Real-life performance of a novel antigen detection test on nasopharyngeal specimens for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis: a prospective study

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has become a major public health issue worldwide. Developing and evaluating rapid and easy-to-perform diagnostic tests is an absolute priority. The current study was designed to assess diagnostic performances of an antigen-based rapid detection test (COVID-VIRO®) in a real-life setting.Two nasopharyngeal specimens of symptomatic or asymptomatic adult patients hospitalized in the Infectious Diseases Department or voluntarily accessing the COVID-19 Screening Department of the Regional Hospital of Orléans, France, were concurrently collected. COVID VIRO® diagnostic specificity and sensitivity were assessed in comparison to real-time reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) results. A subset of patients underwent an additional oropharyngeal and/or a saliva swab for rapid testing.121 patients already having a confirmed infection and 127 patients having no evidence of recent or ongoing infection were enrolled, for a total of 248 couple of nasopharyngeal swab specimens. Overall COVID-VIRO® sensitivity was 96.7% (IC: 93.5%-99.9%). In asymptomatic patients, symptomatic patients having symptoms for more than 4 days and those having a RT-qPCR Cycle threshold value ≥32, sensitivity was of 100%, 95.8% and 91.9% respectively. The concordance between RT-qPCR and COVID VIRO® rapid test was 100% for the 127 patients with no SARS-CoV-2 infection.COVID-VIRO® test had 100% specificity and above 95% sensitivity, better than WHO recommendations (specificity ≥97-100%, sensitivity ≥80%). These rapid tests are particularly interesting for large-scale screening in Emergency Department, low resource settings and airports.

COVID-VIRO® (AAZ, Boulogne Billancourt, France) is one of the novels immunochromatographic tests designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 antigen in nasopharyngeal secretions within 15 min. Evaluating the diagnostic performance of COVID-VIRO® in the real life in comparison to the RT-qPCR as reference test is the principal aim of the current prospective study.

Ethical approval
This study was approved by the Regional North West Ethics and Research Committee. A written informed consent was obtained from each participant.

Study population
People voluntarily accessing the COVID-19 Screening Department and SARS-CoV-2 positive patients hospitalized in the Infectious Diseases Department of the Centre Hospitalier Régional (CHR) of Orléans, France, or the Department of Infectious and Tropical Diseases of the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Tenon, Paris, France, from October 12 th , 2020, to October 19th, 2020, were included in the study. Patient age was collected at inclusion, as well as symptom onset date for symptomatic patients. Suggestive symptoms were headache, fatigue, fever, or respiratory signs.
Participating patients underwent two concurrent nasopharyngeal swabs for RT-qPCR and COVID-VIRO® analysis, respectively.

Case definition
SARS-Cov2 positive subjects were either patients with a positive RT-qPCR at the time of the study sampling if done in parallel with the rapid test, either patients with a previous positive RT-qPCR within 5 days but a negative RT-qPCR at the time of study sampling. SARS Cov2 negative subjects were patients with a negative RT-qPCR at the time of study sampling without any previous RT-qPCR.
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted November 3, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.28.20220657 doi: medRxiv preprint

Specimen collection
Two nasopharyngeal swabs were performed by trained personnel (nurse, doctors, or biologists). The collection of the two simultaneous samples was always carried out by the same operator. A polyester-tipped flexible aluminum-shafted applicator (Microtest M4RT, Remel) was inserted into two of the nostrils until resistance was felt at the nasopharynx, then rotated 6 times and withdrawn. After swabbing, the swab applicator was cut off, and each absorbent swab was placed into a vial containing 3 mL of inactivating viral transport media. Half of nasopharyngeal swabs were immediately transferred to the Virology Unit of the CHR of Orléans hospital, Orléans, or Drouot Laboratory, Paris, to perform RT-qPCR, while the rapid antigen test was immediately on-site performed. An additional oropharyngeal and/or saliva swab specimens were simultaneously collected in a subgroup of positive patients in order to determine the diagnostic reliability of these fluids in comparison to nasopharyngeal swab specimens. For oropharyngeal specimen, the swab was used to collect fluid on both sides of tonsillar arches and posterior pharynx. For saliva specimen, the sterile swab was used on the upper and lower gums all the way from the back to the front twice and immediately placed in the buffer vial.

Real-time RT-qPCR assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA
Nucleic acid extraction was performed with automated Sample Preparation System MGISP-960 (MGI, China). Specific real-time RT-qPCR assays target three SARS-CoV-2 genes, namely ORF1ab, S and N genes (TaqPath Covid-19 Multiplex RT-PCR, Thermofisher). Genome amplification was performed using QuantStudio5 (Applied Biosystems). Results interpretation was performed according to manufacturer instructions. The assay includes an RNA internal extraction control and amplification control. Samples showing an exponential growth curve and a Cycle threshold (Ct) value < 37 were considered as positive. A Ct unique value > 37 was considered as negative.

Rapid antigen test
COVID-VIRO® (AAZ, Boulogne Billancourt, France) is a membrane-based immunochromatography assay detecting SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen (Nprotein) in nasopharyngeal samples through monoclonal antibodies. A second . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted November 3, 2020. ; monoclonal antibody is conjugate to colloidal gold particles which are captured in reaction membrane. The test was performed according to manufacturer instruction by mixing nasopharyngeal secretions with 300 µL of dilution buffer in a tube. One minute, 4 drops were added in the appropriate well. When nasopharyngeal secretions cross the strip, a passive diffusion allows the solubilized conjugate to migrate with the sample and react with the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies immobilized on the membrane. A control line allows assessing the correct migration of sample and the reliability of the test. Visual interpretation of results is performed 15 min after ( Figure 1).

Data analysis
Population characteristics are reported as percentage, mean and median values, standard deviation, and range. Data was analyzed in the Infectious Diseases Department.
To determine the diagnostic value of COVID-VIRO®, the study population was divided into two groups: 1.
Already confirmed RT-qPCR positive patients. Comparison between RT-qPCR and COVID-VIRO® results in these patients was used to assess diagnostic test sensitivity.

2.
Non-selected symptomatic or asymptomatic patients voluntarily accessing the COVID-19 Screening Department in order to detect a possible SARS-CoV-2 infection. Analysing data, RT-qPCR positive patients were added to the first group in order to assess diagnostic test sensitivity. Conversely, RT-qPCR negative patients were selected to measure the specificity of the rapid test.
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted November 3, 2020. ; COVID-VIRO® specificity and sensitivity were calculated using the RT-qPCR results as reference test, according to the following formulas: The size of the study population was calculated on the basis of a 95% sensitivity with a lower margin of the confidence interval over 91% and a 99% specificity with a lower margin over 95% according to the WHO recommendations for antigenic rapid test. T Student test was used to compare means.

patients with a SARS-CoV-2 confirmed infection and 127 patients with no
evidence of SARS-CoV-2 recent or ongoing infection were enrolled in the study. A total of 248 couples of nasopharyngeal swabs were analyzed. Of these, 228 were collected in Orléans, and 20 in Paris.
The sex ratio of the study population was 0,9 (117 men and 131 women). The median and mean age was 38 and 43 years old, respectively (range: 18-96). Figure 2 shows the flow chart of included subjects in the study. One patient exhibiting only one positive target (gene S, Ct 36) at RT-qPCR analysis, was considered as negative according to the French Society of Microbiology criteria and the extraction kit instructions, and was included in the group of SARS-CoV2 negative patients.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted November 3, 2020. ; value (i.e: low RNA carriage), COVID-VIRO® was able to detect the antigen in 15 patients having symptoms for more than 7 days.
Among the 121 RT-qPCR positive patients, 4 had a negative COVID-VIRO® result (3.3% false negative). The overall sensitivity of the POCT is estimated to be 96.7% (IC: 93.5%-99.9%) (table 1). There was no false negative result obtained with COVID-VIRO® among the 22 asymptomatic patients. Table 2 shows the COVID-VIRO® performances according to the Ct value and the delay of symptoms onset. COVID-VIRO® sensitivity was extremely high among patients having a Gene N, S or ORF Ct-values > 32, considering that 32 out of 33 patients were tested positive (sensitivity: 96.9% (95% IC: 91.1% -100%). Table 3 shows the characteristics of the four COVID-VIRO® false negative cases. Three out of four had Ct values ≥ 32 and were clinically considered as non-contagious. Twenty positive patients having a previous positive RT-qPCR were tested negative when the second RT-qPCR was dually performed with the POCT. All these patients had a positive COVID-VIRO® result (mainly weak or very weak line) suggesting that it could be still positive some days after PCR negativization.
Among the 127 patients with no SARS-CoV2 infection, no false positive result was observed and the concordance between RT-qPCR and COVID-VIRO® was 100%. Therefore, COVID-VIRO® specificity is estimated to be 100%.
Additionally, 48 patients having a positive COVID-VIRO® test on nasopharyngeal swab specimen accepted undergoing a simultaneous oropharyngeal (34 patients) or saliva swab (14 patients). COVID-VIRO® was positive in 24 out of 34 and 0 out of 14 patients on oropharyngeal and saliva specimens, respectively. Sensitivity was 70.6% for oropharyngeal specimens and 0% for saliva specimens.

Discussion
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted November 3, 2020. ; This prospective observational study aims to evaluate the performance of a POCT designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 antigen from a nasopharyngeal swab directly after sampling and giving the result within 15 minutes. The diagnostic value of COVID-VIRO® was determined using RT-qPCR as gold standard in a real-life community setting. In our study, the test sensitivity reached 96.7% and specificity was found to be 100%, with no false positive observed. Although if visual interpretation of the result is performed after 15 min, almost always a positive result appeared within the first five minutes, not rarely within one minute.
To date, few studies have already evaluated the performance of such POCT to detect SARS-CoV-2 antigen on nasopharyngeal fresh swab in the real life. The only prospective studies available concern the Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid test (Abbott). While the manufacturer reported a high sensitivity (93.3%; 95 CI 83.8-98.2) in a high endemic setting in Brazil (14), other independent cohort studies did not show such performances. In 257 symptomatic and asymptomatic patients enrolled at the Emergency Department and Primary Health Care Setting in Spain, overall sensitivity was 73.3%, reaching 86.5% among patients having symptoms for less than seven days (15). In another multicentric study performed on 200 COVID-19 RT-PCR positive patients, POCT sensitivity was 72.6% (95% CI: 64.5-79.9%) in the Netherlands and 81.0% (95% CI: 69.0-89.8%) in Aruba. Test sensitivity was as high as 95.2% (95% CI: 89.3-98.5%) in patient with RT-qPCR test positivity to Ct-values < 32. (16).
Even in our study, patients were stratified by the Ct value to evaluate the test sensitivity at different level of nasopharyngeal viral load. COVID-VIRO® sensitivity remained extremely high even when Ct values were >32 (96.9%; 95% IC: 91.1% -100%).
Detection of viral RNA on nasopharyngeal samples is not necessarily linked to infectiousness (17). Several factors determine viral transmission risk: these include whether a virus is still viable, the amount of replicative virus estimated by the Ct, the presence of respiratory symptoms, the individual's local mucosal immune response to the virus, and the behaviour of the infected individual and their contacts (18). However, in the present study the number of viral particles estimated by the Ct value did not differ in asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. COVID-VIRO® appears to be as sensitive as RT-qPCR to detect infected patients in a limited number of asymptomatic patients.
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted November 3, 2020. ; Available data report that RNA viral load rapidly decreases after the onset of symptoms, and infectiousness generally declines within 7-10 days (17,(19)(20)(21)(22). Stratifying our patients by symptoms duration at sampling, we observed a similar decline from day 1 to day 14 in the mean Ct value enregistered. Just one hospitalized patient aged of 90's, exhibited a Ct value of S :21, N: 22, ORF: 21 at day 10. Anyway, our POCT was able to detect the antigen as well as within than after 4 days of symptom onset.
Considering discordant results, the analytical performances depend on different factors including the viral load, the quality of the specimen and the modalities of processing. The two nasopharyngeal swabs were concurrently performed by the same operator, but we can hypothesize that a greater quantity of secretions and therefore of virus is concentrated on the first swab instead of on the second. Unfortunately, we do not know the temporal order in which each swab was performed, due to the methodology used, and waiting one hour between the two samples was infeasible. Analysing POCT results on oropharyngeal and saliva specimens of positive patients, we quickly realized that sensitivity dramatically drops. Even if nasopharyngeal swab is not comfortable for patients, this specimen should be privileged for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, whether obtained through PCR or POCT.
This study has several limitations. First, the date of symptoms onset was reported by patients and may not always be accurate, leading to an inaccurate stratification of patients. Second, the number of asymptomatic patients is rather limited to obtain conclusive data, even if we did not observe any discordance between tests in this group of patients.
In France, nurses, pharmaceuticals, and general practitioners have recently been authorized to perform POCT in medical settings (7). Data obtained from the current study could reassure health authorities in expanding access to POCT that, in addition to being quick and easy to use, are also reliable. Currently, symptomatic people risk spending some days waiting for the execution and then for the result of a SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR screening test. During this time, unaware infected people waiting for the result are more at risk to transmit the virus than after having the official result of their test. A more rapid diagnosis and the subsequent contact tracing would certainly positively impact on the containment of transmission.
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted November 3, 2020. ; In the Emergency Departments, POCT could also be used to quickly recognise asymptomatic positive from negative patients, avoiding SARS-CoV-2 nosocomial infection. Furthermore, such tests would likely be useful in low-and middle-income countries and at airports to limit the worldwide spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Conclusion
Performance of COVID-VIRO® (AAZ, Boulogne Billancourt, France) was a quite a reliable test for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. The sensitivity and specificity of the evaluated POCT in nasopharyngeal swabs were 96.7 % (95% CI 9 -99.9%) and 100% respectively. To date, this is the unique COVID-19 antigenic rapid test fulfilling the WHO's recommendations for a screening test (sensitivity ≥ 80%, specificity ≥ 97-100%). Unfortunately, performing the test on oropharyngeal or salivary samples is not enough reliable.

Bibliography
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted November 3, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.28.20220657 doi: medRxiv preprint   is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted November 3, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020. 10 Table 3: Characteristics of the four discordant positives RT-PCR negative COVID-VIRO®. None of patient was hospitalized.
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted November 3, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.28.20220657 doi: medRxiv preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted November 3, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.28.20220657 doi: medRxiv preprint