PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Winnett, Alexander Viloria
AU  - Akana, Reid
AU  - Shelby, Natasha
AU  - Davich, Hannah
AU  - Caldera, Saharai
AU  - Yamada, Taikun
AU  - Reyna, John Raymond B.
AU  - Romano, Anna E.
AU  - Carter, Alyssa M.
AU  - Kim, Mi Kyung
AU  - Thomson, Matt
AU  - Tognazzini, Colten
AU  - Feaster, Matthew
AU  - Goh, Ying-Ying
AU  - Chew, Yap Ching
AU  - Ismagilov, Rustem F.
TI  - Why Daily SARS-CoV-2 Nasal Rapid Antigen Testing Poorly Detects Infected and Infectious Individuals
AID  - 10.1101/2022.07.13.22277513
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2022.07.13.22277513
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/11/2022.07.13.22277513.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/11/2022.07.13.22277513.full
AB  - Background In a recent household-transmission study of SARS-CoV-2, we found extreme differences in SARS-CoV-2 viral loads among paired saliva, anterior-nares swab (ANS) and oropharyngeal swab specimens collected from the same timepoint. We hypothesized these differences may hinder low-analytical-sensitivity assays (including antigen rapid diagnostic tests, Ag-RDTs) using a single specimen type (e.g., ANS) from reliably detecting infected and infectious individuals.Methods We evaluated a daily at-home ANS Ag-RDT (Quidel QuickVue) in a cross-sectional analysis of 228 individuals and in a longitudinal analysis (throughout infection) of 17 individuals enrolled early in the course of infection. Ag-RDT results were compared to RT-qPCR results and high, presumably infectious viral loads (in each, or any, specimen type).Results The ANS Ag-RDT correctly detected only 44% of timepoints from infected individuals on cross-sectional analysis, and in this population had an inferred limit of detection of 7.6×106 copies/mL. From the longitudinal cohort, daily Ag-RDT clinical sensitivity was very low (<3%) during the early, pre-infectious period of the infection. Further, the Ag-RDT detected ≤63% of presumably infectious timepoints. The poor observed clinical sensitivity of the Ag-RDT was similar to what was predicted based on quantitative ANS viral loads and the inferred limit of detection of the ANS Ag-RDT being evaluated, indicating high-quality self-sampling.Conclusion Nasal Ag-RDTs, even when used daily, can miss individuals infected with the Omicron variant and even those presumably infectious. Evaluations of Ag-RDT detection of infected or infectious individuals should be compared with a composite (multi-specimen) infection status to correctly assess performance.Key points Nasal-swab rapid antigen tests have low analytical sensitivity and the sampling of only the nasal cavity hinders their ability to detect infected individuals, including those with high and presumably infectious viral loads in throat or saliva specimens.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