RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Clinical performance evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing in point of care usage in comparison to RT-qPCR
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.03.27.21253966
DO 10.1101/2021.03.27.21253966
A1 Wagenhäuser, Isabell
A1 Knies, Kerstin
A1 Rauschenberger, Vera
A1 Eisenmann, Michael
A1 McDonogh, Miriam
A1 Petri, Nils
A1 Andres, Oliver
A1 Flemming, Sven
A1 Gawlik, Micha
A1 Papsdorf, Michael
A1 Taurines, Regina
A1 Böhm, Hartmut
A1 Forster, Johannes
A1 Weismann, Dirk
A1 Weißbrich, Benedikt
A1 Dölken, Lars
A1 Liese, Johannes
A1 Kurzai, Oliver
A1 Vogel, Ulrich
A1 Krone, Manuel
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/29/2021.03.27.21253966.abstract
AB Background Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) for SARS-CoV-2 are fast, broadly available, and inexpensive. Despite this, reliable clinical performance data is sparse.Methods In a prospective performance evaluation study, RDT from three manufacturers (NADAL®, Panbio™, MEDsan®) were compared to quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) in 5 068 oropharyngeal swabs for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a hospital setting. Viral load was derived from standardized RT-qPCR Cycle threshold (Ct) values. The data collection period ranged from November 12, 2020 to February 28, 2021.Findings Overall, sensitivity of RDT compared to RT-qPCR was 42·57% (95% CI 33·38%–52·31%), and specificity 99·68% (95% CI 99·48%–99·80%). Sensitivity declined with decreasing viral load from 100% in samples with a deduced viral load of ≥108 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies per ml to 8·82% in samples with a viral load lower than 104 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies per ml. No significant differences in sensitivity or specificity could be observed between the three manufacturers, or between samples with and without spike protein variant B.1.1.7. The NPV in the study cohort was 98·84%; the PPV in persons with typical COVID-19 symptoms was 97·37%, and 28·57% in persons without or with atypical symptoms.Interpretation RDT are a reliable method to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection in persons with high viral load. RDT are a valuable addition to RT-qPCR testing, as they reliably detect infectious persons with high viral loads before RT-qPCR results are available.Funding German Federal Ministry for Education and Science (BMBF), Free State of BavariaEvidence before this study We searched PubMED an MedRxiv for articles including “COVID-19”, “COVID”, “SARS-CoV-2”, “coronavirus” as well as “antigen detection”, “rapid antigen test”, “Point-of-Care test” in title or abstract, published between January 1, 2020 and February 28, 2021. The more than 150 RDT on the market at the end of February 2021 represent a huge expansion of diagnostic possibilities.1 Performance of currently available RDT is evaluated in several international studies, with heterogeneous results. Sensitivity values of RDT range from 0·0%2 to 98·3%3, specificity from 19·4%4 to 100·0%.2,5–14. Some of this data differs greatly from manufacturers’ data. However, these previously published performance evaluation studies were conducted under laboratory conditions using frozen swabs, or in small cohorts with middle-aged participants. Comparable RDT performance data from large-scale clinical usage is missing.5–19Added value of this study Based on previous examinations the real life opportunities and limitations of SARS-CoV-2 RDT as an instrument of hospital infection detection and control are still unclear as well as further study results are limited in transferability to general public. Our findings show that RDT performance in daily clinical routine is reliable in persons with high viral for punctual detection and isolation of infectious persons before RT-qPCR become available. In persons with lower viral load, or in case of asymptomatic patients SARS-CoV2 detection by RDT was unsuccessful. The general sensitivity of 42·57% is too low to accept the RDT in clinical use as an alternative to RT-qPCR in diagnosis of COVID-19. Calculated specificity was 99.68%. The results are based on a huge study cohort with more than 5 000 participants including a representative ages structure with pediatric patients up to geriatric individuals, which portrays approximately the demographic structure of the local society.Implications of all the available evidence Due to the low general sensitivity RDT in clinical use cannot be accepted as an alternative but as an addition to RT-qPCR in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. The benefit of early detection of highly infectious persons has to be seen in context of the effort of testing and isolation of false positive tested persons.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was funded by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Science (BMBF) within the program InfectControl (project COVMon, grant-No 03COV26A) and via a grant provided to the University Hospital of Wuerzburg by the Network University Medicine on COVID-19 (B-FAST, grant-No 01KX2021) as well as by the Free State of Bavaria with COVID-research funds provided to the University of Wuerzburg, Germany. Nils Petri is supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) funded scholarship UNION CVD.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:The Ethics committee of the University of Wuerzburg waived the need to formally apply for ethical clearance due to the study design (File No. 20210112 01).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.YesIndividual participant data that underlie the results reported in this article, after de-identification (text, tables, figures, and appendices) as well as the study protocol, statistical analysis plan, and analytic code is made available to researchers who provide a methodologically sound proposal to achieve aims in the approved proposal on request to the corresponding author.