Reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR)-based tests are widely used to diagnose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). As a result that these tests cannot be done in local clinics where RT-qPCR testing capability is lacking, rapid antigen tests (RATs) for COVID-19 based on lateral flow immunoassays are used for rapid diagnosis. However, their sensitivity compared with each other and with RT-qPCR and infectious virus isolation has not been examined. Here, we compared the sensitivity among four RATs by using severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) isolates and several types of COVID-19 patient specimens and compared their sensitivity with that of RT-qPCR and infectious virus isolation. Although the RATs read the samples containing large amounts of virus as positive, even the most sensitive RAT read the samples containing small amounts of virus as negative. Moreover, all RATs tested failed to detect viral antigens in several specimens from which the virus was isolated. The current RATs will likely miss some COVID-19 patients who are shedding infectious SARS-CoV-2.

Significance: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants are of concern, with the P.1 variants dominating in Brazil. Brazil is now seeing a record number of deaths. Here, we report that the pathogenicity in hamsters of a P.1 variant is similar to that of nonvariant SARS-CoV-2. However, it has an expanded host range as shown by its replication in mice. Prior infection with nonvariant SARS-CoV-2 strains efficiently prevented replication of the P.1 variant in the lower respiratory tract of hamsters upon reinfection. Convalescent sera from patients infected with nonvariants or sera from messenger RNA vaccinees showed comparable neutralization titers among the P.1 and previously circulating strains. These results suggest that previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccines based on the original SARS-CoV-2 will provide some protection against P.1 infection.

SARS-CoV-2–induced human antibody repertoire in patients with COVID-19 reveals immune markers of disease severity and recovery.

Purpose: We evaluated plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and tissue-based sequencing concordance for comprehensive oncogenic driver detection in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using a large-scale prospective screening cohort (LC-SCRUM-Liquid). Experimental Design: Blood samples were prospectively collected within 4 weeks of corresponding tumor tissue sampling from patients with advanced NSCLC to investigate plasma cfDNA sequencing concordance for alterations in 8 oncogenes (EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, HER2, MET, ALK, RET, and ROS1) compared with tissue-based next-generation targeted sequencing. Results: Paired blood and tissue samples were obtained in 1,062/1,112 enrolled patients with NSCLC. Oncogenic alteration was detected by plasma cfDNA sequencing and tissue assay in 455 (42.8%) and 537 (50.5%) patients, respectively. The positive percent agreement of plasma cfDNA sequencing compared with tissue DNA and RNA assays were 77% (EGFR, 78%; KRAS, 75%; BRAF, 85%; HER2, 72%) and 47% (ALK, 46%; RET, 57%; ROS1, 18%; MET, 66%), respectively. Oncogenic drivers were positive for plasma cfDNA and negative for tissue due to unsuccessful genomic analysis from poor-quality tissue samples (70%), and were negative for plasma cfDNA and positive for tissue due to low sensitivity of cfDNA analysis (61%). In patients with positive oncogenic drivers by plasma cfDNA sequencing but negative by tissue assay, the response rate of genotype-matched therapy was 85% and median progression-free survival was 12.7 months. Conclusions: Plasma cfDNA sequencing in patients with advanced NSCLC showed relatively high sensitivity for detecting gene mutations but low sensitivity for gene fusions and MET exon 14 skipping. This may be an alternative only when tissue assay is unavailable due to insufficient DNA and RNA. See related commentary by Jacobsen Skanderup et al., p. 1381