ABSTRACT
SCOPE: Since the onset of COVID-19, several assays have been deployed for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) published the first set of guidelines on SARS-CoV-2 in vitro diagnosis in February 2022. Because the COVID-19 landscape is rapidly evolving, the relevant ESCMID guidelines panel releases an update of the previously published recommendations on diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. This update aims to delineate the best diagnostic approach for SARS-CoV-2 in different populations based on current evidence. METHODS: An ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines task force was established by the ESCMID Executive Committee. A small group was established, half appointed by the chair, and the remaining selected with an open call. The panel met virtually once a week. For all decisions, a simple majority vote was used. A list of clinical questions using the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) format was developed at the beginning of the process. For each PICO, 2 panel members performed a literature search focusing on systematic reviews with a third panellist involved in case of inconsistent results. The panel reassessed the PICOs previously defined as priority in the first set of guidelines and decided to address 49 PICO questions, because 6 of them were discarded as outdated/non-clinically relevant. The 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)-adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of recommendations (ADOLOPMENT)' evidence-to-decision framework was used to produce the guidelines. QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY THE GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS: After literature search, we updated 16 PICO questions; these PICOs address the use of antigen-based assays among symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with different ages, COVID-19 severity status or risk for severe COVID-19, time since the onset of symptoms/contact with an infectious case, and finally, types of biomaterials used.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Communicable Diseases , Humans , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2 , Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures , COVID-19 TestingABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Molecular and antigen point-of-care tests (POCTs) have augmented our ability to rapidly identify and manage SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, their clinical performance varies among individual studies. OBJECTIVES: The evaluation of the performance of molecular and antigen-based POCTs in confirmed, suspected, or probable COVID-19 cases compared with that of laboratory-based RT-PCR in real-life settings. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Cochrane COVID-19 study register, and COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed or preprint observational studies or randomized controlled trials that evaluated any type of commercially available antigen and/or molecular POCTs for SARS-CoV-2, including multiplex PCR panels, approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration, with Emergency Use Authorization, and/or marked with Conformitè Europëenne from European Commission/European Union. PARTICIPANTS: Close contacts and/or patients with symptomatic and/or asymptomatic confirmed, suspected, or probable COVID-19 infection of any age. TEST/S: Molecular and/or antigen-based SARS-CoV-2 POCTs. REFERENCE STANDARD: Laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: Eligible studies were subjected to quality-control and risk-of-bias assessment using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Summary sensitivities and specificities with their 95% CIs were estimated using a bivariate model. Subgroup analysis was performed when at least three studies informed the outcome. RESULTS: A total of 123 eligible publications (97 and 26 studies assessing antigen-based and molecular POCTs, respectively) were retrieved from 4674 initial records. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for 13 molecular-based POCTs were 92.8% (95% CI, 88.9-95.4%) and 97.6% (95% CI, 96.6-98.3%), respectively. The sensitivity of antigen-based POCTs pooled from 138 individual evaluations was considerably lower than that of molecular POCTs; the pooled sensitivity and specificity rates were 70.6% (95% CI, 67.2-73.8%) and 98.9% (95% CI, 98.5-99.2%), respectively. DISCUSSION: Further studies are needed to evaluate the performance of molecular and antigen-based POCTs in underrepresented patient subgroups and different respiratory samples.
