Abstract
Background The emergence of each novel SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) requires investigation of its potential impact on the performance of diagnostic tests in use, including Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT). Although anecdotal reports have been circulating that the newly emerged Omicron variant is in principle detectable by Ag-RDTs, few data on sensitivity are available.
Methods We have performed 1) analytical sensitivity testing with cultured virus in eight Ag-RDTs and 2) retrospective testing in duplicates with clinical samples from vaccinated individuals with Omicron (n=18) or Delta (n=17) breakthrough infection on seven Ag-RDTs.
Findings Overall, we have found large heterogenicity between Ag-RDTs for detecting Omicron. When using cultured virus, we observed a trend towards lower sensitivity for Omicron detection compared to earlier circulating SARS-CoV-2 and the other VOCs. When comparing performance for Delta and Omicron in a comparable set of clinical samples in seven Ag-RDTs, 124/252 (49.2%) of all test performed showed a positive result for Omicron compared to 156/238 (65.6%) for Delta samples. Sensitivity for both Omicron and Delta between Ag-RDTs was highly variable. Four out of seven Ag-RDTs showed significantly lower sensitivity (p<0.001) to detect Omicron when compared to Delta while three had comparable sensitivity to Delta.
Interpretation Sensitivity for detecting Omicron is highly variable between Ag-RDTs, necessitating a careful consideration when using these tests to guide infection prevention measures. While analytical and retrospective testing may be a proxy and timely solution to generate performance data, it is not a replacement for clinical evaluations which are urgently needed. Biological and technical reasons for detection failure by some Ag-RDTs need to be further investigated.
Funding This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant numbers 196383, 196644 and 198412), the Fondation Ancrage Bienfaisance du Groupe Pictet, the Fondation Privée des Hôpiteaux Universitaires de Genève and FIND, the global alliance for diagnostics.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant number 196383), the Fondation Ancrage Bienfaisance du Groupe Pictet, and FIND, the global alliance for diagnostics. The Swiss National Science Foundation and the Fondation Ancrage Bienfaisance du Groupe Pictet had no role in data collection, analysis, or interpretation. Antigen rapid diagnostic tests were provided by FIND and FIND was involved in methodology, data analysis and interpretation. CE is an employee of FIND.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval for samples used in this study for virus isolation was waived by the local ethics committee of the Geneva University Hospitals (HUG) that approves the usage of anonymized leftover patient samples collected for diagnostic purposes in accordance with our institutional and national regulations. The part of the study using patient specimens linked to clinical data (retrospective testing) was approved by the Cantonal ethics committee (CCER Nr. 2021-01488) of the University Hospitals of Geneva. For this part, all study participants and/or their legal guardians provided informed consent.
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.
Yes
I 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).
Yes
I 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.
Yes
Footnotes
Evaluation of Ag-RDTs with clinical samples added
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
