Our results show that combined active-passive immunization of newborns against hepatitis B provides persistent protection up to adolescence despite a frequent waning of anti-HBs antibodies, suggesting there is no need for booster vaccination during adolescence.

Antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 (AGT) is generally considered inferior to RT-PCR testing in terms of sensitivity. However, little is known about the infectiousness of RT-PCR positive patients who pass undetected by AGT. In a screening setting for mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic patients with high COVID-19 prevalence (30–40%), 1141 patients were tested using one of five AGTs and RT-PCR. Where the results differed, virus viability in the samples was tested on cell culture (CV-1 cells). The test battery included AGTs by JOYSBIO, Assure Tech, SD Biosensor, VivaChek Biotech and NDFOS. Sensitivities of the ATGs compared to RT-PCR ranged from 42% to 76%. The best test yielded a 76% sensitivity, 97% specificity, 92% positive, and 89% negative predictive values, respectively. However, in the best performing ATG tests, almost 90% of samples with “false negative” AGT results contained no viable virus. Corrected on the virus viability, sensitivities grew to 81%–97% and, with one exception, the tests yielded high specificities >96%. Performance characteristics of the best test after adjustment were 96% sensitivity, 97% specificity, 92% positive, and 99% negative predictive values (high prevalence population). We, therefore, believe that virus viability should be considered when assessing the AGT performance. Also, our results indicate that a well-performing antigen test could in a high-prevalence setting serve as an excellent tool for identifying patients shedding viable virus. We also propose that the high proportion of RT-PCR-positive samples containing no viable virus in the group of “false negatives” of the antigen test should be further investigated with the aim of possibly preventing needless isolation of such patients.

Background Antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 is considered to be less sensitive than the standard reference method – real-time PCR (RT-PCR). It has been suggested that many patients with positive RT-PCR ‘missed’ by antigen testing might be non-infectious. Methods In a real-world high-throughput setting for asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic patients, 494 patients were tested using RT-PCR as well as a single lateral flow antigen test (Ecotest, AssureTech, China). Where the results differed, virus viability was evaluated by cell culture. The test parameters were calculated with RT-PCR and RT-PCR adjusted on viability as reference standards. Results The overall sensitivity of the used antigen test related to the RT-PCR only was 76.2%, specificity was 97.3%. However, 36 out of 39 patients ‘missed’ by the antigen test contained no viable virus. After adjusting on that, the sensitivity grew to 97.7% and, more importantly for disease control purposes, the negative predictive value reached 99.2%. Conclusions We propose that viability testing should be always performed when evaluating a new antigen test. A well-chosen and validated antigen test provides excellent results in identifying patients who are shedding viable virus (although some caveats still remain) in the real-world high-throughput setting of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic individuals.

Many studies reported good performance of nasopharyngeal swab-based antigen tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals; however, studies independently evaluating the quality of antigen tests utilizing anterior nasal swabs or saliva swabs are still rare, although such tests are widely used for mass testing. In our study, sensitivities, specificities and predictive values of seven antigen tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2 (one using nasopharyngeal swabs, two using anterior nasal swabs and four using saliva) were evaluated. In a setting of a high-capacity testing center, nasopharyngeal swabs for quantitative PCR (qPCR) were taken and, at the same time, antigen testing was performed in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions for the respective tests. In samples where qPCR and antigen tests yielded different results, virus culture was performed to evaluate the presence of the viable virus. Sensitivities and specificities of individual tests were calculated using both qPCR and qPCR corrected for viability as the reference. In addition, calculations were also performed for data categorized according to the cycle threshold and symptomatic status. The test using nasopharyngeal swabs yielded the best results (sensitivity of 80.6% relative to PCR and 91.2% when corrected for viability) while none of the remaining tests (anterior nasal swab or saliva-based tests) came even close to the WHO criteria for overall sensitivity. Hence, we advise caution when using antigen tests with alternative sampling methods without independent validation.

No abstract