Dataset Information

Comparison of antigen- and RT-PCR-based testing strategies for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in two high-exposure settings.

ABSTRACT: Surveillance testing for infectious disease is an important tool to combat disease transmission at the population level. During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, RT-PCR tests have been considered the gold standard due to their high sensitivity and specificity. However, RT-PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 have been shown to return positive results when performed to individuals who are past the infectious stage of the disease. Meanwhile, antigen-based tests are often treated as a less accurate substitute for RT-PCR, however, new evidence suggests they may better reflect infectiousness. Consequently, the two test types may each be most optimally deployed in different settings. Here, we present an epidemiological model with surveillance testing and coordinated isolation in two congregate living settings (a nursing home and a university dormitory system) that considers test metrics with respect to viral culture, a proxy for infectiousness. Simulations show that antigen-based surveillance testing coupled with isolation greatly reduces disease burden and carries a lower economic cost than RT-PCR-based strategies. Antigen and RT-PCR tests perform different functions toward the goal of reducing infectious disease burden and should be used accordingly.

SUBMITTER: Love J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8423454 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of antigen- and RT-PCR-based testing strategies for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in two high-exposure settings.

Love Jay J Wimmer Megan T MT Toth Damon J A DJA Chandran Arthi A Makhija Dilip D Cooper Charles K CK Samore Matthew H MH Keegan Lindsay T LT

PloS one 20210907 9

Surveillance testing for infectious disease is an important tool to combat disease transmission at the population level. During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, RT-PCR tests have been considered the gold standard due to their high sensitivity and specificity. However, RT-PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 have been shown to return positive results when performed to individuals who are past the infectious stage of the disease. Meanwhile, antigen-based tests are often treated as a less accurate substitute for RT-PC ...[more]

PMID: 34492025

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAs self-collected home antigen tests become widely available, a better understanding of their performance during the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection is needed.ObjectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of home antigen tests compared with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and viral culture by days from illness onset, as well as user acceptability.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective cohort study was conducted from January to May 2021 in San Diego County, California, and metropolitan Denver, Colorado. The convenience sample included adults and children with RT-PCR-confirmed infection who used self-collected home antigen tests for 15 days and underwent at least 1 nasopharyngeal swab for RT-PCR, viral culture, and sequencing.ExposuresSARS-CoV-2 infection.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the daily sensitivity of home antigen tests to detect RT-PCR-confirmed cases. Secondary outcomes included the daily percentage of antigen test, RT-PCR, and viral culture results that were positive, and antigen test sensitivity compared with same-day RT-PCR and cultures. Antigen test use errors and acceptability were assessed for a subset of participants.ResultsThis study enrolled 225 persons with RT-PCR-confirmed infection (median [range] age, 29 [1-83] years; 117 female participants [52%]; 10 [4%] Asian, 6 [3%] Black or African American, 50 [22%] Hispanic or Latino, 3 [1%] Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 145 [64%] White, and 11 [5%] multiracial individuals) who completed 3044 antigen tests and 642 nasopharyngeal swabs. Antigen test sensitivity was 50% (95% CI, 45%-55%) during the infectious period, 64% (95% CI, 56%-70%) compared with same-day RT-PCR, and 84% (95% CI, 75%-90%) compared with same-day cultures. Antigen test sensitivity peaked 4 days after illness onset at 77% (95% CI, 69%-83%). Antigen test sensitivity improved with a second antigen test 1 to 2 days later, particularly early in the infection. Six days after illness onset, antigen test result positivity was 61% (95% CI, 53%-68%). Almost all (216 [96%]) surveyed individuals reported that they would be more likely to get tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection if home antigen tests were available over the counter.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this cohort study of home antigen tests suggest that sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 was moderate compared with RT-PCR and high compared with viral culture. The results also suggest that symptomatic individuals with an initial negative home antigen test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection should test again 1 to 2 days later because test sensitivity peaked several days after illness onset and improved with repeated testing.

Project description:COVID-19 resulted in extensive morbidity and mortality worldwide. SARS-CoV-2 evolved rapidly, with increasing transmission due to Variants of Concern (VOC). Identifying VOC became important but genome submissions from low-middle income countries (LMIC) remained low leading to gaps in genomic epidemiology. We demonstrate the use of a specific mutation RT-PCR based approach to identify VOC in SARS-CoV-2 positive samples through the pandemic in Pakistan. We selected 2150 SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive respiratory specimens tested between April 2021 and February 2022, at the Aga Khan University Hospital Clinical Laboratories, Karachi, Pakistan. Commercially available RT-PCR assays were used as required for mutations in Spike protein (N501Y, A570D, E484K, K417N, L452R, P681R and deletion69_70) to identify Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron variants respectively. Three pandemic waves associated with Alpha, Delta and Omicron occurred during the study period. Of the samples screened, VOC were identified in 81.7% of cases comprising mainly; Delta (37.2%), Alpha (29.8%) and Omicron (17.1%) variants. During 2021, Alpha variants were predominant in April and May; Beta and Gamma variants emerged in May and peaked in June; the Delta variant peaked in July and remained predominant until November. Omicron (BA.1) emerged in December 2021 and remained predominant until February 2022. The CT values of Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta were all significantly higher than that of Omicron variants (p<0.0001). We observed VOC through the pandemic waves using spike mutation specific RT-PCR assays. We show the spike mutation specific RT-PCR assay is a rapid, low-cost and adaptable for the identification of VOC as an adjunct approach to NGS to effectively inform the public health response. Further, by associating the VOC with CT values of its diagnostic PCR we gain information regarding the viral load of samples and therefore the level of transmission and disease severity in the population.

Project description:Quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assay is the gold standard recommended to test for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, it generally requires expensive equipment such as RNA isolation instruments and real-time PCR thermal cyclers. As a pandemic, COVID-19 has spread indiscriminately, and many low resource settings and developing countries do not have the means for fast and accurate COVID-19 detection to control the outbreak. Additionally, long assay times, in part caused by slow sample preparation steps, have created a large backlog when testing patient samples suspected of COVID-19. With many PCR-based molecular assays including an extraction step, this can take a significant amount of time and labor, especially if the extraction is performed manually. Using COVID-19 clinical specimens, we have collected evidence that the RT-qPCR assay can feasibly be performed directly on patient sample material in virus transport medium (VTM) without an RNA extraction step, while still producing sensitive test results. If RNA extraction steps can be omitted without significantly affecting clinical sensitivity, the turn-around time of COVID-19 tests, and the backlog we currently experience can be reduced drastically. Furthermore, our data suggest that rapid RT-PCR can be implemented for sensitive and specific molecular diagnosis of COVID-19 in locations where sophisticated laboratory instruments are not available. Our USD 300 set up achieved rapid RT-PCR using thin-walled PCR tubes and a water bath setup using sous vide immersion heaters, a Raspberry Pi computer, and a single servo motor that can process up to 96 samples at a time. Using COVID-19 positive clinical specimens, we demonstrated that RT-PCR assays can be performed in as little as 12 min using untreated samples, heat-inactivated samples, or extracted RNA templates with our low-cost water bath setup. These findings can help rapid COVID-19 testing to become more accessible and attainable across the globe.

Project description:Most individuals acutely infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exhibit mild symptoms. However, 10 to 20% of those infected develop long-term symptoms, referred to as post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) condition (PCC). One hypothesis is that PCC might be exacerbated by viral persistence in tissue sanctuaries. Therefore, the accurate detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 are not only necessary for viral load monitoring but also crucial for detecting long-term viral persistence and determining whether viral replication is occurring in tissue reservoirs. In this study, the sensitivity and robustness of reverse transcription (RT)-droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and RT-quantitative PCR (qPCR) techniques have been compared for the detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 genomic and subgenomic RNAs from oropharyngeal swabs taken from confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive, SARS-CoV-2-exposed, and nonexposed individuals as well as from samples from mice infected with SARS-CoV-2. Our data demonstrated that both techniques presented equivalent results in the mid- and high-viral-load ranges. Additionally, RT-ddPCR was more sensitive than RT-qPCR in the low-viral-load range, allowing the accurate detection of positive results in individuals exposed to the virus. Overall, these data suggest that RT-ddPCR might be an alternative to RT-qPCR for detecting low viral loads in samples and for assessing viral persistence in samples from individuals with PCC. IMPORTANCE We developed one-step reverse transcription (RT)-droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) protocols to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA and compared them to the gold-standard RT-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) method. RT-ddPCR was more sensitive than RT-qPCR in the low-viral-load range, while both techniques were equivalent in the mid- and high-viral-load ranges. Overall, these results suggest that RT-ddPCR might be a viable alternative to RT-qPCR when it comes to detecting low viral loads in samples, which is a highly relevant issue for determining viral persistence in as-yet-unknown tissue reservoirs in individuals suffering from post-COVID conditions or long COVID.

Dataset Information

Comparison of antigen- and RT-PCR-based testing strategies for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in two high-exposure settings.

Publications

Comparison of antigen- and RT-PCR-based testing strategies for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in two high-exposure settings.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets