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.

Strategies for Using Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests to Reduce Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Mathematical Modelling Study Applied to Zambia.

BACKGROUND: Increasing the availability of antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is key to alleviating global SARS-CoV-2 testing inequity (median testing rate in December 2021-March 2022 when the Omicron variant was spreading in multiple countries: high-income countries = 600 tests/100 000 people/day; LMICs = 14 tests/100 000 people/day). However, target testing levels and effectiveness of asymptomatic community screening to impact SARS-CoV-2 transmission in LMICs are unclear. METHODS: We used Propelling Action for Testing and Treating (PATAT), an LMIC-focused agent-based model to simulate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemics, varying the amount of Ag-RDTs available for symptomatic testing at healthcare facilities and asymptomatic community testing in different social settings. We assumed that testing was a function of access to healthcare facilities and availability of Ag-RDTs. We explicitly modelled symptomatic testing demand from individuals without SARS-CoV-2 and measured impact based on the number of infections averted due to test-and-isolate. RESULTS: Testing symptomatic individuals yields greater benefits than any asymptomatic community testing strategy until most symptomatic individuals who sought testing have been tested. Meeting symptomatic testing demand likely requires at least 200-400 tests/100 000 people/day, on average, as symptomatic testing demand is highly influenced by individuals without SARS-CoV-2. After symptomatic testing demand is satisfied, excess tests to proactively screen for asymptomatic infections among household members yield the largest additional infections averted. CONCLUSIONS: Testing strategies aimed at reducing transmission should prioritize symptomatic testing and incentivizing test-positive individuals to adhere to isolation to maximize effectiveness.

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.

Evaluation of accuracy, exclusivity, limit-of-detection and ease-of-use of LumiraDx™: An antigen-detecting point-of-care device for SARS-CoV-2.

PURPOSE: Rapid antigen-detecting tests (Ag-RDTs) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can transform pandemic control. Thus far, sensitivity (≤ 85%) of lateral-flow assays has limited scale-up. Conceivably, microfluidic immunofluorescence Ag-RDTs could increase sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection. METHODS: This multi-centre diagnostic accuracy study investigated performance of the microfluidic immunofluorescence LumiraDx™ assay, enrolling symptomatic and asymptomatic participants with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants collected a supervised nasal mid-turbinate (NMT) self-swab for Ag-RDT testing, in addition to a professionally collected nasopharyngeal (NP) swab for routine testing with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Results were compared to calculate sensitivity and specificity. Sub-analyses investigated the results by viral load, symptom presence and duration. An analytical study assessed exclusivity and limit-of-detection (LOD). In addition, we evaluated ease-of-use. RESULTS: The study was conducted between November 2nd 2020 and 4th of December 2020. 761 participants were enrolled, with 486 participants reporting symptoms on testing day. 120 out of 146 RT-PCR positive cases were detected positive by LumiraDx™, resulting in a sensitivity of 82.2% (95% CI 75.2-87.5%). Specificity was 99.3% (CI 98.3-99.7%). Sensitivity was increased in individuals with viral load ≥ 7 log10 SARS-CoV2 RNA copies/ml (93.8%; CI 86.2-97.3%). Testing against common respiratory commensals and pathogens showed no cross-reactivity and LOD was estimated to be 2-56 PFU/mL. The ease-of-use-assessment was favourable for lower throughput settings. CONCLUSION: The LumiraDx™ assay showed excellent analytical sensitivity, exclusivity and clinical specificity with good clinical sensitivity using supervised NMT self-sampling. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND REGISTRATION DATE: DRKS00021220 and 01.04.2020.

Evaluation of 11 commercially available PCR kits for the detection of monkeypox virus DNA, Berlin, July to September 2022.

Before the international spread of monkeypox in May 2022, PCR kits for the detection of orthopoxviruses, and specifically monkeypox virus, were rarely available. Here we describe the evaluation of 11 recently developed commercially available PCR kits for the detection of monkeypox virus DNA. All tested kits are currently intended for research use only and clinical performance still needs to be assessed in more detail, but all were suitable for diagnostics of monkeypox virus, with variations in specificity rather than sensitivity.

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.

Quantifying the potential value of antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19: a modelling analysis.

BACKGROUND: Testing plays a critical role in treatment and prevention responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to nucleic acid tests (NATs), antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) can be more accessible, but typically have lower sensitivity and specificity. By quantifying these trade-offs, we aimed to inform decisions about when an Ag-RDT would offer greater public health value than reliance on NAT. METHODS: Following an expert consultation, we selected two use cases for analysis: rapid identification of people with COVID-19 amongst patients admitted with respiratory symptoms in a 'hospital' setting and early identification and isolation of people with mildly symptomatic COVID-19 in a 'community' setting. Using decision analysis, we evaluated the health system cost and health impact (deaths averted and infectious days isolated) of an Ag-RDT-led strategy, compared to a strategy based on NAT and clinical judgement. We adopted a broad range of values for 'contextual' parameters relevant to a range of settings, including the availability of NAT and the performance of clinical judgement. We performed a multivariate sensitivity analysis to all of these parameters. RESULTS: In a hospital setting, an Ag-RDT-led strategy would avert more deaths than a NAT-based strategy, and at lower cost per death averted, when the sensitivity of clinical judgement is less than 90%, and when NAT results are available in time to inform clinical decision-making for less than 85% of patients. The use of an Ag-RDT is robustly supported in community settings, where it would avert more transmission at lower cost than relying on NAT alone, under a wide range of assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite their imperfect sensitivity and specificity, Ag-RDTs have the potential to be simultaneously more impactful, and have a lower cost per death and infectious person-days averted, than current approaches to COVID-19 diagnostic testing.

Antigen-based Rapid Diagnostic Testing or Alternatives for Diagnosis of Symptomatic COVID-19: A Simulation-based Net Benefit Analysis.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests can diagnose COVID-19 rapidly and at low cost, but lower sensitivity compared with reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has limited clinical adoption. METHODS: We compared antigen testing, PCR testing, and clinical judgment alone for diagnosing symptomatic COVID-19 in an outpatient setting (10% COVID-19 prevalence among the patients tested, 3-day PCR turnaround) and a hospital setting (40% prevalence, 24-hour PCR turnaround). We simulated transmission from cases and contacts, and relationships between time, viral burden, transmission, and case detection. We compared diagnostic approaches using a measure of net benefit that incorporated both clinical and public health benefits and harms of the intervention. RESULTS: In the outpatient setting, we estimated that using antigen testing instead of PCR to test 200 individuals could be equivalent to preventing all symptomatic transmission from one person with COVID-19 (one "transmission-equivalent"). In a hospital, net benefit analysis favored PCR and testing 25 patients with PCR instead of antigen testing achieved one transmission-equivalent of benefit. In both settings, antigen testing was preferable to PCR if PCR turnaround time exceeded 2 days. Both tests provided greater net benefit than management based on clinical judgment alone unless intervention carried minimal harm and was provided equally regardless of diagnostic approach. CONCLUSIONS: For diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19, we estimated that the speed of diagnosis with antigen testing is likely to outweigh its lower accuracy compared with PCR, wherever PCR turnaround time is 2 days or longer. This advantage may be even greater if antigen tests are also less expensive.

Head-to-head performance comparison of self-collected nasal versus professional-collected nasopharyngeal swab for a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test.

In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended two SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow antigen-detecting rapid diagnostics tests (Ag-RDTs), both initially with nasopharyngeal (NP) sample collection. Independent head-to-head studies are necessary for SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT nasal sampling to demonstrate comparability of performance with nasopharyngeal (NP) sampling. We conducted a head-to-head comparison study of a supervised, self-collected nasal mid-turbinate (NMT) swab and a professional-collected NP swab, using the Panbio™ Ag-RDT (distributed by Abbott). We calculated positive and negative percent agreement between the sampling methods as well as sensitivity and specificity for both sampling techniques compared to the reference standard reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). A SARS-CoV-2 infection could be diagnosed by RT-PCR in 45 of 290 participants (15.5%). Comparing the NMT and NP sampling the positive percent agreement of the Ag-RDT was 88.1% (37/42 PCR positives detected; CI 75.0-94.8%). The negative percent agreement was 98.8% (245/248; CI 96.5-99.6%). The overall sensitivity of Panbio with NMT sampling was 84.4% (38/45; CI 71.2-92.3%) and 88.9% (40/45; CI 76.5-95.5%) with NP sampling. Specificity was 99.2% (243/245; CI 97.1-99.8%) for both, NP and NMT sampling. The sensitivity of the Panbio test in participants with high viral load (> 7 log10 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/mL) was 96.3% (CI 81.7-99.8%) for both, NMT and NP sampling. For the Panbio supervised NMT self-sampling yields comparable results to NP sampling. This suggests that nasal self-sampling could be used for to enable scaled-up population testing.Clinical Trial DRKS00021220.

Serodiagnostics for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Related Coronavirus 2 : A Narrative Review.

Accurate serologic tests to detect host antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will be critical for the public health response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Many use cases are envisaged, including complementing molecular methods for diagnosis of active disease and estimating immunity for individuals. At the population level, carefully designed seroepidemiologic studies will aid in the characterization of transmission dynamics and refinement of disease burden estimates and will provide insight into the kinetics of humoral immunity. Yet, despite an explosion in the number and availability of serologic assays to test for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, most have undergone minimal external validation to date. This hinders assay selection and implementation, as well as interpretation of study results. In addition, critical knowledge gaps remain regarding serologic correlates of protection from infection or disease, and the degree to which these assays cross-react with antibodies against related coronaviruses. This article discusses key use cases for SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection tests and their application to serologic studies, reviews currently available assays, highlights key areas of ongoing research, and proposes potential strategies for test implementation.