RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Extreme differences in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron viral loads among specimen types drives poor performance of nasal rapid antigen tests for detecting presumably pre-infectious and infectious individuals, predicting improved performance of combination specimen antigen tests
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.07.13.22277513
DO 10.1101/2022.07.13.22277513
A1 Alexander Viloria Winnett
A1 Reid Akana
A1 Natasha Shelby
A1 Hannah Davich
A1 Saharai Caldera
A1 Taikun Yamada
A1 John Raymond B. Reyna
A1 Anna E. Romano
A1 Alyssa M. Carter
A1 Mi Kyung Kim
A1 Matt Thomson
A1 Colten Tognazzini
A1 Matthew Feaster
A1 Ying-Ying Goh
A1 Yap Ching Chew
A1 Rustem F. Ismagilov
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/07/15/2022.07.13.22277513.abstract
AB Background To limit viral transmission, COVID-19 testing strategies must evolve as new SARS-CoV-2 variants (and new respiratory viruses) emerge to ensure that the specimen types and test analytical sensitivities being used will reliably detect individuals during the pre-infectious and infectious periods. Our accompanying work demonstrated that there are extreme differences in viral loads among paired saliva (SA), anterior-nares swab (ANS) and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) specimens collected from the same person and timepoint. We hypothesized that these extreme differences may prevent low-analytical-sensitivity assays (such as antigen rapid diagnostic tests, Ag-RDTs) performed on a single specimen type from reliably detecting pre-infectious and infectious individuals.Methods We conducted a longitudinal COVID-19 household-transmission study in which 228 participants collected SA, ANS, and OPS specimens for viral-load quantification by RT-qPCR, and performed an ANS Ag-RDT (Quidel QuickVue At-Home OTC COVID-19 Test) daily. We evaluated the performance of the Ag-RDT (n=2215 tests) to detect infected individuals (positive results in any specimen type by RT-qPCR) and individuals with presumed infectious viral loads (at or above thresholds of 104, 105, 106, or 107 copies/mL).Results Overall, the daily Ag-RDT detected 44% (358/811) timepoints from infected individuals. From 17 participants who enrolled early in the course of infection, we found that daily Ag-RDT performance was higher at timepoints when symptoms were reported, but symptoms only weakly correlated with SARS-CoV-2 viral loads, so ANS Ag-RDT clinical sensitivity remained below 50%. The three specimen types exhibited asynchronous presumably-infectious periods (regardless of the infectious viral-load threshold chosen) and the rise in ANS viral loads was delayed relative to SA or OPS for nearly all individuals, which resulted in the daily ANS Ag-RDT detecting only 3% in the pre-infectious period and 63% in the infectious period. We evaluated a computationally-contrived combined AN–OP swab based on viral loads from ANS and OPS specimens collected at the same timepoint; when tested with similar analytical sensitivity as the Ag-RDT, this combined swab was predicted to have significantly better performance, detecting up to 82% of infectious individuals.Conclusion Daily ANS rapid antigen testing missed virtually all pre-infectious individuals, and more than one third of presumed infectious individuals due to low-analytical-sensitivity of the assay, a delayed rise in ANS viral loads, and asynchronous infectious viral loads in SA or OPS. When high-analytical-sensitivity assays are not available and low-analytical-sensitivity tests such as Ag-RDTs must be used for SARS-CoV-2 detection, an AN–OP combination swab is predicted to be most effective for detection of pre-infectious and infectious individuals. More generally, low-analytical-sensitivity tests are likely to perform more robustly using oral-nasal combination specimen types to detect new SASR-CoV-2 variants and emergent upper respiratory viruses.Competing Interest StatementRFI is a co-founder, consultant, and a director and has stock ownership of Talis Biomedical Corp.Funding StatementThis work was funded by the Ronald and Maxine Linde Center for New Initiatives at the California Institute of Technology and the Jacobs Institute for Molecular Engineering for Medicine at the California Institute of Technology. AVW is supported by a UCLA DGSOM Geffen Fellowship.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:California Institute of Technology IRB gave ethical approval for this work under IRB protocol #20-1026.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe data underlying the results presented in the study can be accessed via CaltechDATA: https://data.caltech.edu/records/20223. https://data.caltech.edu/records/20223