key: cord-0888612-aas9wjfn
authors: Takeuchi, Y.; Akashi, Y.; Kato, D.; Kuwahara, M.; Muramatsu, S.; Ueda, A.; Notake, S.; Nakamura, K.; Ishikawa, H.; Suzuki, H.
title: The evaluation of a newly developed antigen test (QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag) for SARS-CoV-2: A prospective observational study in Japan
date: 2021-01-02
journal: nan
DOI: 10.1101/2020.12.27.20248876
sha: cbdfc4eec34f42a0b4f85d226438704763e8cfaf
doc_id: 888612
cord_uid: aas9wjfn

Introduction Several antigen tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been developed worldwide, but their clinical utility has not been well established. In this study, we evaluated the analytical and clinical performance of QuickNavi-COVID19 Ag, a newly developed antigen test in Japan. Methods This prospective observational study was conducted at a PCR center between October 7 and December 5, 2020. The included patients were referred from a local public health center and 89 primary care facilities. We simultaneously obtained two nasopharyngeal samples with flocked swabs; one was used for the antigen test and the other for real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR). Using the results of real-time RT-PCR as a reference, the performance of the antigen test was evaluated. Results A total of 1186 patients were included in this study, and the real-time RT-PCR detected SARS-CoV-2 in 105 (8.9%). Of these 105 patients, 33 (31.4%) were asymptomatic. The antigen test provided a 98.8% (95% confident interval [CI]: 98.0%-99.4%) concordance rate with real-time RT-PCR, along with a sensitivity of 86.7% (95% CI: 78.6%-92.5%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI: 99.7%-100%). False-negatives were observed in 14 patients, 8 of whom were asymptomatic and had a low viral load (cycle threshold (Ct) >30). In symptomatic patients, the sensitivity was 91.7% (95% CI: 82.7%-96.9%). Conclusion QuickNavi-COVID19 Ag showed high specificity and sufficient sensitivity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. This test is a promising potential diagnostic modality when access to molecular examinations is limited.

Several antigen tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been developed worldwide, but their clinical utility has not been well established. In this study, we evaluated the analytical and clinical performance of QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag, a newly developed antigen test in Japan.

This prospective observational study was conducted at a PCR center between October 7 and December 5, 2020. The included patients were referred from a local public health center and 89 primary care facilities. We simultaneously obtained two nasopharyngeal samples with flocked swabs; one was used for the antigen test and the other for real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR). Using the results of real-time RT-PCR as a reference, the performance of the antigen test was evaluated.

A total of 1186 patients were included in this study, and the real-time RT-PCR detected SARS-CoV-2 in 105 (8.9%). Of these 105 patients, 33 (31.4%) were asymptomatic. The antigen test provided a 98.8% (95% confident interval [CI]: 98.0%-99.4%) concordance rate with real-time RT-PCR, along with a sensitivity of 86.7% (95% CI: 78.6%-92.5%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI: 99.7%-100%). False-negatives were observed in 14 patients, 8 of whom were asymptomatic and had a low viral load (cycle threshold (Ct) >30). In symptomatic patients, the sensitivity was 91.7% (95% CI: 82.7%-96.9%).

QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag showed high specificity and sufficient sensitivity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. This test is a promising potential diagnostic modality when access to molecular examinations is limited. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted January 2, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.27.20248876 doi: medRxiv preprint Keywords: antigen test, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, immunochromatography, QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag . CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.

is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has laid a detrimental burden on the healthcare system [1] . The effective isolation and early treatment of SARS-CoV-2 patients require rapid and accurate diagnostic methods [2] .

Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for upper respiratory samples have been the mainstay for the identification of infected individuals [3] . However, while these assays are considered the gold-standard examinations, the disadvantages of their finite availability, long turnaround time, and need for skilled technicians have limited their clinical utility [4] . The number of patients eligible to undergo these tests may overwhelm the test capacity in outbreak settings [3] . Antigen tests are cheaper, more accessible point-of-care tests and take a shorter time to produce results; they can therefore be more useful in limited-resource settings, provided they reliably detect SARS-CoV-2.

The reported sensitivity of antigen tests has ranged from 0%-94%, whereas the specificity is consistently high at >97% [3] . QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag (Denka Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) is a newly developed antigen test in Japan and employs a sandwich immunochromatography method with mouse monoclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.

The test result is available within 15 minutes after samples diluted in the buffer have been placed in a well of the test kit. Nevertheless, no study has yet examined its utility.

In the present study, we evaluated the analytical and clinical performance of QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag using prospectively collected clinical samples. Furthermore, we analyzed the factors that might influence the sensitivity and specificity.

. CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.

is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted January 2, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.27.20248876 doi: medRxiv preprint

We prospectively performed the study between October 7 and December 5, 2020, at a PCR center in Tsukuba, located in the southern part of Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan. During the COVID-19 endemic period, sample-collecting for PCR in the Tsukuba district was intensively performed with a drive-through-type method at the PCR center in Tsukuba Medical Center Hospital (TMCH). During the study period, additional samples for antigen test were collected from patients who have been referred from a local public health center and 89 primary care facilities (Supplementary Table 1 ) and healthcare workers of TMCH, and their clinical information was obtained after receiving the subjects' informed consent. If patients had no clinical data, we excluded them from this study. In cases where patients participated in the current study more than once, only the first evaluation was included in this study.

The ethics committee of TMCH approved the present study (approval number: 2020-033).

For sample collections, we simultaneously obtained two nasopharyngeal samples for antigen test and PCR examination with FLOQSwab™ (Copan Italia S.p.A., Brescia, Italy) as previously described [5] . Antigen test was performed immediately after sample collection according to the manufacturers' instructions, described in Supplementary Figure 1 , and the results were obtained by the visual interpretation of each examiner. Another swab sample was diluted in 3 mL of Universal Transport Medium™ (UTM™) (Copan Italia S.p.A., Brescia, Italy), and the UTM™ was transferred to an in-house microbiology laboratory located next to the drive-through sample-collecting place of the PCR center within an hour of sample collection.

. CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.

is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted January 2, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.27.20248876 doi: medRxiv preprint After the arrival of the UTM™ samples, purification and RNA extraction were performed with magLEAD 6gC (Precision System Science Co., Ltd., Chiba, Japan) from 200 µL aliquots of UTM™ for in-house reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) on the same day as sample collection. The RNA was eluted in 100 µL and stored at -80 °C after in-house RT-PCR.

The eluted samples were transferred to Denka Co., Ltd., every week for real-time RT-PCR of SARS-CoV-2 using a method developed by the National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Japan [6] . If discordance was recognized between the reference real-time RT-PCR and in-house RT-PCR, a re-evaluation was performed with a BioFire ® Respiratory Panel 2.1 and FilmArray ® systems (BioFire Diagnostics, LLC, UT, USA), and the final judgment was made.

The limit of detection of QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag was investigated as follows: the 2019-nCoV/JPN/TY/WK-521 strain (4.2×10 5 TCID50/mL) cultured in VeroE6/TMPRSS2 cells were diluted two-fold stepwise with QuickNavi™ specimen buffer and used as samples. Each sample with different concentrations was tested in triplicate. As shown in Table 1 , the limit of detection was 5.3×10 1 TCID50/mL and was consistent throughout the test.

The sensitivity and specificity of antigen test were calculated using the Clopper and Pearson method, with 95% confident intervals (CIs). Categorical variables were compared by Fisher's exact test. P-values <0.05 were considered to represent statistically significant differences. All calculations were conducted using the R 3.3.1 software program (The R Foundation, Vienna, Austria). is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted January 2, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.27.20248876 doi: medRxiv preprint

Of the 2079 referred patients and 45 healthcare workers, a total of 1208 individuals who had nasopharyngeal samples collected for antigen test and had provided their informed consent were initially included. We excluded the patients who were duplicates (n=18) or missing symptom data (n=4). We finally included 1186 subjects for the analysis.

Most samples were obtained at the drive-through PCR center, and only 15 were (68.6%) were symptomatic, and 33 (31.4%) were asymptomatic (Table 2a) .

The characteristics of the symptomatic subjects and cases infected with SARS-CoV-2 are described in Table 2b . Of the symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive cases (n=72), the most common symptom was fever (72.2%), followed by cough or sputum production (41.7%), sore throat (23.6%), fatigue (18.1%) and headache (18.1%).

Of the 105 cases that were positive on reference real-time RT-PCR, antigen test was also positive in 91 (Table 3a ). The concordance rate between antigen test and real-time RT-PCR was thus 98.8% (95% CI: 98.0%-99.4%). The sensitivity and specificity rates were 86.7% (95% CI: 78.6%-92.5%) and 100% (95% CI: 99.7%-100%), respectively (Table 3a) .

Of the 72 symptomatic cases that were positive on reference real-time RT-PCR, antigen test was also positive in 66 (Table 3b ). The sensitivity and specificity were 91.7% (95% CI:

82.7%-96.9%) and 100% (95% CI: 99.5%-100%), respectively (Table 3b) . is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted January 2, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.27.20248876 doi: medRxiv preprint

Among the 14 discrepant cases, 8 were asymptomatic, and 4 of the 6 symptomatic cases had their nasopharyngeal samples taken ≥6 days after the onset of symptoms. The N2-gene was detected in all cases, but the N1-gene was not detected in 7 cases. One patient had a history of preceding favipiravir administration ( Table 4) .

The sensitivity of Ct value (N2) <20 was 100% (95% CI: 91.0%-100%), that of Ct 20-24 was 96.7% (95% CI: 82.8%-99.9%), and that of Ct 25-29 was 100% (95% CI: 83.2%-100%) ( Table 5 ). In contrast, the sensitivity of Ct ≥30 was 18.8% (95% CI: 4.0%-45.6%) ( Table 5) . is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted January 2, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.27.20248876 doi: medRxiv preprint

Among 1186 subjects referred from clinics and a local healthcare center in the southern part of Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan, this prospective study indicated that QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag has satisfactory performance for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Of note, the test provided no false-positive results in our study population. False-negatives were detected in 14 subjects, over half of whom were asymptomatic.

False-positives should be avoided due to concerns about unnecessary further examinations or application of quarantine measures [7] . NAATs are highly specific for SARS-CoV-2, and positive results are usually definitive for the diagnosis of COVID-19 [3] . Falsepositives are rare and they tend to only be observed under exceptional conditions such as cross contaminations, erroneous handling of samples, or a breakdown in test reagents or equipment [8] . Similar to NAATs, antigen tests generally have high specificities of >99% improved antigen test sensitivity. The viral load on the nasopharynx is generally higher than in the nasal cavity or saliva [15, 16] , and flocked swabs can yield more samples than rayon swabs is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted January 2, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.27.20248876 doi: medRxiv preprint [17] .

The utility of antigen tests for screening purposes is controversial. The WHO guidelines basically recommend against antigen tests for screening purposes [3] . In contrast, European countries allow antigen tests for screening or serial testing [18] . Recent studies may support this use of antigen tests, showing the frequency and turnaround time of the tests to be great contributors to an effective screening strategy [19] . Since the QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag may effectively identify highly infectious patients (generally Ct <25 [20]) without any falsepositives, the test may be beneficial for screening purposes.

Several limitations associated with the present study warrant mention. First, reference real-time RT-PCR examinations employed frozen samples. Despite all samples being frozen at -80 °C, their viral load may have been reduced through the storage process. Second, we investigated whether or not the intervals between the symptom onset and examination timing influenced the performance of the antigen test; however, the sample size was not sufficient to draw a definitive conclusion (Supplementary Figure 2) . The viral shedding of COVID-19 is high between 1-3 days before and 5-7 days after the symptom onset [21], and these intervals may interfere with the antigen test results. Third, using anterior nasal samples was beyond the scope of this study. Sample collection from the anterior nasal cavity is less invasive than that from the nasopharynx and is now approved for QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag. The clinical performance of the test with these samples has not yet been evaluated, and further research is

In conclusion, the QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag showed very high specificity and sufficient sensitivity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Given the simple procedures and shorter turnaround time involved with this test, it is a promising option as an alternative diagnostic modality when early access to NAATs is limited. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted January 2, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted January 2, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.27.20248876 doi: medRxiv preprint . CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.

is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted January 2, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.27.20248876 doi: medRxiv preprint

December 2020]. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted January 2, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted January 2, 2021. December 2020].

. CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.

is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted January 2, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.27.20248876 doi: medRxiv preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted January 2, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.27.20248876 doi: medRxiv preprint . CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.

is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted January 2, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.27.20248876 doi: medRxiv preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted January 2, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.27.20248876 doi: medRxiv preprint Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value are provided with 95% confident intervals. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted January 2, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.27.20248876 doi: medRxiv preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted January 2, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.27.20248876 doi: medRxiv preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted January 2, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.27.20248876 doi: medRxiv preprint

World Health Organization. Laboratory testing for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in suspected human cases: interim guidance

World Health Organization. Antigen-detection in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection using rapid immunoassays

Challenges in Laboratory Diagnosis of the Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2

How to Obtain a Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimen

Development of Genetic Diagnostic Methods for Detection for Novel Coronavirus 2019(nCoV-2019) in Japan

Another falsepositive problem for a SARS-CoV-2 antigen test in Japan

World Health Organization. Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2

Comparing Nasopharyngeal and Midturbinate Nasal Swab Testing for the Identification of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2

A Direct Comparison of Enhanced Saliva to Nasopharyngeal Swab for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Symptomatic Patients

Comparison of Flocked and Rayon Swabs for Collection of Respiratory Epithelial Cells from Uninfected Volunteers and Symptomatic Patients

European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Options for the use of rapid antigen