Diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the Omicron period: cross sectional study =================================================================================================================================== * Roderick P Venekamp * Ewoud Schuit * Lotty Hooft * Irene K Veldhuijzen * Wouter van den Bijllaardt * Suzan D Pas * Vivian F Zwart * Esther B Lodder * Marloes Hellwich * Marco Koppelman * Richard Molenkamp * Constantijn Wijers * Irene H Vroom * Leonard C Smeets * Carla R S Nagel-Imming * Wanda G H Han * Susan van den Hof * Jan AJW Kluytmans * Janneke H H M van de Wijgert * Karel G M Moons ## Abstract **Objectives** To assess the performances of three commonly used rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) used as self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the Omicron period. **Design** Cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy study. **Setting** Three public health service COVID-19 test sites in the Netherlands. **Participants** 3,600 asymptomatic individuals aged ≥16 years presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing for any reason except confirmatory testing after a positive self-test. **Interventions** Participants were sampled for RT-PCR (reference test) and received one self-test (either Acon Flowflex (Flowflex), MP Biomedicals (MPBio), or Siemens-Healthineers Clinitest (Clinitest)) to perform unsupervised at home within three hours and blinded to the RT-PCR result. **Main Outcome(s) and Measures(s)** Diagnostic accuracies (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values) of each self-test compared to RT-PCR. **Results** Overall sensitivities of the three self-tests were 27.5% (95% CI: 21.3-34.3%) for Flowflex, 20.9% (13.9-29.4%) for MPBio, and 25.6% (19.1-33.1%) for Clinitest. After applying a viral load cut-off (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL), sensitivities increased to 48.3% (95% CI: 37.6-59.2%), 37.8% (22.5-55.2%), and 40.0% (29.5-51.2%), respectively. No consistent differences were found in sensitivities by COVID-19 vaccination status, having had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, gender or age across the three self-tests. Specificities were >99% for all tests in most analyses. **Conclusions** The sensitivities of three commonly used SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs when used as self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the Omicron period, were very low. Our findings indicate that Ag-RDT self-testing in asymptomatic individuals may only detect the minority of infections at that point in time and may not be sufficient to prevent the spreading of the virus to other (vulnerable) persons. Repeated self-testing in case of a negative self-test is advocated to improve the diagnostic yield of the self-tests, and individuals should certainly be advised to re-test when symptoms develop. **What is already known on this topic** * If sufficiently reliable, SARS-CoV-2 self-testing by asymptomatic persons prior to admission in places where groups gather could have a huge public health impact by lowering the reproduction number or keep it below one for longer periods. * Current evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) when used as self-tests by asymptomatic individuals perform suboptimal, but sample sizes of the previous studies were too small to draw robust conclusions, and also empirical data on the accuracy of Ag-RDT self-tests in asymptomatic individuals during the Omicron period are scarce. **What this study adds** * Compared to RT-PCR testing, overall sensitivities of three commercially available SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs when used as self-tests by asymptomatic individuals (primary analysis population of non-confirmatory testers; n= 3600, 87% of full analysis population) in the Omicron period, were very low: 27.5% (95% CI: 21.3-34.3%) for the Acon Flowflex test, 20.9% (13.9-29.4%) for the MP Biomedicals test, and 25.6% (19.1-33.1%) for the Siemens Healthineers Clinitest Ag-RDT, which increased to 48.3% (95% CI: 37.6-59.2%), 37.8% (22.5-55.2%), and 40.0% (29.5-51.2%), respectively, when applying a viral load cut-off (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL). * Our findings indicate that Ag-RDT self-testing in asymptomatic individuals may only detect the minority of infections at that point in time and may not be sufficient to prevent the spreading of the virus to other (vulnerable) persons. Repeated self-testing in case of a negative self-test is advocated to improve the diagnostic yield of the self-tests, and individuals should certainly be advised to re-test when symptoms develop. ## Introduction SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) require no or minimal equipment, provide a result within 15-30 minutes, and are widely available in many countries for self-testing. Self-testing is most often done when a person has symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Research has shown that Ag-RDTs perform adequately when conducted by symptomatic individuals.(1,2) Self-testing by asymptomatic persons, if sufficiently reliable, may also be useful. Individuals could screen themselves for infection prior to visiting vulnerable individuals or attending group events if they want to minimize posing a risk to others. From a public health perspective, infection screening, of asymptomatic individuals, prior to admission in places where groups gather may lower the reproduction number or keep it below one. Current evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs perform suboptimally in asymptomatic individuals, which has been attributed to lower viral loads in this population.(1,3) However, most of these previous studies were small, did not take exposure to a SARS-CoV-2-positive index case into account, and only evaluated testing in combination with sampling by professionals. We previously reported a sensitivity of only 23% in asymptomatic individuals for one self-test (SD Biosensor by Roche Diagnostics) used with unsupervised nasal self-sampling.(4) However, this finding was based on data from 31 RT-PCR positive participants only and derived in the Delta variant period. Studies in the Omicron period that are adequately powered for determining the performance of Ag-RDTs with unsupervised self-sampling in asymptomatic individuals are therefore urgently needed. As such, we studied the accuracy of three widely commercially available SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs with unsupervised self-sampling in asymptomatic individuals in the Omicron period, using RT-PCR as the reference standard. ## Methods The study is reported according to the STARD 2015 reporting guidelines: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies.(5) ### Study design and population This large prospective diagnostic test accuracy study was embedded within the Dutch public testing infrastructure, as previously described.(2) During the study period (12 January 2022 to 30 March 2022), public testing was always done by RT-PCR, free-of-charge, for government-approved test indications. These indications included having (i) any symptom of a potential SARS-CoV-2 infection; (ii) been identified as a close contact of a SARS-CoV-2 index case; (iii) tested positive on a commercially available Ag-RDT self-test used at one’s own initiative; or (iv) returned from a country on the government’s list of high-risk countries regardless of the presence of any signs or symptoms. Participants were recruited consecutively at three public health service COVID-19 test sites, located in Rotterdam-Rijnmond (Rotterdam), Central- and Northeast Brabant (Tilburg), and West-Brabant (Roosendaal). Individuals were considered eligible if they reported no symptoms or signs of SARS-CoV-2 infection at the time of sampling, were aged 16 years or older, and were willing and able to sign a digital informed consent form in Dutch. The estimated share of the Omicron variant, as determined by the national SARS-CoV-2 pathogen surveillance, was >90% of all circulating SARS-CoV-2 viruses on 12 January 2022, which increased to >99.5% from 31 January onwards.(6-8) ### Inclusion procedure, specimen collection and testing Individuals visiting a test site were asked by test site staff whether they were willing to participate. If interested, they received a participant information letter, a test-site specific Ag-RDT self-test kit, and an email with a study participation link to access study documentation. Next, trained test site staff took a swab for routine RT-PCR testing, as described previously.(2) The sampling method differed slightly across test sites: the Rotterdam and Tilburg sites used oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal sampling, and the Roosendaal site combined oropharyngeal and nasal sampling (supplementary material 1). At all three sites, RT-PCR samples were tested in an off-site laboratory by RT-PCR on a Cobas 6800 or 8800 platform (Roche Diagnostics). Participants received instructions to perform the Ag-RDT self-test at home using nasal self-sampling according to the manufacturers’ instructions. Each participant received one of three self-tests: Acon Labs Flowflex COVID-19 Antigen Home Test (“Flowflex”) in Rotterdam (12 January to 14 March); MP Biomedicals Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test Card (“MPBio”) in Tilburg (12 January to 29 March); and Siemens-Healthineers CLINITEST Rapid COVID-19 Antigen Test (“Clinitest”) in Roosendaal (12 January to 29 March). Participants interpreted their Ag-RDT self-test results visually in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, and this was always done before they had received their RT-PCR test result from the public health service. Vice versa, the Ag-RDT self-test result was not available to the laboratories that conducted the RT-PCR tests for the public health service. Participants received their RT-PCR test results from the public health service conform routine practice and were told to use that result - and not the result of the self-test - to determine which health policy and guidance to follow. Participants were asked to complete the study procedures at home as soon as possible, and no later than within three hours of their RT-PCR test site visit. They were asked to first provide informed consent electronically via the participation link in the email, to subsequently perform the self-test, and to complete a short online questionnaire including questions about any signs or symptoms of a SARS-CoV-2 infection (supplementary material 2). Participants who did not complete the online questionnaire within three hours of their RT-PCR test site visit were contacted by a call center with the request to perform the self-test and complete the questionnaire as soon as possible. Participants with a negative RT-PCR test result received an email 10 days after their test site visit asking them to complete an online follow-up questionnaire (supplementary material 3) to capture any infections that may have been missed by the baseline RT-PCR test. ### Outcomes and statistical analyses All analyses only include individuals who reported not to have any symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 at the time of RT-PCR sampling. Confirmatory testing after a positive SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT self-test at home is associated with a much higher sensitivity than testing for other reasons.(2) We excluded the small group (13%) of confirmatory testers from our primary analysis population because we were primarily interested in Ag-RDT self-test performances when used for screening in asymptomatic individuals, rather than for confirmatory testing. The primary outcomes were the diagnostic accuracies (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values with corresponding 95% confidence intervals [95% CI]) of each self-test, with RT-PCR testing as the reference standard. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic accuracies stratified by COVID-19 vaccination status (no vaccination or vaccinated once, twice, or thrice), having had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (yes or no), gender (female or male), and age (16-40, >40 years), and in the full study sample stratified by reason for testing (confirmatory or other reasons). All primary and secondary diagnostic accuracies were also determined after applying a viral load cut-off (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL). This was the viral load cut-off above which 95% of people with a positive RT-PCR test had a positive virus culture in a previous study by our group.(9) Finally, the self-reported numbers of infections that may have been missed by the baseline RT-PCR test (using the follow-up questionnaire) were assessed. We performed a complete cases analysis because the number of individuals without RT-PCR test or Ag-RDT results was very low (Figure 1). All analyses were performed in R version 4.1.2 (2021-11-01) “Bird Hippie”.(10) ![Figure 1](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/07/09/2022.07.07.22277366/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/07/09/2022.07.07.22277366/F1) Figure 1 Flow of study participants of the full study population and primary analysis population between brackets. Flowflex = the Acon Labs Flowflex COVID-19 Antigen Home Test; MPBio = the MP Biomedicals Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test Card; Clinitest = the Siemens-Healthineers CLINITEST Rapid COVID-19 Antigen Test. “Ag-RDT inconclusive” is a combination of Ag-RDTs that showed no control line, test tubes that were dropped, an Ag-RDTs that provided a result participants had difficulties to interpret (e.g., very light line at the “T”). ### Sample size calculation In our previous SD-Biosensor (Roche) SARS-CoV-2 nasal Ag-RDT self-testing study, we observed a sensitivity of 23% in symptomatic participants.(4) For the present study, we assumed sensitivities of 30% for all three Ag-RDT self-tests, with a margin of error of 5%, type I error of 5% and power of 80%. Hence, we aimed for 335 positive RT-PCR tests per self-test. ### Patient and public involvement In late 2021, the public COVID-19 debate in the Netherlands included discussions about the sensitivity of self-testing using commercially available tests. Because of the urgency of the study, and the short time from study conception to conduct, we did not include the lay public in study design and implementation. ## Results A total of 4,202 individuals participated in the study of whom 3,635 were not confirmatory testers (Figure 1). The Ag-RDT self-test and the RT-PCR test result was available for 3,600 non-confirmatory testers (99.0%) (Figure 1). The primary analysis population therefore consisted of 3,600 individuals. Their characteristics by Ag-RDT self-test group are described in Table 1. Patient characteristics of the full analysis population by self-test group are shown in Table S1. View this table: [Table 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/07/09/2022.07.07.22277366/T1) Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the primary analysis population, stratified by rapid antigen test. ### Ag-RDT self-test accuracies in the primary analysis population The overall sensitivities were 27.5% (95% CI: 21.3-34.3%) for Flowflex, 20.9% (13.9-29.4%) for MPBio, and 25.6% (19.1-33.1%) for Clinitest (Table 2, Figure 2). After applying a viral load cut-off, these sensitivities increased to 48.3% (95% CI: 37.6-59.2%), 37.8% (22.5-55.2%), and 40.0% (29.5-51.2%), respectively (Table S2, Figure S1). Specificities were >99%, positive predictive values >92%, and negative predictive values >88% for all three Ag-RDT self-tests in overall primary analyses (Table 2). Supplementary Tables S3-S5 show 2×2 tables for the three self-tests compared to RT-PCR in the primary analysis population. View this table: [Table 2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/07/09/2022.07.07.22277366/T2) Table 2 Diagnostic accuracy parameters for the three Ag-RDTs in the primary analysis population. Values are percentages (95% confidence interval) unless stated otherwise. ![Figure 2](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/07/09/2022.07.07.22277366/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/07/09/2022.07.07.22277366/F2) Figure 2 Sensitivities with 95% confidence intervals of the antigen rapid test-RT-PCR reference standard test comparisons stratified according to covid-19 vaccination status, previous infection status, sex, and age. The vertical line indicates the sensitivity of the Ag-RDT in the respective overall study population, and the number of positive RT-PCR tests out of the total or subgroup between parentheses. Sensitivities stratified by COVID-19 vaccination status, having had a previous infection, and age were similar, with all 95% CIs overlapping substantially (Table 2, Figure 2). The sensitivities for MPBio and Clinitest were non-significantly higher in males (31.2% and 37.9%, respectively) than in females (13.4% and 17.2%, respectively). After applying the viral load cut-off, all stratified sensitivities increased but the 95% CIs still overlapped substantially (Table S2, Figure S1). The non-significant trends in higher sensitivities in males than females for MPBio and Clinitest also persisted but were less pronounced. ### Ag-RDT self-test accuracies in the primary compared to the full analysis population As expected, the largest differences in RT-PCR positivity percentages and sensitivities were between the primary analysis population of non-confirmatory testers (n= 3600; sensitivities 27.5% for Flowflex, 20.9% for MPBio, and 25.6% for Clinitest) and the confirmatory testers (n= 551; sensitivities 76.0%, 75.9%, and 61.3%, respectively) (Table S2, Figure S2). In the full analysis population, we consistently found lower sensitivities in participants who had had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (31.7%, 34.7%, and 40.0%, respectively) than in those without a previous infection (55.7%, 47.7%, and 47.1%, respectively), although this only reached statistical significance for Flowflex (Table S2, Figure S2). Application of the viral load cut-off resulted in higher sensitivities but all stratification trends remained similar (Figure S3). ### Positive SARS-CoV-2 tests during 10-day follow-up (primary analysis population) Follow-up information was available for 79.2% (2479/3132) of participants with a negative RT-PCR test result at baseline. About half of them (1339/2443; 54.8%) reported to have been re-tested with RT-PCR or self-test within 10 days, with 24.6% of them (329/1339) testing positive. ## Discussion This large diagnostic accuracy evaluation of three commercially available Ag-RDT self-tests showed that overall sensitivities for detecting the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant in asymptomatic individuals using nasal self-sampling were very low, varying between 20.7% and 27.5% (when confirmatory testers are excluded), and increasing to only 37.8% to 48.3% when a viral load cut-off was applied. A living systematic review including 25 datasets (n=15,228) of Ag-RDT evaluations in the pre-Omicron era, with sampling predominantly being performed by professionals, found a pooled sensitivity of 52.5% (95% CI 43.7-61.1) in asymptomatic individuals.(1) In a previous study by our group in the Delta variant period, in a similar population as the current study and using the same nasal self-sampling and testing method, we found a sensitivity of 23% for the SD Biosensor Ag-RDT self-test.(4) A recent study from the USA comparing the BinaxNOW Ag-RDT and RT-PCR during an Omicron surge found an overall sensitivity of 52.5% (64/122) in asymptomatic individuals or those with symptom onset more than 7 days ago.(11) This is higher than what we found in our studies, likely because they combined asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals and perhaps because the samples were taken by professionals, but still lower than desirable. Overall, the available data indicate that many self-tests have low sensitivities in comparison with RT-PCR results in asymptomatic individuals. Sensitivities of Ag-RDT – both with professional sampling and self-test sampling - may be lower in asymptomatic individuals than in symptomatic individuals due to differences in viral load distributions.(1,4,11) In addition, it might be more difficult for asymptomatic individuals to self-retrieve sufficient nasal fluid by self-swabbing because of the absence of rhinorrhea. Addition of oropharyngeal self-sampling to the currently applied nasal self-sampling might have led to higher Ag-RDT sensitivities(2,12), but it is very unlikely that the sensitivities would have reached acceptable levels. Finally, we cannot entirely exclude that some of the discordant results (Ag-RDT negative, RT-PCR positive) can be attributed to an undetected prior SARS-CoV-2 infection - in which RT-PCR remain positive for a prolonged period of time - rather than a newly acquired infection. This might particularly occur in some individuals during periods with high Omicron prevalence(13), but exact quantification of this phenomenon is difficult. We did not observe any clear and consistent sensitivity differences of the three self-tests by COVID-19 vaccination status, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, or age. We did see some differences by gender, with males having higher sensitivities than females for the MPBio and Clinitests (but still low and mostly non-significant). We observed a similar trend in symptomatic individuals for Clinitest but not for MPBio.(2) This study is to our knowledge the largest empirical SARS-CoV-2 self-test diagnostic accuracy study among asymptomatic individuals in the Omicron period. Additional strengths include the large numbers of participants recruited at multiple test sites nationwide, the low percentage of missing values, RT-PCR reference test sampling and unsupervised Ag-RDT self-testing by the same individuals within a few hours conform the real-world context of self-testing, blinding of participants for the reference test result and blinding of laboratory staff for the Ag-RDT self-test result, and the use of a viral load cut-off. Our study also had some limitations. First, the diagnostic accuracy parameters are little less precise than we had anticipated due the post-hoc restriction of the analysis population to the (87%) asymptomatic non-confirmatory testers that were of primary interest. Furthermore, the study was obviously powered for the overall diagnostic accuracy estimates only and not for the stratified estimates. Second, the viral load calculations were based on standard curves that were generated in one of our previous studies.(9) These standard curves could for logistic reasons not be repeated with each RT-PCR run in this study. The viral loads should therefore be considered estimates and not as gold standard viral loads. The viral load cut-off that we used was the cut-off above which 95% of people with a positive RT-PCR test result had a positive virus culture in that previous study.(9) Those experiments were done when the Alpha variant dominated and the Dutch population was mostly unvaccinated. However, we believe that this viral load estimate is still more meaningful than using crude Ct value cut-offs of 25 or 30 as usually applied. The very low sensitivity (20% to 28%) of the studied SARS-CoV-2 self-tests in asymptomatic individuals is important to consider and communicate. It indicates that a relatively small group of SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals (based on a positive RT-PCR) that do not (yet) have symptoms or signs, is also detected by the self-tests. Otherwise, 72% to 80% of the infected individuals based on RT-PCR is missed by the self-tests. Individuals wishing to protect vulnerable persons should be made aware of the very low sensitivity of these self-tests when asymptomatic, and that they have several other options for protecting vulnerable persons such as implementing the general prevention measures and self-quarantine prior to the visit. Finally, business owners, event organisers, managers of institutions, and policy makers should know that in asymptomatic individuals a majority of SARS-CoV-2 infections will be missed when self-tests are used for screening, and their use may not be sufficient to prevent the spreading of the virus. Luckily, all of the self-tests that we evaluated are highly specific. Every positive test captured by self-testing is useful for public health purposes. Also, repeated self-testing in case of a negative self-test is advocated to improve the diagnostic yield of the self-tests(14), and individuals should certainly be advised to re-test as soon as symptoms or signs develop. Maximum yield will, however, not be achievable with the currently available Ag-RDT self-tests and this should be taken into account when developing self-test strategies for asymptomatic individuals to minimize transmission. ## Supporting information Supplementary Material [[supplements/277366_file04.docx]](pending:yes) Supplementary Figure 1 [[supplements/277366_file05.pdf]](pending:yes) Supplementary Figure 2 [[supplements/277366_file06.pdf]](pending:yes) Supplementary Figure 3 [[supplements/277366_file07.pdf]](pending:yes) STARD reporting checklist [[supplements/277366_file08.docx]](pending:yes) ## Data Availability Individual participant data collected during the study will be available, after deidentification of all participants. Data will be available to researchers who provide a methodologically sound proposal to achieve the aims in the approved proposal. Proposals should be directed to the corresponding author to gain access to the data. Data requestors will need to sign a data sharing agreement. ## Contributors KGMM initiated the study. ES, RPV, LH, IKV, WvdB, SDP, EL, MH, RM, CW, IV, CRSN-I, SvdH, JAJWK, JHHMvdW, and KGMM designed the study. ES, RPV, CRSN-I, and KGMM coordinated the study. WvdB, SDP, VFZ, LS, and MK were responsible for laboratory analyses and data processing. ES, RPV, and KGMM verified the underlying data. ES performed the statistical analysis and verified the underlying data in close collaboration with RPV and KGMM. RPV, ES, JHHMvdW, and KGMM drafted the first version of the manuscript. All authors critically read the manuscript and provided feedback. All authors approved the submission of the current version of the manuscript. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted. ## Declaration of interest All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at [www.icmje.org/coi\_disclosure.pdf](http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf) and declare: support from the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. ## Ethical approval Not required because the study was judged by the METC Utrecht to be outside the scope of the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (protocol no 21-818 /C). All participants signed an informed consent form before any study procedure. ## Funding This study was funded by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport. The funder had no role in design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing and decision to submit the paper for publication. ## Data sharing Individual participant data collected during the study will be available, after deidentification of all participants. Data will be available to researchers who provide a methodologically sound proposal to achieve the aims in the approved proposal. Proposals should be directed to the corresponding author to gain access to the data. Data requestors will need to sign a data sharing agreement. ## Transparency The corresponding author (KGMM, the manuscript’s guarantor) affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as originally planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained. ## Additional information The study protocol is available upon request by contacting Karel Moons at k.g.m.moons{at}umcutrecht.nl. ## Acknowledgements We thank the participants, and study staff at the participating public health service test sites, participating laboratories, the University Medical Center Utrecht, and RIVM for their contributions to the study. A special thanks to Esther Stiefelhagen, Renske Beekes, Sophie Neeleman, Eveline Westergaard, Roel Ensing, Wendy Mouthaan, and Timo Boelsums. Written permission was obtained from all five of them to list their names. ES, RB, SN, RE, WH, LB, and TB did not receive any compensation for their contributions. ## Footnotes * * Dual first authorship * # Dual last authorship * Received July 7, 2022. * Revision received July 7, 2022. * Accepted July 9, 2022. * © 2022, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International), CC BY-NC 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.Brümmer LE, Katzenschlager S, Gaeddert M, et al. Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2021;18(8):e1003735. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003735&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F07%2F09%2F2022.07.07.22277366.atom) 2. 2.Schuit E, Venekamp RP, Hooft L, et al. Accuracy of COVID-19 self-tests with unsupervised nasal or nasal plus oropharyngeal self-sampling in symptomatic individuals in the Omicron period. medRxiv. 2022; doi: [https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.03.24.22272891](https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.03.24.22272891). 3. 3.Boehme C, Hannay E, Sampath R. SARS-CoV-2 testing for public health use: core principles and considerations for defined use settings. Lancet Glob Health 2021;9:e247–9. 4. 4.Schuit E, Venekamp RP, Veldhuijzen IK, et al. Accuracy and usability of saliva and nasal rapid antigen self-testing for detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population: a head-to-head comparison. medRxiv. 2021; doi: [https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.12.08.21267452](https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.12.08.21267452). 5. 5.Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ. 2015;351:h5527. [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNTEvb2N0MjhfMS9oNTUyNyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzA3LzA5LzIwMjIuMDcuMDcuMjIyNzczNjYuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 6. 6.Rijksoverheid. Variants of the corona virus 2021 [updated 2 December 2021]. Available from: [https://coronadashboard.rijksoverheid.nl/landelijk/varianten](https://coronadashboard.rijksoverheid.nl/landelijk/varianten). 7. 7.RIVM Centrum Infectieziektebestrijding. Variants of the corona virus SARS-CoV-2 [Dutch] 2021 [updated 30 November 2021]. Available from: [https://www.rivm.nl/coronavirus-covid-19/virus/varianten](https://www.rivm.nl/coronavirus-covid-19/virus/varianten). 8. 8.RIVM Centrum Infectieziektebestrijding. Epidemiologische situatie van SARS-CoV-2 in Nederland [Dutch] 2021 [updated 28 September 2021]. Available from: [https://www.rivm.nl/sites/default/files/2021-09/COVID-19\_WebSite\_rapport\_wekelijks\_20210928\_1146\_final.pdf](https://www.rivm.nl/sites/default/files/2021-09/COVID-19\_WebSite\_rapport\_wekelijks_20210928_1146_final.pdf). 9. 9.Schuit E, Veldhuijzen IK, Venekamp RP, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen tests in asymptomatic and presymptomatic close contacts of individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2021;374:n1676. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNzQvanVsMjdfMS9uMTY3NiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzA3LzA5LzIwMjIuMDcuMDcuMjIyNzczNjYuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 10. 10.Team RC. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2021. 11. 11.Schrom J, Marquez C, Pilarowski G, et al. Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction and BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen Tests at a Community Site During an Omicron Surge : A Cross-Sectional Study. Ann Intern Med. 2022;175(5):682–690. 12. 12.Goodall BL, LeBlanc JJ, Hatchette TF, et al. Investigating sensitivity of nasal or throat (ISNOT): A combination of both swabs increases sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests. medRxiv. 2022; doi: [https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.18.22269426](https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.18.22269426). 13. 13.Boucau J, Marino C, Regan J, et al. Duration of Shedding of Culturable Virus in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (BA.1) Infection. N Engl J Med. 2022 Jun 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2202092. Online ahead of print. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMc2202092&link_type=DOI) 14. 14.Soni A, Herbert C, Filippaios A, et al. Comparison of rapid antigen tests’ performance between Delta (B.1.61.7; AY.X) and Omicron (B.1.1.529; BA1) variants of SARS-CoV-2: secondary analysis from a serial home self-testing study. medRxiv. 2022; doi: [https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.27.22271090](https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.27.22271090).