1
|
Brümmer LE, Thompson RR, Malhotra A, Shrestha S, Kendall EA, Andrews JR, Phillips P, Nahid P, Cattamanchi A, Marx FM, Denkinger CM, Dowdy DW. Cost-effectiveness of Low-complexity Screening Tests in Community-based Case-finding for Tuberculosis. Clin Infect Dis 2024; 78:154-163. [PMID: 37623745 PMCID: PMC10810711 DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciad501] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/07/2023] [Revised: 07/18/2023] [Accepted: 08/22/2023] [Indexed: 08/26/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION In high-burden settings, low-complexity screening tests for tuberculosis (TB) could expand the reach of community-based case-finding efforts. The potential costs and cost-effectiveness of approaches incorporating these tests are poorly understood. METHODS We developed a microsimulation model assessing 3 approaches to community-based case-finding in hypothetical populations (India-, South Africa-, The Philippines-, Uganda-, and Vietnam-like settings) with TB prevalence 4 times that of national estimates: (1) screening with a point-of-care C-reactive protein (CRP) test, (2) screening with a more sensitive "Hypothetical Screening test" (95% sensitive for Xpert Ultra-positive TB, 70% specificity; equipment/labor costs similar to Xpert Ultra, but using a $2 cartridge) followed by sputum Xpert Ultra if positive, or (3) testing all individuals with sputum Xpert Ultra. Costs are expressed in 2023 US dollars and include treatment costs. RESULTS Universal Xpert Ultra was estimated to cost a mean $4.0 million (95% uncertainty range: $3.5 to $4.6 million) and avert 3200 (2600 to 3900) TB-related disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) per 100 000 people screened ($670 [The Philippines] to $2000 [Vietnam] per DALY averted). CRP was projected to cost $550 (The Philippines) to $1500 (Vietnam) per DALY averted but with 44% fewer DALYs averted. The Hypothetical Screening test showed minimal benefit compared to universal Xpert Ultra, but if specificity were improved to 95% and per-test cost to $4.5 (all-inclusive), this strategy could cost $390 (The Philippines) to $940 (Vietnam) per DALY averted. CONCLUSIONS Screening tests can meaningfully improve the cost-effectiveness of community-based case-finding for TB but only if they are sensitive, specific, and inexpensive.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lukas E Brümmer
- Division of Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Center for Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), partner site Heidelberg, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Ryan R Thompson
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Akash Malhotra
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Sourya Shrestha
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Emily A Kendall
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
- Center for Tuberculosis Research, Division of Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Jason R Andrews
- Division of Infectious Diseases and Geographic Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Patrick Phillips
- Center for Tuberculosis, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Payam Nahid
- Center for Tuberculosis, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Adithya Cattamanchi
- Center for Tuberculosis, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
- Division of Pulmonary Diseases and Critical Care Medicine, University of California Irvine, Irvine, California, USA
| | - Florian M Marx
- Division of Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Center for Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), partner site Heidelberg, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Claudia M Denkinger
- Division of Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Center for Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), partner site Heidelberg, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - David W Dowdy
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Katzenschlager S, Brümmer LE, Schmitz S, Tolle H, Manten K, Gaeddert M, Erdmann C, Lindner A, Tobian F, Grilli M, Pollock NR, Macé A, Erkosar B, Carmona S, Ongarello S, Johnson CC, Sacks JA, Denkinger CM, Yerlikaya S. Comparing SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 self-testing/self-sampling with molecular and professional-use tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2023; 13:21913. [PMID: 38081881 PMCID: PMC10713601 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-48892-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/04/2023] [Accepted: 11/30/2023] [Indexed: 12/18/2023] Open
Abstract
Self-testing is an effective tool to bridge the testing gap for several infectious diseases; however, its performance in detecting SARS-CoV-2 using antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) has not been systematically reviewed. This study aimed to inform WHO guidelines by evaluating the accuracy of COVID-19 self-testing and self-sampling coupled with professional Ag-RDT conduct and interpretation. Articles on this topic were searched until November 7th, 2022. Concordance between self-testing/self-sampling and fully professional-use Ag-RDTs was assessed using Cohen's kappa. Bivariate meta-analysis yielded pooled performance estimates. Quality and certainty of evidence were evaluated using QUADAS-2 and GRADE tools. Among 43 studies included, twelve reported on self-testing, and 31 assessed self-sampling only. Around 49.6% showed low risk of bias. Overall concordance with professional-use Ag-RDTs was high (kappa 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88-0.94]). Comparing self-testing/self-sampling to molecular testing, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 70.5% (95% CI 64.3-76.0) and 99.4% (95% CI 99.1-99.6), respectively. Higher sensitivity (i.e., 93.6% [95% CI 90.4-96.8] for Ct < 25) was estimated in subgroups with higher viral loads using Ct values as a proxy. Despite high heterogeneity among studies, COVID-19 self-testing/self-sampling exhibits high concordance with professional-use Ag-RDTs. This suggests that self-testing/self-sampling can be offered as part of COVID-19 testing strategies.Trial registration: PROSPERO: CRD42021250706.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephan Katzenschlager
- Department of Anesthesiology, Medical Faculty Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Lukas E Brümmer
- Division of Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Center for Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 324, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
- German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Partner Site Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Stephani Schmitz
- Division of Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Center for Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 324, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Developmental Biology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hannah Tolle
- Division of Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Center for Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 324, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Katharina Manten
- Department of Anesthesiology, Medical Faculty Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
- Division of Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Center for Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 324, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Mary Gaeddert
- Division of Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Center for Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 324, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
| | | | - Andreas Lindner
- Charité Center for Global Health, Institute of International Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Frank Tobian
- Division of Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Center for Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 324, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
| | | | - Nira R Pollock
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | | | | | | | - Cheryl C Johnson
- Global HIV, Hepatitis and STIs Programmes, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Jilian A Sacks
- Department of Epidemic and Pandemic Preparedness and Prevention, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Claudia M Denkinger
- Division of Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Center for Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 324, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
- German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Partner Site Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Seda Yerlikaya
- Division of Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Center for Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 324, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Bigio J, MacLean ELH, Das R, Sulis G, Kohli M, Berhane S, Dinnes J, Deeks JJ, Brümmer LE, Denkinger CM, Pai M. Accuracy of package inserts of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests: a secondary analysis of manufacturer versus systematic review data. Lancet Microbe 2023; 4:e875-e882. [PMID: 37844595 DOI: 10.1016/s2666-5247(23)00222-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/14/2022] [Revised: 05/05/2023] [Accepted: 07/17/2023] [Indexed: 10/18/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Rapid antigen tests (RATs) were crucial during the COVID-19 pandemic. Information provided by the test manufacturer in product package inserts, also known as instructions for use (IFUs), is often the only data available to clinicians, public health professionals, and individuals on the diagnostic accuracy of these tests. We aimed to assess whether manufacturer IFU accuracy data aligned with evidence from independent research. METHODS We searched company websites for package inserts for RATs that were included in the July 2022 update of the Cochrane meta-analysis of SARS-CoV-2 RATs, which served as a benchmark for research evidence. We fitted bivariate hierarchical models to obtain absolute differences in sensitivity and specificity between IFU and Cochrane Review estimates for each test, as well as overall combined differences. FINDINGS We found 22 (100%) of 22 IFUs of the RATs included in the Cochrane Review. IFUs for 12 (55%) of 22 RATs reported statistically significantly higher sensitivity estimates than the Cochrane Review, and none reported lower estimates. The mean difference between IFU and Cochrane Review sensitivity estimates across tests was 12·0% (95% CI 7·5-16·6). IFUs in three (14%) of 22 diagnostic tests had significantly higher specificity estimates than the Cochrane Review and two (9%) of 22 had lower estimates. The mean difference between IFU and Cochrane Review specificity estimates across tests was 0·3% (95% CI 0·1-0·5). If 100 people with SARS-CoV-2 infection were tested with each of the tests in this study, on average 12 fewer people would be correctly diagnosed than is suggested by the package inserts. INTERPRETATION Health professionals and the public should be aware that package inserts for SARS-CoV-2 RATs might provide an overly optimistic picture of the sensitivity of a test. Regulatory bodies should strengthen their requirements for the reporting of diagnostic accuracy data in package inserts and policy makers should demand independent validation data for decision making. FUNDING None.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacob Bigio
- Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal General Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada; McGill International TB Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.
| | - Emily L-H MacLean
- Central Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Rishav Das
- Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal General Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada; McGill International TB Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Giorgia Sulis
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | | | - Sarah Berhane
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Jacqueline Dinnes
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Jonathan J Deeks
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Lukas E Brümmer
- Division of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Center of Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Germany
| | - Claudia M Denkinger
- Division of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Center of Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Germany; German Centre for Infection Research, Partner Site Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Madhukar Pai
- McGill International TB Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada; Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Brümmer LE, Katzenschlager S, McGrath S, Schmitz S, Gaeddert M, Erdmann C, Bota M, Grilli M, Larmann J, Weigand MA, Pollock NR, Macé A, Erkosar B, Carmona S, Sacks JA, Ongarello S, Denkinger CM. 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. PLoS Med 2022; 19:e1004011. [PMID: 35617375 PMCID: PMC9187092 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/09/2022] [Revised: 06/10/2022] [Accepted: 05/04/2022] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lukas E. Brümmer
- Division of Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Center for Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | | | - Sean McGrath
- Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Stephani Schmitz
- Department of Developmental Biology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Mary Gaeddert
- Division of Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Center for Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | | | - Marc Bota
- Agaplesion Bethesda Hospital, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Maurizio Grilli
- Library, University Medical Center Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Jan Larmann
- Department of Anesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Markus A. Weigand
- Department of Anesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Nira R. Pollock
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Claudia M. Denkinger
- Division of Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Center for Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), partner site Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Krüger LJ, Tanuri A, Lindner AK, Gaeddert M, Köppel L, Tobian F, Brümmer LE, Klein JAF, Lainati F, Schnitzler P, Nikolai O, Mockenhaupt FP, Seybold J, Corman VM, Jones TC, Drosten C, Gottschalk C, Weber SF, Weber S, Ferreira OC, Mariani D, Dos Santos Nascimento ER, Pereira Pinto Castineiras TM, Galliez RM, Faffe DS, Leitão IDC, Dos Santos Rodrigues C, Frauches TS, Nocchi KJCV, Feitosa NM, Ribeiro SS, Pollock NR, Knorr B, Welker A, de Vos M, Sacks J, Ongarello S, Denkinger CM. Accuracy and ease-of-use of seven point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting tests: A multi-centre clinical evaluation. EBioMedicine 2022; 75:103774. [PMID: 34959134 PMCID: PMC8702380 DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103774] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2021] [Revised: 12/02/2021] [Accepted: 12/09/2021] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 are important diagnostic tools. We assessed clinical performance and ease-of-use of seven Ag-RDTs in a prospective, manufacturer-independent, multi-centre cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study to inform global decision makers. METHODS Unvaccinated participants suspected of a first SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited at six sites (Germany, Brazil). Ag-RDTs were evaluated sequentially, with collection of paired swabs for routine reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing and Ag-RDT testing. Performance was compared to RT-PCR overall and in sub-group analyses (viral load, symptoms, symptoms duration). To understandusability a System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire and ease-of-use (EoU) assessment were performed. FINDINGS 7471 participants were included in the analysis. Sensitivities across Ag-RDTs ranged from 70·4%-90·1%, specificities were above 97·2% for all Ag-RDTs but one (93·1%).Ag-RDTs, Mologic, Bionote, Standard Q, showed diagnostic accuracy in line with WHO targets (> 80% sensitivity, > 97% specificity). All tests showed high sensitivity in the first three days after symptom onset (≥87·1%) and in individuals with viral loads≥ 6 log10SARS-CoV2 RNA copies/mL (≥ 88·7%). Usability varied, with Rapigen, Bionote and Standard Q reaching very good scores; 90, 88 and 84/100, respectively. INTERPRETATION Variability in test performance is partially explained by variable viral loads in population evaluated over the course of the pandemic. All Ag-RDTs reach high sensitivity early in the disease and in individuals with high viral loads, supporting their role in identifying transmission relevant infections. For easy-to-use tests, performance shown will likely be maintained in routine implementation. FUNDING Ministry of Science, Research and Arts, State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany, internal funds from Heidelberg University Hospital, University Hospital Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, UK Department of International Development, WHO, Unitaid.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lisa J Krüger
- Division of Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 324, Heidelberg 69120, Germany
| | - Amilcar Tanuri
- Laboratório de Virologia Molecular, Instituto de Biologia - Departamento de Genética, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 21941-902, Brazil
| | - Andreas K Lindner
- Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Tropical Medicine and International Health, Augustenburger Pl. 1, Berlin 13353, Germany
| | - Mary Gaeddert
- Division of Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 324, Heidelberg 69120, Germany
| | - Lisa Köppel
- Division of Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 324, Heidelberg 69120, Germany
| | - Frank Tobian
- Division of Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 324, Heidelberg 69120, Germany
| | - Lukas E Brümmer
- Division of Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 324, Heidelberg 69120, Germany
| | - Julian A F Klein
- Division of Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 324, Heidelberg 69120, Germany
| | - Federica Lainati
- Division of Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 324, Heidelberg 69120, Germany
| | - Paul Schnitzler
- Virology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 324, Heidelberg 69120, Germany
| | - Olga Nikolai
- Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Tropical Medicine and International Health, Augustenburger Pl. 1, Berlin 13353, Germany
| | - Frank P Mockenhaupt
- Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Tropical Medicine and International Health, Augustenburger Pl. 1, Berlin 13353, Germany
| | - Joachim Seybold
- Medical Directorate, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Augustenburger Pl. 1, Berlin 13353, Germany
| | - Victor M Corman
- Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Virology, Rahel-Hirsch-Weg 3, Berlin 10117, Germany; German Centre for Infection Research (DZIF), Partner Site Charité, Charitépl. 1, Berlin 10117, Germany
| | - Terence C Jones
- Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Virology, Rahel-Hirsch-Weg 3, Berlin 10117, Germany; German Centre for Infection Research (DZIF), Partner Site Charité, Charitépl. 1, Berlin 10117, Germany; Centre for Pathogen Evolution, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK
| | - Christian Drosten
- Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Virology, Rahel-Hirsch-Weg 3, Berlin 10117, Germany; German Centre for Infection Research (DZIF), Partner Site Charité, Charitépl. 1, Berlin 10117, Germany
| | - Claudius Gottschalk
- Division of Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 324, Heidelberg 69120, Germany
| | - Stefan F Weber
- Division of Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 324, Heidelberg 69120, Germany
| | - Stephan Weber
- Acomed Statistik, Fockestraße 57, Leipzig 04275, Germany
| | - Orlando C Ferreira
- Laboratório de Virologia Molecular, Instituto de Biologia - Departamento de Genética, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 21941-902, Brazil
| | - Diana Mariani
- Laboratório de Virologia Molecular, Instituto de Biologia - Departamento de Genética, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 21941-902, Brazil
| | - Erika Ramos Dos Santos Nascimento
- Laboratório de Virologia Molecular, Instituto de Biologia - Departamento de Genética, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 21941-902, Brazil
| | - Terezinha M Pereira Pinto Castineiras
- Departamento de Doenças Infecciosas e Parasitárias, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 21941-902, Brazil
| | - Rafael Mello Galliez
- Departamento de Doenças Infecciosas e Parasitárias, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 21941-902, Brazil
| | - Debora Souza Faffe
- Instituto de Biofísica Carlos Chagas Filho, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 21941-902, Brazil
| | - Isabela de Carvalho Leitão
- Instituto de Biofísica Carlos Chagas Filho, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 21941-902, Brazil
| | - Claudia Dos Santos Rodrigues
- Serviço de Atendimento Especializado / Centro de Testagem e Aconselhamento, Avenida Roberto Silveira, 46 - 3° Andar, Maricá, Brazil
| | - Thiago Silva Frauches
- Laboratório Central Dr. Francisco Rímolo Neto, R. Álvares de Castro, n° 346, Maricá, RJ 24900-880, Brazil
| | | | - Natalia Martins Feitosa
- Instituto de Biodiversidade e Sustantabilidade NUPEM, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Campus Macaé, Av. São José Barreto, 764 - São José do Barreto, Macaé, RJ 27965-045, Brazil
| | - Sabrina Santana Ribeiro
- Secretaria Municipal de Saúde de Guapimirim, Rua Pastor Francisco Antônio Rosa - S/N, Guapimirim, RJ 25946-253, Brazil
| | - Nira R Pollock
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, 300 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA 02115, United States
| | - Britta Knorr
- Department Public Health Rhein Neckar Region, Kurfürsten-Anlage 38-40, Heidelberg 69115, Germany
| | - Andreas Welker
- Department Public Health Rhein Neckar Region, Kurfürsten-Anlage 38-40, Heidelberg 69115, Germany
| | - Margaretha de Vos
- FIND, Campus Biotech, Building B, Level 0, Chemin des Mines 9, Geneva 1202, Switzerland
| | - JilianA Sacks
- FIND, Campus Biotech, Building B, Level 0, Chemin des Mines 9, Geneva 1202, Switzerland
| | - Stefano Ongarello
- FIND, Campus Biotech, Building B, Level 0, Chemin des Mines 9, Geneva 1202, Switzerland
| | - Claudia M Denkinger
- Division of Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 324, Heidelberg 69120, Germany; German Centre for Infection Research (DZIF), Partner Site Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 672, Heidelberg 69120, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Brümmer LE, Katzenschlager S, Gaeddert M, Erdmann C, Schmitz S, Bota M, Grilli M, Larmann J, Weigand MA, Pollock NR, Macé A, Carmona S, Ongarello S, Sacks JA, Denkinger CM. Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2021; 18:e1003735. [PMID: 34383750 PMCID: PMC8389849 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003735] [Citation(s) in RCA: 159] [Impact Index Per Article: 53.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2021] [Revised: 08/26/2021] [Accepted: 07/14/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lukas E. Brümmer
- Division of Tropical Medicine, Center for Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | | | - Mary Gaeddert
- Division of Tropical Medicine, Center for Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | | | - Stephani Schmitz
- Division of Tropical Medicine, Center for Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Marc Bota
- Agaplesion Bethesda Hospital, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Maurizio Grilli
- Library, University Medical Center Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Jan Larmann
- Department of Anesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Markus A. Weigand
- Department of Anesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Nira R. Pollock
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | | | | | | | | | - Claudia M. Denkinger
- Division of Tropical Medicine, Center for Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- Partner Site Heidelberg University Hospital, German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|