ABSTRACT
Background Non-pharmaceutical interventions to prevent the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 also decreased the spread of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza. Viral diagnostic testing in patients with respiratory tract infections (RTI) is a necessary tool for patient management; therefore, sensitive and specific tests are required. This scoping literature review evaluated the analytical validity of commercially available sample-to- answer RSV diagnostic tests in different contexts.
Content PubMed and Embase were queried for studies reporting on the analytical validity of tests for RSV in patients with RTI (published January 2005–January 2021). Sensitivity and specificity of RSV tests and information on study design, patient, and setting characteristics were extracted from 77 studies that met predefined inclusion criteria. A literature gap was identified for studies of RSV tests conducted in adult-only populations (5.3% of total sub- records), and in outpatient (7.5%) or household (0.8%) settings. Overall, RSV tests with analytical time >30 min had higher sensitivity (62.5–100%) versus RSV tests with analytical time ≤ 30 min (25.7–100%), this sensitivity range could be partially attributed to the different modalities (antigen versus molecular) used. Molecular-based rapid RSV tests had higher sensitivity (66.7–100%) and specificity (94.3–100%) than antigen-based RSV tests (25.7– 100%; 80.3–100%).
Summary Molecular-based RSV tests should be considered for first-line use when possible, given their high sensitivity and specificity and that adults with RTI typically have low viral load, necessitating a highly sensitive test. This review benefits healthcare professionals by summarizing the diagnostic accuracy data available for commercially available RSV tests.
IMPACT STATEMENT Viral diagnostic testing in patients with respiratory tract infection is a powerful tool for patient management. This scoping literature review included 77 studies reporting the analytical validity of commercially available respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) diagnostic tests (published January 2005–January 2021) and examined the characteristics of such studies. The data suggest that molecular-based RSV tests have higher sensitivity and specificity than antigen-based tests, thus should be considered for first-line use for timely diagnosis and to detect infections in adults with low level viral load. Future studies should investigate the diagnostic accuracy of RSV tests in adults and in outpatient/household settings.
Competing Interest Statement
DIB is a paid consultant for Roche Diagnostics. AM has received research grants from NIH, Janssen and Merck and fees for participation in advisory boards from Janssen, Sanofi-Pasteur, Merck and Roche Diagnostics. BR has received institutional funding support for research and fees for participation in advisory boards from Roche Diagnostics and Quidel. CWW has received grants from DARPA, NIH/ARLG, NIH/VTEU and Sanofi, consultant fees from bioMerieux, Biofire, Giner, Biomeme, FHI Clinical, Arena Pharmaceuticals, SeLux Diagnostics and Karius, fees from participation in a data safety monitoring board from Janssen, and fees from participation in advisory boards from Regeneron and IDbyDNA; has the following patents: biomarkers for the molecular classification of bacterial infection (issued), methods to diagnose and treat acute respiratory infections (pending), gene expression signatures useful to predict or diagnose sepsis (pending), host based molecular signatures of human infection with SARs-CoV-2 (COVID-19) (pending) and methods of identifying infectious disease and assays for identifying infectious disease (issued); holds stocks in Predigen Inc (equity, founder); is employed by Duke University and Durham VA Health Care System; and is the principal investigator for RADx UP testing Core. JPD is an employee of Roche Diagnostics Corporation.
Funding Statement
This review was funded by Roche Diagnostics International Ltd, Rotkreuz, Switzerland.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Abbreviations: RSV, respiratory syncytial virus; COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019; SARS-CoV-2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; rRT-PCR, real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction; CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; US, United States; POC, point-of-care; CLIA, Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments; CI, confidence interval; DFA, direct fluorescent antibody test; FIA, fluorescence immunoassay; IFA, immunofluorescence assay; NR, not reported.
Data Availability
The data supporting this review were derived from publicly available databases.
