RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 COVID-19: Rapid Antigen detection for SARS-CoV-2 by lateral flow assay: a national systematic evaluation for mass-testing JF medRxiv FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press SP 2021.01.13.21249563 DO 10.1101/2021.01.13.21249563 A1 Peto, Tim A1 , YR 2021 UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/01/15/2021.01.13.21249563.abstract AB Background New lateral flow device (LFD) viral antigen immunoassays have been developed by commercial and research organisations around the world as diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection. To support decisions by the UK Government on potential scale-up of mass population testing, we have at their request evaluated the diagnostic performance of a significant number of point-of-care rapid SARS-CoV-2 LFDs.Methods 132 LFDs were initially reviewed by a Department of Health and Social Care team, part of the UK government, from which 64 were selected for further evaluation. Standardised laboratory evaluations, and for those that met the published criteria, field testing in the Falcon-C19 research study and UK pilots were performed (UK COVID-19 testing centres, hospital, schools, armed forces).Results 4/64 LFDs so far have desirable performance characteristics from independent laboratory studies and early preliminary field evaluations (Orient Gene, Deepblue and Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test), of which one underwent extended clinical assessment in field studies (Innova). 8951 Innova LFD tests were performed with a kit failure rate of 5.6% (502/8951, 95% CI: 5.1-6.1), false positive rate of 0.32% (22/6954, 95% CI: 0.20-0.48) and a viral antigen detection/sensitivity (using RNA RT-PCR as a proxy for the presence of antigen) of 78.8% when performed by laboratory scientists (156/198, 95% CI 72.4-84.3). Sensitivity was significantly lower when testing was undertaken by non-experts with limited initial trainingInterpretation Several LFDs have promising performance characteristics for mass population testing and can be used to identify infectious positive individuals. The Innova LFD shows good viral antigen detection/sensitivity with excellent specificity, although kit failure rates and the impact of training are potential issues. These results support the expanded evaluation of LFDs, and assessment of greater access to testing on COVID-19 transmission.Funding Department of Health and Social Care. University of Oxford. Public Health England Porton Down, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, National Institute of Health Research.Competing Interest StatementDeclaration of interest DWE declares lecture fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. LYWL has previously received speaker honorarium from the Merck group and Servier for unrelated work. The other authors have nothing to disclose.Funding StatementFunding statement DSL is supported by the NIHR Community Healthcare MedTech and In vitro Diagnostic Cooperative and the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands. LYWL, DWC, TEAP, AV, SJH, ASW and HLP are supported by the NIHR Oxford BRC. DWC and NS are supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections at University of Oxford (NIHR200915) in partnership with Public Health England (PHE). KKC is Medical Research Foundation-funded. DWC, ASW and TEAP are NIHR Senior Investigators. PCM is funded by the Wellcome Trust (grant 110110/Z/15/Z). Falcon-C19 is a project funded by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). DWE is a Robertson Foundation Big Data Institute Fellow. SFL is funded by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Fellowship. The report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Wellcome Trust and the Department of Health. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, Wellcome Trust, the National Institute for Health Research, the Department of Health or Public Health England.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Research was performed within the FALCON-C19 study (Facilitating Accelerated Clinical validation Of Novel diagnostics for COVID-19, 20/WA/0169, IRAS 284229) and the Respiratory Diagnostic Kit Evaluation (Red Kite) study (Research Ethics Committee reference: 19/NW/0730, North West-Greater Manchester South Research Ethics Committee).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesData is available upon request and at the discretion of the corresponding author.