Given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, there is a need to identify SARS-CoV-2 and to differentiate it from other respiratory viral infections, especially influenza A and B, in various critical settings. Since their introduction, the use of rapid antigen tests has spread worldwide, but there is variability in their diagnostic accuracy. In the present study, we evaluated the clinical performance of the ID NOW™ COVID-19 2.0, a molecular point-of-care test (POCT) based on enzymatic isothermal amplification for the differential diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B in a pediatric emergency setting. A cohort of pediatric patients admitted between December 2022 and February 2023 were simultaneously tested with the POCT and standard laboratory molecular assay. Our findings showed high negative agreement of the POCT assay across the different age groups for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, and influenza B (more than 98.0%), while its positive agreement varied significantly for the abovementioned viral species from 50.0% to 100%. These results highlight the potential of the ID NOW™ COVID-19 2.0 POCT assay as a reliable and rapid tool for excluding SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B infections in symptomatic pediatric patients, although its variable positive agreement suggests a need for confirmatory RT-qPCR testing in certain clinical and epidemiological settings in order to ensure accurate diagnosis and appropriate patient management.

To carry out effective and quick identification of SARS-CoV-2 from nasopharyngeal swabs and contain outbreaks, reliable and rapid tools are needed. Herein, we compared a rapid antigen test based on active microfluidic technology to an RT-qPCR assay in pediatric and young adult patients admitted to the Pediatric Emergency Unit of a Children’s Hospital. Nasopharyngeal swabs collected from patients with suspected COVID-19 disease and from those without COVID-19 related symptoms, but requiring hospitalization, were performed with both antigen test and RT-qPCR assays. We included 375 patients with a median age of 5 years in the study, with an estimated overall prevalence of 7.2%. Overall, we observed a specificity of 97.4% (95% CI: 94.9–98.7) and a sensitivity of 66.6% (95% CI: 46.0–82.7) with a positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 25.8 (95% CI: 12.8–51.8). In the subgroup of symptomatic patients, the specificity and the sensitivity were 95.2% (95% CI: 89.4–98.0) and 80.0% (95% CI: 44.2–96.5) respectively; LR+ was 16.6 (95% CI: 7.19–38.6). In the asymptomatic subset, the performance showed a specificity of 98.7% (95% CI: 95.8–99.7), a sensitivity of 58.8% (95% CI: 33.5–80.6), and an LR+ of 43.7 (95% CI: 13.3–144.0). Compared to RT-qPCR, the new microfluidic-based antigen test showed higher specificity (>95%) in the pediatric population, thus representing a suitable point-of-care testing (POCT) in a clinical setting with low prevalence of COVID-19.

Given the ongoing pandemic, there is a need to identify SARS-CoV-2 and differentiate it from other respiratory viral infections in various critical settings. Since its introduction, rapid antigen testing is spreading worldwide, but diagnostic accuracy is extremely variable and often in disagreement with the manufacturer’s specifications. Our study compared the clinical performances of two microfluidic rapid antigen tests towards a molecular assay, starting from positive samples. A total of 151 swabs collected at the Microbiology and Virology Laboratory of A.O. “SS Antonio e Biagio e C. Arrigo” (Alessandria, Italy) for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 were simultaneously tested to evaluate accuracy, specificity, and agreement with the RT-qPCR results. Both assays showed an overall agreement of 100% for negative specimens, while positive accuracy comprised between 45.10% and 54.90%. According to the manufacturer’s instructions, the greatest correlation between the antigenic and molecular assays was observed for the subset with high viral load (18/19, 94.74%), while it dramatically decreased for other subsets. Moreover, the ability to differentiate between SARS-CoV-2 and Flu provides an added value and could be addressed in an epidemic context. However, an in-house validation should be performed due to differences observed in performance declared by manufacturers and those actually obtained.