ABSTRACT
Objectives We conducted a meta-analysis of RAT diagnostic accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 infections, and further evaluated test sensitivity versus the presence of symptoms, days post symptom onset (DPSO), sample viral load, and sample type (i.e. direct swabs versus specimens stored in transport media).
Methods Three databases were searched systematically for performance evaluations of the Roche-distributed SDB SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche/SDB RAT) through March 2022. If the Roche/SDB RAT was compared with any of 9 commonly available antigen tests, data from these tests were also included.
Results Overall sensitivity of RATs among different manufacturers and study cohorts varied between 36.0% (95% CI: 24.0-50.1) and 79.4% (95% CI: 64.8-89.0). Roche/SDB RATs demonstrated a competitive performance with a pooled (including off-label use) sensitivity of 70.0%, and nearly 100% specificity in included studies. The Roche/SDB RATs exhibited reliable sensitivity in patients with a relatively high viral load (96.6% [95% CI: 95.2-98.2] for Ct≤25). Roche/SDB RATs were more sensitive in symptomatic patients within the first 7 DPSO (85.5% [95% CI: 81.2-88.4]), and when used to test direct swabs (74.4% [95% CI: 69.7-80.3]).
Conclusion RATs show reliable performance in clinical settings and should be considered when rapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is critical.
HIGHLIGHTS
Meta-analysis of 86 studies of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test (RAT) performance
RAT performance supports near-patient testing for early COVID-19 diagnosis
RAT specificity is high and sensitivity is reliable in those with high viral load
RAT sensitivity in symptomatic patients is higher than in asymptomatic individuals
RAT sensitivity is higher for direct swabs compared to swabs in transport media
Competing Interest Statement
NG and QF are employees of Roche Diagnostics International Ltd and JH is an employee of Roche Diagnostics GmbH. QF holds stocks in F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by Roche Diagnostics International Ltd.
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:
The data supporting this manuscript are from published studies, each reporting their own IRB approvals.
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
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
