Rapid antigen detection (RAD) tests are commonly used for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections. However, with the continuous emergence of new variants of concern (VOC), presenting various mutations potentially affecting the nucleocapsid protein, the analytical performances of these assays should be frequently reevaluated. One hundred and twenty samples were selected and tested with both RT-qPCR and six commercial RAD tests that are commonly sold in Belgian pharmacies. Of these, direct whole-genome sequencing identified the strains present in 116 samples, of which 70 were Delta and 46 were Omicron (BA.1 and BA.1.1 sub-lineages, respectively). The sensitivity across a wide range of Ct values (13.5 to 35.7; median = 21.3) ranged from 70.0% to 92.9% for Delta strains and from 69.6% to 78.3% for Omicron strains. When taking swabs with a low viral load (Ct > 25, corresponding to <4.9 log10 copies/mL), only the Roche RAD test showed acceptable performances for the Delta strains (80.0%), while poor performances were observed for the other RAD tests (20.0% to 40.0%). All the tested devices had poor performances for the Omicron samples with a low viral load (0.0% to 23.1%). The poor performances observed with low viral loads, particularly for the Omicron strain, is an important limitation of RAD tests, which is not sufficiently highlighted in the instructions for use of these devices.

Rapid and recurrent breakthroughs of new SARS-CoV-2 strains (variants) have prompted public health authorities worldwide to set up surveillance networks to monitor the circulation of variants of concern. The use of next-generation sequencing technologies has raised the need for quality control assessment as required in clinical laboratories. The present study is the first to propose a validation guide for SARS-CoV-2 typing using three different NGS methods fulfilling ISO15189 standards. These include the assessment of the risk, specificity, accuracy, reproducibility, and repeatability of the methods. Among the three methods used, two are amplicon-based involving reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (Artic v3 and Midnight v1) on Oxford Nanopore Technologies while the third one is amplicon-based using reverse complement polymerase chain reaction (Nimagen) on Illumina technology. We found that all methods met the quality requirement (e.g., 100% concordant typing results for accuracy, reproducibility, and repeatability) for SARS-CoV-2 typing in clinical setting. Additionally, the typing results emerging from each of the three sequencing methods were compared using three widely known nomenclatures (WHO, Pangolineage, and Nextclade). They were also compared regarding single nucleotide variations. The outcomes showed that Artic v3 and Nimagen should be privileged for outbreak investigation as they provide higher quality results for samples that do not meet inclusion criteria for analysis in a clinical setting. This study is a first step towards validation of laboratory developed NGS tests in the context of the new European regulation for medical devices and in vitro diagnostics.