemar's test was 1.000 and Cohen's kappa was 0.994., Conclusions: The comparable performance suggests that viral load assays can be used as an infant diagnostic assay. Infants with either low levels of viraemia or high cycle threshold values should be repeat tested to ensure the result is truly positive prior to treatment initiation, regardless of assay used. Viral load assays could replace traditional early infant diagnosis testing, substantially streamlining molecular laboratory services for children and lowering costs, with the additional advantage of providing baseline viral load results for antiretroviral treatment management., (© 2020 The Authors. Journal of the International AIDS Society published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the International AIDS Society.)