Clinical accuracy of instrument-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen diagnostic tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, antigen diagnostic tests were frequently used for screening, triage, and diagnosis. Novel instrument-based antigen tests (iAg tests) hold the promise of outperforming their instrument-free, visually-read counterparts. Here, we provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 iAg tests' clinical accuracy. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, medRxiv, and bioRxiv for articles published before November 7th, 2022, evaluating the accuracy of iAg tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection. We performed a random effects meta-analysis to estimate sensitivity and specificity and used the QUADAS-2 tool to assess study quality and risk of bias. Sub-group analysis was conducted based on Ct value range, IFU-conformity, age, symptom presence and duration, and the variant of concern. RESULTS: We screened the titles and abstracts of 20,431 articles and included 114 publications that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Additionally, we incorporated three articles sourced from the FIND website, totaling 117 studies encompassing 95,181 individuals, which evaluated the clinical accuracy of 24 commercial COVID-19 iAg tests. The studies varied in risk of bias but showed high applicability. Of 24 iAg tests from 99 studies assessed in the meta-analysis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity compared to molecular testing of a paired NP swab sample were 76.7% (95% CI 73.5 to 79.7) and 98.4% (95% CI 98.0 to 98.7), respectively. Higher sensitivity was noted in individuals with high viral load (99.6% [95% CI 96.8 to 100] at Ct-level ≤ 20) and within the first week of symptom onset (84.6% [95% CI 78.2 to 89.3]), but did not differ between tests conducted as per manufacturer's instructions and those conducted differently, or between point-of-care and lab-based testing. CONCLUSION: Overall, iAg tests have a high pooled specificity but a moderate pooled sensitivity, according to our analysis. The pooled sensitivity increases with lower Ct-values (a proxy for viral load), or within the first week of symptom onset, enabling reliable identification of most COVID-19 cases and highlighting the importance of context in test selection. The study underscores the need for careful evaluation considering performance variations and operational features of iAg tests.

Virus variant-specific clinical performance of a SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test with focus on Omicron variants of concern.

OBJECTIVES: Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) play an important role in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. They are easier, quicker, and less expensive than the 'reference standard' RT-PCR and therefore widely in use. Reliable clinical data with respect to Ag-RDT performance in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants of concern (VOCs) are limited. Consequently, the objective of this study was to determine the impact different VOCs-especially Omicron-have on the clinical performance of an Ag-RDT. METHODS: We compared the clinical performance of the Sofia SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT to RT-PCR in a real-world, single-centre study in a clinical point-of-care setting in patients admitted to a large hospital via the emergency department from 2 November 2020 to 4 September 2022. RESULTS: Among 38 434 Ag-RDT/RT-PCR tandems taken, 1528 yielded a SARS-CoV-2 positive RT-PCR test result, with a prevalence of 4.0% (95% CI, 3.8-4.2). Overall sensitivity of the Ag-RDT was 63.7% (95% CI, 61.3-66.1) and overall specificity was 99.6% (95% CI, 99.5-99.6). Ag-RDT sensitivity was dependent on viral load (VL), because the sensitivity increased to 93.2% (95% CI, 91.5-94.6) in samples with a VL > 106 SARS-CoV-2 copies/mL. Furthermore, the Ag-RDT was more sensitive in men, and older patients. Variant-dependent sensitivity assessment showed that the sensitivity was significantly lower in Omicron-VOC (64.1%; 95% CI, 60.5-67.6) compared with SARS-CoV-2 wild-type samples (70.0%; 95% CI, 59,8-78,6) (binomial test; p value < 0.001). Analysing the limits of detection showed a 27 times higher 95% limit of detection for the Omicron-VOC BA.5 compared with the SARS-CoV-2 wild-type. DISCUSSION: Ag-RDT sensitivity for detection of patients with lower VLs and with Omicron-VOC is reduced, limiting the effectiveness of Ag-RDTs. However, Ag-RDTs are still an unreplaceable tool for widely available, quick, and inexpensive point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics.

Performance of the Sofia SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test as frontline test in a university hospital, Germany.

The rapid and reliable detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is of high importance for individual patient care and hospital infection prevention. We aimed to evaluate the performance of the Sofia SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) in comparison to real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). We conducted a prospective, monocentric cross-sectional study in an emergency department of a German university hospital from November 2020 to March 2021. We tested all samples using both Sofia SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT and real-time RT-PCR. A total of 7877 patients were included. Overall sensitivity of the Ag-RDT was 62.9% and specificity was 99.4%. Sensitivity varied across study months, whereas specificity remained high. Sensitivity increased to 94.2% in samples with a cycle threshold (Ct)-value ≤25. The Sofia Ag-RDT proved to be a rapid tool to detect samples with high viral loads (Ct-value ≤25) and might thus help to identify infectious patients.