Abstract
Antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) have become a central pillar for the management of COVID-19 worldwide due to their speed and ease of use, and are now being developed for use in other emerging outbreaks. Like other viruses, SARS-CoV-2 is subject to rapid mutation as it spreads, and new Variants of Concern (VOCs) emerge frequently, posing a significant challenge for the reliability of Ag-RDTs designed against the original strain to detect newer, highly mutated variants. It is therefore important that the performance of Ag-RDTs is regularly evaluated, particularly in outbreak scenarios where rapid diagnostics are key to limiting disease spread. Here, we present a comprehensive evaluation of the analytical and clinical sensitivity of 34 commercially available Ag-RDTs with five VOCs, all of which were highly prevalent in the UK at various times between 2019 and 2023. This evaluation highlights the importance of regular evaluation of Ag-RDT performance, with several Ag-RDTs demonstrating reduced performance with some VOCs. This study also highlights the challenges that arise when different organisations lack a consensus approval threshold, causing confusion over Ag-RDT performance and making it difficult to properly evaluate individual tests. We conclude that regular performance evaluation through our proposed pipeline combined with a broad consensus approval threshold across global organisations is essential to maintaining the effectiveness of Ag-RDTs as a disease management tool during outbreaks.
Importance Antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) came to global prominence during the COVID-19 pandemic, where they offered a quick and simple at home diagnostic which could be used to manage disease spread. A major ongoing challenge for the broad use of Ag-RDTs is the speed at which new SARS-CoV-2 variants emerge, each of which has the potential to reduce the performance of the available Ag-RDTs. As Ag-RDTs are explored for use in other viral disease outbreaks, pipelines for the regular evaluation of test performance are essential for ensuring that Ag-RDTs can be employed effectively. Here, we have developed a robust pipeline for the large-scale evaluation of commercially available Ag-RDTs against several major SARS-CoV-2 variants, which can be adapted and applied to other emerging outbreaks to ensure test performance is maintained as a virus evolves.
Competing Interest Statement
Emily R Adams (ERA) is a Director of Epidemics and Neglected Tropical Diseases at Global Access Diagnostics. Camille Escadafal (CE) and Margaretha de Vos (MDV) are employees of FIND. ERA, CE and MDV had no role in data collection and analysis.
Funding Statement
This work was funded as part of FINDs work as a co-convener of the diagnostics pillar of the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator, including support from Unitaid (grant number 2019-32-FIND MDR), the government of the Netherlands (grant number MINBUZA-2020.961444), and the UK Department for International Development (grant number 300341-102). Funding was also obtained from the MRC for RLB and CGB. The Facilitating Accelerated Clinical Evaluation of Clinical Diagnostics for COVID-19 (FALCON C-19) study was funded by the UK National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval was obtained from the National Research Ethics Service and the Health Research Authority (IRAS ID:28422, clinical trial ID: NCT04408170).
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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Paper in collection COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, The University of Edinburgh, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
2
Blogs/Media
Author Videos