SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern B.1.1.7: diagnostic accuracy of three antigen-detecting rapid tests

Manuscript

The SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 lineage (recently labelled as Alpha by WHO), also known as variant of concern (VOC) 202012/01, rapidly emerged after its first identification in the United Kingdom in late 2020 (1). As of 1 June 2021, B.1.1.7 has been verified in 160 countries and become the dominant variant in several European countries, including Germany, and in North America (2-4). B.1.1.7 is defined by a large number of mutations in the spike (S) gene and four in the nucleocapsid (N) gene (N-protein: D3L, R203K, G204R, and S235F) (5). Virus mutations have the potential to impact the accuracy of diagnostic tests. Most commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid tests (Ag-RDTs) target the C-terminus of the viral N-protein, encoded by the N-gene (6, 7). The N-gene mutations of B.1.1.7 are located at the N-terminus (7). In an evaluation by Public Health England, the B.1.1.7 variant did not affect the performance of six commercially available Ag-RDTs, despite a limited number of amino acid changes from the original viral sequence in the target antigen (5, 8).

We conducted a manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study of three SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs at an ambulatory testing facility in Berlin and Heidelberg, Germany, from 20 January to 15 April 2021. All three Ag-RDTs evaluated are currently under review by the WHO Emergency Use Listing Procedure: 1) Espline SARS-CoV-2 (Fujirebio Inc.); 2) Sure Status COVID-19 Antigen Card Test (Premier Medical Corporation Private Limited), both using nasopharyngeal sampling; and 3) Mologic COVID-19 Rapid Test (Mologic Ltd.), using anterior nasal sampling (9). Reference standard was RT-PCR using naso-/oropharyngeal sampling. Study procedures were previously described (10). The study was conducted in collaboration with the Foundation of Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), a WHO Collaborating Centre. Here we report on an additional sub-analysis regarding the B.1.1.7 lineage.

Of 1692 adults enrolled in the study, 354 (21%) tested positive by RT-PCR. Positive samples were typed for the N501Y and del69–70 polymorphisms by melting curve analysis. The presence of both polymorphisms was considered indicative of a B.1.1.7 lineage infection, an inference whose accuracy was confirmed by full-genome sequencing of all Heidelberg samples. During the study, B.1.1.7 became the dominant SARS-CoV-2 lineage within only five weeks (11). Among the positive patients, 220 (62%) were infected with B.1.1.7, 3 (1%) with VOC B.1.351 and 109 (31%) with wildtype virus or mutations that are currently considered not of concern. All three Ag-RDTs yielded comparable sensitivities irrespective of an infection with the B.1.1.7 lineage or not (Table 1). In 22 (6%) patients, typing was not done or not possible due to the limit of detection of genotyping for samples with low viral load (excluded from analysis and leading to a slight overestimation of sensitivity).

There is only limited data on how N-gene mutations in VOCs may impact Ag-RDTs and this clinical evaluation complements analytical evaluations (5, 8, 12, 13). Currently, no major changes to test performance are anticipated (6). However, test developers and health authorities should assess and monitor the impact of emerging variants on Ag-RDTs during development and post-authorization (14).

Author contributions

AKL: conceptualization, methodology, writing -original draft. LJK: investigation, formal analysis. ON: methodology, investigation, formal analysis. JAFK: investigation, formal analysis. HR: project administration. PS: investigation, formal analysis. VMC: investigation, formal analysis. TCJ: investigation, formal analysis. FT: formal analysis. MG: formal analysis. SB: project administration. JAS: supervision. JS: supervision, project administration. FPM: conceptualization, supervision. CMD: conceptualization, methodology, supervision. All authors: writing -review & editing.

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Support statement

C.M. Denkinger reports grants from Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), and Ministry of Science, Research and Culture, State of Baden Wuerttemberg, Germany, to conduct of the study. This work was funded as part of FIND’s work as co-convener of the diagnostics pillar of the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator, including support from Unitaid [grant number: 2019-32-FIND MDR], the government of the Netherlands [grant number: MINBUZA-2020.961444], from the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office [FCDO, formerly DFID, grant number 300341-102], and the World Health Organization. T.C. Jones is in part funded through NIAID-NIH CEIRS contract HHSN272201400008C. FIND supplied the test kits for the study. The study was support by Heidelberg University Hospital and Charité University Hospital internal funds.

Data availability

All raw data and analysis code are available upon a request to the corresponding author.

Ethics

This study was approved by the ethics committee of Charité -Universitätsmedizin (EA1/371/20) and of the Heidelberg University Hospital (Registration number S-180/2020).