Diagnostic accuracy of Panbio rapid antigen tests on oropharyngeal swabs for detection of SARS-CoV-2

Rapid antigen test as a screening tool for SARS-CoV-2 infection: Head-to-head comparison with qRT-PCR in Ethiopia

Objective

This study aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the antigen rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) as a screening tool for SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to Quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR).

Methods

This study was conducted at six referral hospitals in Oromia Region, Ethiopia. One thousand seven hundred twenty-one patients who visited the hospitals for various medical conditions were tested with qRT-PCR and/or Ag-RDTs. Qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen was performed using the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag rapid test device.

Results

Compared with qRT-PCR, Ag-RDTs had a sensitivity of 33.3 % (95%CI: 30.9%-35.9 %) and a specificity of 99.3 % (95%CI: 98.8%-99.7 %) to detect active SARS-CoV-2 infection. The area under the receiver operator curve was 0.67 (95%CI: 0.63-0.69). The sensitivity of Ag-RDTs appeared high in patients with shortness of breath (73.3 %) and those presenting with all three symptoms - fever, cough, and dyspnea (71.4 %). In all instances, specificity was more than 98 %. The Ag-RDT positivity rate also correlated well with viral load: 51.7 % in cases with cycle threshold (Ct) < 25 (high viral load) and only 3.4 % when Ct > 25 (low viral load).

Conclusion

Although Ag-RDT for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 is a good option as a point-of-care screening tool, it has a low sensitivity to detect active infections. Using Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid test for diagnostic and treatment decisions may lead to a false negative, resulting in patient misdiagnosis, ultimately contributing to disease spread and poor patient outcome.

Diagnostic evaluation of Panbio™ antigen rapid diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the reference diagnostic method for the confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infected cases. However, various antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) have been developed. The purpose of this meta-analysis study was to assess the diagnostic performance of Panbio™ Ag-RDT (Abbott Point of Care) in identifying the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

METHODS

We systematically searched eight databases from March 2020 until March 2023 to look for potentially eligible articles. Diagnostic meta-analysis of Panbio™ Ag-RDT used diverse evaluation indicators, including sensitivity, specificity, Diagnostic Odds Ratio (DOR), and the area under the curve (AUC) value.

RESULTS

Of the 794 articles identified, 49 studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled estimates of Panbio™ Ag-RDT for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 were 0,65 (95% CI: 0,64-0,66), 0,99 (95% CI: 0,99-1,00), 578,03 (95% CI: 333,37-1002,26) for sensitivity, specificity, and DOR, respectively. Moreover, the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve revealed an AUC value of 0,942 (95% CI: 0,941-0,943), suggesting an outstanding diagnostic accuracy. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses showed that continent, study period, age, study population and cycle threshold (Ct) values constituted a source of heterogeneity. Furthermore, we demonstrated proof of publication bias for DOR values analyzed using Deek's test (p = 0,001) and funnel plot.

CONCLUSION

Panbio™ Ag-RDT presented an outstanding diagnostic accuracy in the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in both adults and children with or without symptoms.

Evaluation of the performance of Abbott Panbio™ COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic test for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 at Harar, Eastern Ethiopia

Background

Rapid antigen tests can help in the effective isolation of symptomatic cases and the systematic tracing of close contacts. However, their reliability must be validated before implementing them widely.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted on 236 COVID-19-suspected patients visiting four different health institutions in Harari Regional State, Harar, Eastern Ethiopia, from June to July 2021. Two nasopharyngeal samples were collected and processed by the Panbio™ Ag-RDT kit and qRT-PCR. The collected data were analyzed using SPSS version 25.0.

Results

The Panbio tests had a sensitivity of 77.5% (95% CI: 61.6-89.2%) and a specificity of 98.5% (95% CI: 95.6-99.7%). It also had a positive predictive value of 91.2% (95% CI: 76.9-96.9%), a negative predictive value of 95.5% (95% CI: 92.3-97.4%), and a kappa of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.7-0.9). The test had a sensitivity of 94.4%, 100%, 100%, and 90% in the samples collected from patients within the 1-5 days post-onset of COVID-19 signs and symptoms, of age group ≤18 years old, with cycle threshold values of <20, and with household contact, respectively.

Conclusion

This test can be used as point-of-care testing for the diagnosis of symptomatic patients with short clinical courses and contact with patients in households.

COVID-19 in Morocco's region: Observational study of prevalence in symptomatic adults using the PANBIOS® rapid antigen test September 2021

Background

Rapid antigen tests have emerged to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. Rapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is essential to reduce the spread of the disease. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of COVID-19 infection and test the sensitivity and specificity in Temara-Skhirat in symptomatic adults through PANBIOS® test.

Methods

A prospective observational study was conducted in mid-September 2021. Two investigators conducted data collection from symptomatic adult patients. The diagnostic performance of the PANBIOS®, and the PCR was assessed to calculate sensitivity and the specificity.

Results

Among 206 symptomatic participants, the mean age was 38 ± 12 years, and the majority were women (59%). In our population, 80% had benefited from the anti-COVID vaccine. The median duration of symptoms was 4 days; the most common symptoms were fatigue (62%), headache (52%), fever (48%), cough (34%), loss of smell (25%), loss of taste (24%), and sore throat (22%). Results revealed 23% of cases tested positive with PANBIOS® test versus 30% with the PCR test. The calculated medical decision between PCR versus PANBIOS® test showed high specificity of 95.7% and a sensitivity of 69.4%. There was concordance between the PANBIOS® test and the PCR.

Conclusion

The prevalence tested remain high, and the sensitivity and specificity of the PANBIOS® versus PCR test are similar to other literatures and close to value described in WHO recommendations. PANBIOS® is a useful test for controlling the spread of COVID-19 allowing identification of active infection.

Combined Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2: Rapid Antigen Detection as an Adjunct to Nucleic Acid Detection

Coronavirus disease 2019 is a serious threat to human life, and early diagnosis and screening can help control the COVID-19 pandemic. The high sensitivity of reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay is the gold standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19, but there are still some false-negative results. Rapid antigen detection (RAD) is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a screening method for COVID-19. This review analyzed the characteristics of RDT and found that although the overall sensitivity of RAD was not as high as that of RT-PCR, but RAD was more sensitive in COVID-19 patients within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and in COVID-19 patients with Ct ≤ 25. Therefore, RAD can be used as an adjunct to RT-PCR for screening patients with early COVID-19. Finally, this review provides a combined diagnostic protocol for RAD and nucleic acid testing with the aim of providing a feasible approach for COVID-19 screening.

SARS-CoV-2 viral load and shedding kinetics

SARS-CoV-2 viral load and detection of infectious virus in the respiratory tract are the two key parameters for estimating infectiousness. As shedding of infectious virus is required for onward transmission, understanding shedding characteristics is relevant for public health interventions. Viral shedding is influenced by biological characteristics of the virus, host factors and pre-existing immunity (previous infection or vaccination) of the infected individual. Although the process of human-to-human transmission is multifactorial, viral load substantially contributed to human-to-human transmission, with higher viral load posing a greater risk for onward transmission. Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern have further complicated the picture of virus shedding. As underlying immunity in the population through previous infection, vaccination or a combination of both has rapidly increased on a global scale after almost 3 years of the pandemic, viral shedding patterns have become more distinct from those of ancestral SARS-CoV-2. Understanding the factors and mechanisms that influence infectious virus shedding and the period during which individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 are contagious is crucial to guide public health measures and limit transmission. Furthermore, diagnostic tools to demonstrate the presence of infectious virus from routine diagnostic specimens are needed.

Evaluation of the Rapid Antigen Detection Test for Diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Experience from a Centralized Isolation Site in Shanghai, China

Rapid and reliable diagnosis is important for the management of individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The rapid antigen detection test (RADT) is a rapid, inexpensive, and easy method. Several studies have reported that RADTs performed well in many countries; however, very few studies have been reported in China. In this study, we assessed the performance of the RADT (Ediagnosis COVID-19 antigen test kit). This study was conducted in a centralized isolation site in Shanghai and enrolled 716 patients with COVID-19 and 203 noninfected participants. Nasopharyngeal swabs from all participants were collected on the same day and tested using the RADT and real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR). The performance of the RADT was evaluated in different scenarios, such as threshold cycle (C_T) values, symptomatic phase, and symptoms on the day of testing. The results demonstrated that the sensitivity for patients with C_T values lower than 20 was 96.55% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.05 to 99.4). The sensitivities were 78.4% (95% CI, 69.96 to 85.05) for participants within 5 days after the first RT-PCR-positive result and 90.77% (95% CI, 80.34 to 96.19) within 5 days after symptom onset. Moreover, the sensitivity of the RADT was more than 80% for patients with symptoms on the day of testing, including fever (89.29%), cough (86.84%), stuffy nose (92.59%), runny nose (92%), sore throat (81.25%), and muscle pain (80.77%), especially for those with upper respiratory tract symptoms. The specificity of the RADT was good in all scenarios. During the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, Ediagnosis performed excellently in individuals with a higher viral load (evidenced by lower C_T values), individuals in the early symptomatic phase, and especially those with upper respiratory tract symptoms. IMPORTANCE RADTs have demonstrated excellent performance in many counties for screening SARS-CoV-2 infection, but very few studies have been conducted in China. The performance of RADTs is largely related to different real-life scenarios. In our study, the performance of the RADT was evaluated in different scenarios, such as C_T values, symptomatic phase, and symptoms on the day of testing. The results demonstrated that Ediagnosis (an RADT made in China) performed excellently for individuals with a higher viral load (evidenced by lower C_T values), individuals in the early symptomatic phase, and especially those with upper respiratory tract symptoms.

An Update on Detection Technologies for SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is responsible for the global epidemic of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), with a significant impact on the global economy and human safety. Reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the gold standard for detecting SARS-CoV-2, but because the virus's genome is prone to mutations, the effectiveness of vaccines and the sensitivity of detection methods are declining. Variants of concern (VOCs) include Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron, which are able to evade recognition by host immune mechanisms leading to increased transmissibility, morbidity, and mortality of COVID-19. A range of research has been reported on detection techniques for VOCs, which is beneficial to prevent the rapid spread of the epidemic, improve the effectiveness of public health and social measures, and reduce the harm to human health and safety. However, a meaningful translation of this that reduces the burden of disease, and delivers a clear and cohesive message to guide daily clinical practice, remains preliminary. Herein, we summarize the capabilities of various nucleic acid and protein-based detection methods developed for VOCs in identifying and differentiating current VOCs and compare the advantages and disadvantages of each method, providing a basis for the rapid detection of VOCs strains and their future variants and the adoption of corresponding preventive and control measures.

Evaluating diagnostic accuracies of Panbio™ test and RT-PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia using Bayesian Latent-Class Models (BLCM)

BACKGROUND

Rapid diagnostics are vital for curving the transmission and control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although many commercially available antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 are recommended by the WHO, their diagnostic performance has not yet been assessed in Ethiopia. So far, the vast majority of studies assessing diagnostic accuracies of rapid antigen tests considered RT-PCR as a reference standard, which inevitably leads to bias when RT-PCR is not 100% sensitive and specific. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of Panbio™ jointly with the RT-PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

A prospective cross-sectional study was done from July to September 2021 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, during the third wave of the pandemic involving two health centers and two hospitals. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of Panbio™ and RT-PCR were obtained using Bayesian Latent-Class Models (BLCM).

RESULTS

438 COVID-19 presumptive clients were enrolled, 239 (54.6%) were females, of whom 196 (44.7%) had a positive RT-PCR and 158 (36.1%) were Panbio™ positive. The Panbio™ and RT-PCR had a sensitivity (95% CrI) of 99.6 (98.4-100) %, 89.3 (83.2-97.6) % and specificity (95% CrI) of 93.4 (82.3-100) %, and 99.1 (97.5-100) %, respectively. Most of the study participants, 318 (72.6%) exhibited COVID-19 symptoms; the most reported was cough 191 (43.6%).

CONCLUSION

As expected the RT-PCR performed very well with a near-perfect specificity and a high, but not perfect sensitivity. The diagnostic performance of Panbio™ is coherent with the WHO established criteria of having a sensitivity ≥80% for Ag-RDTs. Both tests displayed high diagnostic accuracies in patients with and without symptoms. Hence, we recommend the use of the Panbio™ for both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals in clinical settings for screening purposes.

Diagnostic accuracy of rapid point-of-care tests for diagnosis of current SARS-CoV-2 infections in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically assess the diagnostic accuracy of rapid point-of-care tests for diagnosis of current SARS-CoV-2 infections in children under real-life conditions.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, INAHTA HTA database, preprint servers (via Europe PMC), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP from 1 January 2020 to 7 May 2021; NICE Evidence Search, NICE Guidance, FIND Website from 1 January 2020 to 24 May 2021.

REVIEW METHODS

Diagnostic cross-sectional or cohort studies were eligible for inclusion if they had paediatric study participants and compared rapid point-of care tests for diagnosing current SARS-CoV-2 infections with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as the reference standard. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess the risk of bias and the applicability of the included studies. Bivariate meta-analyses with random effects were performed. Variability was assessed by subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

17 studies with a total of 6355 paediatric study participants were included. All studies compared antigen tests against RT-PCR. Overall, studies evaluated eight antigen tests from six different brands. Only one study was at low risk of bias. The pooled overall diagnostic sensitivity and specificity in paediatric populations was 64.2% (95% CI 57.4% to 70.5%) and 99.1% (95% CI 98.2% to 99.5%), respectively. In symptomatic children, the pooled diagnostic sensitivity was 71.8% (95% CI 63.6% to 78.8%) and the pooled diagnostic specificity was 98.7% (95% CI 96.6% to 99.5%). The pooled diagnostic sensitivity in asymptomatic children was 56.2% (95% CI 47.6% to 64.4%) and the pooled diagnostic specificity was 98.6% (95% CI 97.3% to 99.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

The performance of current antigen tests in paediatric populations under real-life conditions varies broadly. Relevant data were only identified for very few antigen tests on the market, and the risk of bias was mostly unclear due to poor reporting. Additionally, the most common uses of these tests in children (eg, self-testing in schools or parents testing their toddlers before kindergarten) have not been addressed in clinical performance studies yet. The observed low diagnostic sensitivity may impact the planned purpose of the broad implementation of testing programmes.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021236313.

Accuracy of point-of-care Panbio™ SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection test in a socioeconomically vulnerable population in Brazil

Background

Development and validation of point-of-care (POC) diagnostic tests with high accuracy is critical for underrepresented populations, allowing for wider access to diagnosis. Here, we evaluate the performance of the Panbio™ antigen-rapid test device (Ag-RTD) for SARS-CoV-2, our index test, having RT-qPCR as the reference standard.

Methods

This phase III validation study was conducted concomitantly with a primary health care center routine tending to a low-income Brazilian population. Eligibility criteria were residing at Cidade Estrutural and presenting flu-like/respiratory symptoms for 3-10 days.

Results

Among the 505 participants, 45.15% (228/505) tested positive for RT-qPCR and 54.85% (277/505) for the Ag-RTD. Overall sensitivity was 76.32% (CI95% 70.39-81.37) and specificity was 98.92% (96.02-99.82).

Conclusions

Our results show that the Panbio™ Ag-RTD does not meet the minimum performance requirements established by the World Health Organization (≥ 80% sensitivity and ≥ 97% specificity compared to a reference test in suspected COVID-19 cases). Thus, we do not recommend the implementation of Panbio™Ag-RTD as a single diagnostic tool in underrepresented and disadvantaged populations. Finally, we discuss a possible setting for the use of Panbio™Ag-RTD under combined sensitivity.

Analytical Sensitivity of Eight Different SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-Detecting Rapid Tests for Omicron-BA.1 Variant

The emergence of each novel SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern (VOC) requires investigation of its potential impact on the performance of diagnostic tests in use, including antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs). Although anecdotal reports have been circulating that the newly emerged Omicron-BA.1 variant is in principle detectable by Ag-RDTs, few data on sensitivity are available. We have performed (i) analytical sensitivity testing with cultured virus in eight Ag-RDTs and (ii) retrospective testing in duplicates with clinical samples from vaccinated individuals with Omicron-BA.1 (n = 59) or Delta (n = 54) breakthrough infection on seven Ag-RDTs. Overall, in our analytical study we have found heterogenicity between Ag-RDTs for detecting Omicron-BA.1. When using cultured virus, we observed a trend toward lower endpoint sensitivity for Omicron-BA.1 detection than for earlier circulating SARS-CoV-2 and the other VOCs. In our retrospective study, the detection of Delta and Omicron-BA.1 was assessed in a comparable set of stored clinical samples using seven Ag-RDTs. Four hundred ninety-seven of all 826 tests (60.17%) performed on Omicron-BA.1 samples were positive, compared to 489/756 (64.68%) for Delta samples. In the analytical study, the sensitivity for both Omicron-BA.1 and Delta between the Ag-RDTs was variable. All seven Ag-RDTs showed comparable sensitivities to detect Omicron-BA.1 and Delta in the retrospective study. IMPORTANCE Sensitivity for detecting Omicron-BA.1 shows high heterogenicity between Ag-RDTs, necessitating a careful consideration when using these tests to guide infection prevention measures. Analytical and retrospective testing is a proxy and timely solution to generate rapid performance data, but it is not a replacement for clinical evaluations, which are urgently needed. Biological and technical reasons for detection failure by some Ag-RDTs need to be further investigated.

Epidemiological, virological and serological investigation of a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak (Alpha variant) in a primary school: A prospective longitudinal study

Objectives

To report a prospective epidemiological, virological and serological investigation of a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in a primary school.

Methods

As part of a longitudinal, prospective, school-based surveillance study, this investigation involved repeated testing of 73 pupils, 9 teachers, 13 non-teaching staff and 26 household members of participants who tested positive, with rapid antigen tests and/or RT-PCR (Day 0–2 and Day 5–7), serologies on dried capillary blood samples (Day 0–2 and Day 30), contact tracing interviews and SARS-CoV-2 whole genome sequencing.

Results

We identified 20 children (aged 4 to 6 years from 4 school classes), 2 teachers and a total of 4 household members who were infected by the Alpha variant during this outbreak. Infection attack rates were between 11.8 and 62.0% among pupils from the 4 school classes, 22.2% among teachers and 0% among non-teaching staff. Secondary attack rate among household members was 15.4%. Symptoms were reported by 63% of infected children, 100% of teachers and 50% of household members. All analysed sequences but one showed 100% identity. Serological tests detected 8 seroconversions unidentified by SARS-CoV-2 virological tests.

Conclusions

This study confirmed child-to-child and child-to-adult SARS-CoV-2 transmission and introduction into households. Effective measures to limit transmission in schools have the potential to reduce the overall community circulation.

Evaluation of the performance of Panbio™ COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in suspected patients in Ethiopia

Objective:

Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction is a gold standard diagnostic tool for coronavirus disease-2019. Limited coverage and long turnaround times are linked to the poor response to the pandemic in developing countries like Ethiopia. To overcome the challenges, rapid antigen diagnostic kits are recommended if their diagnostic performance is at an acceptable level. We explored the performance of the Panbio™ coronavirus disease-2019 antigen rapid diagnostic test in diagnosing the coronavirus disease-2019 infection.

Methods:

A cross-sectional study was conducted on coronavirus disease-2019 suspected patients in Wollega University Referral Hospital, from 1 April to 30 May 2021. After obtaining consent/ assent, sociodemographic and pair of nasopharyngeal samples were collected from each and examined by Panbio antigen rapid diagnostic test and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. Data were entered and analysed using SPSS version 24. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and kappa values were calculated.

Results:

A total of 148 coronavirus disease-2019 suspected individuals (54.1% male) participated in the study. Of all, 73 (49.3%) were positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test. The sensitivity and specificity of Panbio were found 81% (95% confidence interval: 71%–91%) and 98.7% (95% confidence interval: 96%–100%), respectively. From 75 negative and 73 positive samples by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, 1 (1.33%) and 14 (19.18%) were found false positive and negative by antigen rapid diagnostic test, respectively. Positive predictive value and negative predictive value of Panbio were 98.3% and 84.1%, respectively, and test agreement was substantial (kappa value = 0.80).

Conclusion:

Panbio has fine performance in suspected patients. Further studies are needed to examine the accuracy of self-collecting and patient self-testing with healthcare workers, using antigen rapid diagnostic test against the reference standard.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection

BACKGROUND

Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection would be a useful tool to help manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Testing strategies that use rapid antigen tests to detect current infection have the potential to increase access to testing, speed detection of infection, and inform clinical and public health management decisions to reduce transmission. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included setting and indication for testing, assay format, sample site, viral load, age, timing of test, and study design.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) on 08 March 2021. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies of people with either suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, known SARS-CoV-2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen tests. We included evaluations of single applications of a test (one test result reported per person) and evaluations of serial testing (repeated antigen testing over time). Reference standards for presence or absence of infection were any laboratory-based molecular test (primarily reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)) or pre-pandemic respiratory sample.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard screening procedures with three people. Two people independently carried out quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and extracted study results. Other study characteristics were extracted by one review author and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test, and pooled data using the bivariate model. We investigated heterogeneity by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 155 study cohorts (described in 166 study reports, with 24 as preprints). The main results relate to 152 evaluations of single test applications including 100,462 unique samples (16,822 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly conducted in Europe (101/152, 66%), and evaluated 49 different commercial antigen assays. Only 23 studies compared two or more brands of test. Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (40, 26%); interpretation of the index test (6, 4%); weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection (119, 78%); and participant flow and timing 41 (27%). Characteristics of participants (45, 30%) and index test delivery (47, 31%) differed from the way in which and in whom the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (91%) used a single RT-PCR result to define presence or absence of infection. The 152 studies of single test applications reported 228 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies, with consistently high specificities. Average sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (73.0%, 95% CI 69.3% to 76.4%; 109 evaluations; 50,574 samples, 11,662 cases) compared to asymptomatic participants (54.7%, 95% CI 47.7% to 61.6%; 50 evaluations; 40,956 samples, 2641 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (80.9%, 95% CI 76.9% to 84.4%; 30 evaluations, 2408 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (53.8%, 95% CI 48.0% to 59.6%; 40 evaluations, 1119 cases). For those who were asymptomatic at the time of testing, sensitivity was higher when an epidemiological exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was suspected (64.3%, 95% CI 54.6% to 73.0%; 16 evaluations; 7677 samples, 703 cases) compared to where COVID-19 testing was reported to be widely available to anyone on presentation for testing (49.6%, 95% CI 42.1% to 57.1%; 26 evaluations; 31,904 samples, 1758 cases). Average specificity was similarly high for symptomatic (99.1%) or asymptomatic (99.7%) participants. We observed a steady decline in summary sensitivities as measures of sample viral load decreased. Sensitivity varied between brands. When tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, average sensitivities by brand ranged from 34.3% to 91.3% in symptomatic participants (20 assays with eligible data) and from 28.6% to 77.8% for asymptomatic participants (12 assays). For symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities for seven assays were 80% or more (meeting acceptable criteria set by the World Health Organization (WHO)). The WHO acceptable performance criterion of 97% specificity was met by 17 of 20 assays when tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, 12 of which demonstrated specificities above 99%. For asymptomatic participants the sensitivities of only two assays approached but did not meet WHO acceptable performance standards in one study each; specificities for asymptomatic participants were in a similar range to those observed for symptomatic people. At 5% prevalence using summary data in symptomatic people during the first week after symptom onset, the positive predictive value (PPV) of 89% means that 1 in 10 positive results will be a false positive, and around 1 in 5 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence using summary data for asymptomatic people, where testing was widely available and where epidemiological exposure to COVID-19 was suspected, resulting PPVs would be 38% to 52%, meaning that between 2 in 5 and 1 in 2 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. Assays that meet appropriate performance standards, such as those set by WHO, could replace laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. However, they are more suitable for use as triage to RT-PCR testing. The variable sensitivity of antigen tests means that people who test negative may still be infected. Many commercially available rapid antigen tests have not been evaluated in independent validation studies. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts has increased, however sensitivity is lower and there is a paucity of evidence for testing in different settings. Questions remain about the use of antigen test-based repeat testing strategies. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of screening programmes at reducing transmission of infection, whether mass screening or targeted approaches including schools, healthcare setting and traveller screening.

Performance of Antigen Detection Tests for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) initiated global health care challenges such as the necessity for new diagnostic tests. Diagnosis by real-time PCR remains the gold-standard method, yet economical and technical issues prohibit its use in points of care (POC) or for repetitive tests in populations. A lot of effort has been exerted in developing, using, and validating antigen-based tests (ATs). Since individual studies focus on few methodological aspects of ATs, a comparison of different tests is needed. Herein, we perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from articles in PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv. The bivariate method for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests pooling sensitivities and specificities was used. Most of the AT types for SARS-CoV-2 were lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA), fluorescence immunoassays (FIA), and chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassays (CLEIA). We identified 235 articles containing data from 220,049 individuals. All ATs using nasopharyngeal samples show better performance than those with throat saliva (72% compared to 40%). Moreover, the rapid methods LFIA and FIA show about 10% lower sensitivity compared to the laboratory-based CLEIA method (72% compared to 82%). In addition, rapid ATs show higher sensitivity in symptomatic patients compared to asymptomatic patients, suggesting that viral load is a crucial parameter for ATs performed in POCs. Finally, all methods perform with very high specificity, reaching around 99%. LFIA tests, though with moderate sensitivity, appear as the most attractive method for use in POCs and for performing seroprevalence studies.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 Spatial Care Path: Home, Community, and Emergency Diagnostic Portals

This research uses mathematically derived visual logistics to interpret COVID-19 molecular and rapid antigen test (RAgT) performance, determine prevalence boundaries where risk exceeds expectations, and evaluate benefits of recursive testing along home, community, and emergency spatial care paths. Mathematica and open access software helped graph relationships, compare performance patterns, and perform recursive computations. Tiered sensitivity/specificity comprise: (T1) 90%/95%; (T2) 95%/97.5%; and (T3) 100%/≥99%, respectively. In emergency medicine, median RAgT performance peaks at 13.2% prevalence, then falls below T1, generating risky prevalence boundaries. RAgTs in pediatric ERs/EDs parallel this pattern with asymptomatic worse than symptomatic performance. In communities, RAgTs display large uncertainty with median prevalence boundary of 14.8% for 1/20 missed diagnoses, and at prevalence > 33.3−36.9% risk 10% false omissions for symptomatic subjects. Recursive testing improves home RAgT performance. Home molecular tests elevate performance above T1 but lack adequate validation. Widespread RAgT availability encourages self-testing. Asymptomatic RAgT and PCR-based saliva testing present the highest chance of missed diagnoses. Home testing twice, once just before mingling, and molecular-based self-testing, help avoid false omissions. Community and ER/ED RAgTs can identify contagiousness in low prevalence. Real-world trials of performance, cost-effectiveness, and public health impact could identify home molecular diagnostics as an optimal diagnostic portal.

Accuracy of rapid point-of-care antigen-based diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression analyzing influencing factors

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive information about the accuracy of antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is essential to guide public health decision makers in choosing the best tests and testing policies. In August 2021, we published a systematic review and meta-analysis about the accuracy of Ag-RDTs. We now update this work and analyze the factors influencing test sensitivity in further detail.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched preprint and peer-reviewed databases for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 until August 31, 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing as a reference. To evaluate factors influencing test sensitivity, we performed 3 different analyses using multivariable mixed-effects meta-regression models. We included 194 studies with 221,878 Ag-RDTs performed. Overall, the pooled estimates of Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 72.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.8 to 74.2) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6 to 99.1). When manufacturer instructions were followed, sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.7 to 78.7). Sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values (97.9% [95% CI 96.9 to 98.9] and 90.6% [95% CI 88.3 to 93.0] for Ct-values <20 and <25, compared to 54.4% [95% CI 47.3 to 61.5] and 18.7% [95% CI 13.9 to 23.4] for Ct-values ≥25 and ≥30) and was estimated to increase by 2.9 percentage points (95% CI 1.7 to 4.0) for every unit decrease in mean Ct-value when adjusting for testing procedure and patients' symptom status. Concordantly, we found the mean Ct-value to be lower for true positive (22.2 [95% CI 21.5 to 22.8]) compared to false negative (30.4 [95% CI 29.7 to 31.1]) results. Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (81.9% [95% CI 77.7 to 85.5]) compared to testing after 1 week (51.8%, 95% CI 41.5 to 61.9). Similarly, sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (76.2% [95% CI 73.3 to 78.9]) compared to asymptomatic (56.8% [95% CI 50.9 to 62.4]) persons. However, both effects were mainly driven by the Ct-value of the sample. With regards to sample type, highest sensitivity was found for nasopharyngeal (NP) and combined NP/oropharyngeal samples (70.8% [95% CI 68.3 to 73.2]), as well as in anterior nasal/mid-turbinate samples (77.3% [95% CI 73.0 to 81.0]). Our analysis was limited by the included studies' heterogeneity in viral load assessment and sample origination.

CONCLUSIONS

Ag-RDTs detect most of the individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2, and almost all (>90%) when high viral loads are present. With viral load, as estimated by Ct-value, being the most influential factor on their sensitivity, they are especially useful to detect persons with high viral load who are most likely to transmit the virus. To further quantify the effects of other factors influencing test sensitivity, standardization of clinical accuracy studies and access to patient level Ct-values and duration of symptoms are needed.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19 Detection: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

Introduction

Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to detect SARS-CoV-2 is time-consuming and sometimes not feasible in developing nations. Rapid antigen test (RAT) could decrease the load of diagnosis. However, the efficacy of RAT is yet to be investigated comprehensively. Thus, the current systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of RAT against RT-PCR methods as the reference standard.

Methods

We searched the MEDLINE/Pubmed and Embase databases for the relevant records. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. Diagnostic accuracy measures [i.e., sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratios (PLR), negative likelihood ratios (NLR), and the area under the curve (AUC)] were pooled with a random-effects model. All statistical analyses were performed with Meta-DiSc (Version 1.4, Cochrane Colloquium, Barcelona, Spain).

Results

After reviewing retrieved records, we identified 60 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the rapid antigen tests against the reference test (the real-time PCR) were 69% (95% CI: 68–70) and 99% (95% CI: 99–99). The PLR, NLR, DOR and the AUC estimates were found to be 72 (95% CI: 44–119), 0.30 (95% CI: 0.26–0.36), 316 (95% CI: 167–590) and 97%, respectively.

Conclusion

The present study indicated that using RAT kits is primarily recommended for the early detection of patients suspected of having COVID-19, particularly in countries with limited resources and laboratory equipment. However, the negative RAT samples may need to be confirmed using molecular tests, mainly when the symptoms of COVID-19 are present.

Large-scale implementation of rapid antigen testing system for COVID-19 in workplaces

The transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in workplaces has been a persistent issue throughout the pandemic. In response, a not-for-profit initiative emerged to mitigate COVID-19 workplace transmission in Canada. We report the process for establishing a workplace frequent rapid antigen test (RAT) program. The screening program identified 473 asymptomatic individuals who tested positive on the RAT and confirmed positive by a nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) diagnostic test. One in 4300 RATs was presumptive positive but later tested PCR negative, and thus, false positives did not meaningfully disrupt workplace operations. Most employers rated the program highly and felt strongly that the program contributed to workplace and community safety. The findings describe a sustained and scalable implementation plan for establishing a frequent workplace testing program. High-frequency testing programs offer the potential to break chains of transmission and act as an extra layer of protection in a comprehensive public health response.

Where is Omicron? Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and Antigen Test Sensitivity at Commonly Sampled Anatomic Sites Over the Course of Disease

BACKGROUND

Upper respiratory samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection include the gold standard nasopharyngeal (NP) swab, and mid-turbinate (MT) nasal swabs, oropharyngeal (OP) swabs, and saliva. Following the emergence of the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant, limited preliminary data suggest that OP swabs or saliva samples may be more sensitive than nasal swabs, highlighting the need to understand differences in viral load across different sites.

METHODS

MT, OP, and saliva samples were collected from symptomatic individuals presenting for evaluation in Atlanta, GA, in January 2022. Longitudinal samples were collected from a family cohort following COVID-19 exposure to describe detection of viral targets over the course of infection.

RESULTS

SARS-CoV-2 RNA and nucleocapsid antigen measurements demonstrated a nares-predominant phenotype in a familial cohort. A consistent dominant location for SARS-CoV-2 was not found among 54 individuals. Positive percent agreement for virus detection in MT, OP and saliva specimens were 66.7 [54.1-79.2], 82.2 [71.1-93.4], and 72.5 [60.3-84.8] by RT-PCR, respectively, and 46.2 [32.6-59.7], 51.2 [36.2-66.1], and 72.0 [59.6-84.4] by ultrasensitive antigen assay. The composite of positive MT or OP assay was not significantly different than either alone for both RT-PCR and antigen assay (PPA 86.7 [76.7-96.6] and 59.5 [44.7-74.4], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid and RNA exhibited similar kinetics and diagnostic yield in three upper respiratory sample types across the duration of symptomatic disease. Collection of OP or combined nasal and OP samples does not appear to increase sensitivity versus validated nasal sampling for rapid detection of viral antigen.

Performance of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19 Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The identification of viral RNA using reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is the gold standard for identifying an infection caused by SARS-CoV-2. The limitations of RT-qPCR such as requirement of expensive instruments, trained staff and laboratory facilities led to development of rapid antigen tests (RATs). The performance of RATs has been widely evaluated and found to be varied in different settings. The present systematic review aims to evaluate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of the commercially available RATs. This review was registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021278105). Literature search was performed through PubMed, Embase and Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to search studies published up to 26 August 2021. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of RATs and subgroup analyses were calculated. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) was used to assess the risk of bias in each study. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of RATs were 70% (95% CI: 69–71) and 98% (95% CI: 98–98), respectively. In subgroup analyses, nasal swabs showed the highest sensitivity of 83% (95% CI: 80–86) followed by nasopharyngeal swabs 71% (95% CI: 70–72), throat swabs 69% (95% CI: 63–75) and saliva 68% (95% CI: 59–77). Samples from symptomatic patients showed a higher sensitivity of 82% (95% CI: 82–82) as compared to asymptomatic patients at 68% (95% CI: 65–71), while a cycle threshold (Ct) value ≤25 showed a higher sensitivity of 96% (95% CI: 95–97) as compared to higher Ct value. Although the sensitivity of RATs needs to be enhanced, it may still be a viable option in places where laboratory facilities are lacking for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease.

Factors that Influence the Reported Sensitivity of Rapid Antigen Testing for SARS-CoV-2

Tests that detect the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen in clinical specimens from the upper respiratory tract can provide a rapid means of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis and help identify individuals who may be infectious and should isolate to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission. This systematic review assesses the diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection in COVID-19 symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals compared to quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and summarizes antigen test sensitivity using meta-regression. In total, 83 studies were included that compared SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen-based lateral flow testing (RALFT) to RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2. Generally, the quality of the evaluated studies was inconsistent; nevertheless, the overall sensitivity for RALFT was determined to be 75.0% (95% confidence interval: 71.0-78.0). Additionally, RALFT sensitivity was found to be higher for symptomatic vs. asymptomatic individuals and was higher for a symptomatic population within 7 days from symptom onset compared to a population with extended days of symptoms. Viral load was found to be the most important factor for determining SARS-CoV-2 antigen test sensitivity. Other design factors, such as specimen storage and anatomical collection type, also affect the performance of RALFT. RALFT and RT-qPCR testing both achieve high sensitivity when compared to SARS-CoV-2 viral culture.

Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being integrated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix, bioRvix, and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 up until 30 April 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses, and rated study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 assessment tool. From a total of 14,254 articles, we included 133 analytical and clinical studies resulting in 214 clinical accuracy datasets with 112,323 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 71.2% (95% CI 68.2% to 74.0%) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6% to 99.1%), respectively. Sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.1% to 79.2%) if analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers' instructions. LumiraDx showed the highest sensitivity, with 88.2% (95% CI 59.0% to 97.5%). Of instrument-free Ag-RDTs, Standard Q nasal performed best, with 80.2% sensitivity (95% CI 70.3% to 87.4%). Across all Ag-RDTs, sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, i.e., <20 (96.5%, 95% CI 92.6% to 98.4%) and <25 (95.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 97.8%), in comparison to those with Ct ≥ 25 (50.7%, 95% CI 35.6% to 65.8%) and ≥30 (20.9%, 95% CI 12.5% to 32.8%). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (83.8%, 95% CI 76.3% to 89.2%) compared to testing after 1 week (61.5%, 95% CI 52.2% to 70.0%). The best Ag-RDT sensitivity was found with anterior nasal sampling (75.5%, 95% CI 70.4% to 79.9%), in comparison to other sample types (e.g., nasopharyngeal, 71.6%, 95% CI 68.1% to 74.9%), although CIs were overlapping. Concerns of bias were raised across all datasets, and financial support from the manufacturer was reported in 24.1% of datasets. Our analysis was limited by the included studies' heterogeneity in design and reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study we found that Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2-infected persons within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load. Thus, they can have high utility for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease, making them a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization in conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data.