PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Urwin, Samuel G.
AU  - Lendrem, B. Clare
AU  - Suklan, Jana
AU  - Green, Kile
AU  - Graziadio, Sara
AU  - Buckle, Peter
AU  - Dark, Paul M.
AU  - Gordon, Adam L.
AU  - Lasserson, Daniel S.
AU  - Nicholson, Brian
AU  - Price, D. Ashley
AU  - Reynard, Charles
AU  - Wilcox, Mark H.
AU  - Hayward, Gail
AU  - Prestwich, Graham
AU  - Tate, Valerie
AU  - Clark, Tristan W.
AU  - Reddy, Raja V.
AU  - Houston, Hamish
AU  - Gupta-Wright, Ankur
AU  - John, Laurence
AU  - Body, Richard
AU  - Allen, A. Joy
AU  - ,
TI  - FebriDx point-of-care test in patients with suspected COVID-19: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies
AID  - 10.1101/2020.10.15.20213108
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.10.15.20213108
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/11/2020.10.15.20213108.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/11/2020.10.15.20213108.full
AB  - Background We conducted a systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a commercial point-of-care test, the FebriDx lateral flow device (LFD), in adult patients with suspected COVID-19. The FebriDx LFD is designed to distinguish between viral and bacterial respiratory infection.Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Google Scholar, LitCovid, ClinicalTrials.gov and preprint servers on the 13th of January 2021 to identify studies reporting diagnostic accuracy of FebriDx (myxovirus resistance protein A component) versus real time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2 in adult patients suspected of COVID-19. IPD were sought from studies meeting the eligibility criteria. Studies were screened for risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 tool. A bivariate linear mixed model was fitted to the data to obtain a pooled estimate of sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). A summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve of the model was constructed. A sub-group analysis was performed by meta-regression using the same modelling approach to compare pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity between patients with a symptom duration of 0 to 7 days and >7 days, and patients aged between 16 to 73 years and >73 years.Results Ten studies were screened, and three studies with a total of 1481 patients receiving hospital care were included. FebriDx produced an estimated pooled sensitivity of 0.911 (95% CI: 0.855-0.946) and specificity of 0.868 (95% CI: 0.802-0.915) compared to RT-PCR. There were no significant differences between the sub-groups of 0 to 7 days and >7 days in estimated pooled sensitivity (p = 0.473) or specificity (p = 0.853). There were also no significant differences between the sub-groups of 16 to 73 years of age and >73 years of age in estimated pooled sensitivity (p = 0.946) or specificity (p = 0.486).Conclusions Based on the results of three studies, the FebriDx LFD had high diagnostic accuracy for COVID-19 in a hospital setting, however, the pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of studies included, risk of bias, and inconsistent reference standards. Further research is required to confirm these findings, and determine how FebriDx would perform in different healthcare settings and patient populations.Trial registration This study was conducted at pace as part of the COVID-19 National Diagnostic Research and Evaluation Platform (CONDOR) national test evaluation programme (https://www.condor-platform.org), and as a result, no protocol was developed, and the study was not registered.Lay summary Tests to diagnose COVID-19 are crucial to help control the spread of the disease and to guide treatment. Over the last few months, tests have been developed to diagnose COVID-19 either by detecting the presence of the virus or by detecting specific markers linked to the virus being active in the body. These tests use complex machines in laboratories accepting samples from large geographical areas. Sometimes it takes days for test results to come back. So, to reduce the wait for results, new portable tests are being developed. These ‘point-of-care (POC)’ tests are designed to work close to where patients require assessment and care such as hospital emergency departments, GP surgeries or care homes. For these new POC tests to be useful, they should ideally be as good as standard laboratory tests.In this study we looked at published research into a new test called FebriDx. FebriDx is a POC test that detects the body’s response to infection, and is claimed to be able to detect the presence of any viral infection, including infections due to the SARS-CoV-2 virus which causes COVID-19, as well as bacterial infections which can have similar symptoms. The FebriDx result was compared with standard laboratory tests for COVID-19 performed on the same patient’s throat and nose swab sample. We were able to analyse data from three studies with a total of 1481 adult patients who were receiving hospital care with symptoms of COVID-19 during the UK pandemic. Approximately one fifth of the patients were diagnosed as positive for SARS-CoV-2 virus using standard laboratory tests for COVID-19.Our analysis demonstrated that FebriDx correctly identified 91 out of 100 patients who had COVID-19 according to the standard laboratory test. FebriDx also correctly identified 87 out of 100 patients who did not have COVID-19 according to the standard laboratory test. These results have important implications for how these tests could be used. As there were slightly fewer FebriDx false results when the results of the standard laboratory test were positive (9 out of 100) than when the results of the standard laboratory test were negative (13 out of 100), we can have slightly more confidence in a positive test result using FebriDx than a negative FebriDx result.Overall, we have shown that the FebriDx POC test performed well during the UK COVID-19 pandemic when compared with laboratory tests, especially when COVID-19 was indicated. For the future, this means that the FebriDx POC test might be helpful in making a quick clinical decision on whether to isolate a patient with COVID-19-like symptoms arriving in a busy emergency department. However, our results indicate it would not completely replace the need to conduct a laboratory test in certain cases to confirm COVID-19.There are limitations to our findings. For example, we do not know if FebriDx will work in a similar way with patients in different settings such as in the community or care homes. Similarly, we do not know whether other viral and bacterial infections which cause similar COVID-19 symptoms, and are more common in the autumn and winter months, could influence the FebriDx test accuracy. Our findings are also only based on three studies.Competing Interest StatementMHW co-led an (unpublished) pilot study of FebriDx in 2019 for which free kits were provided by the manufacturer (Lumos). Charitable funding has been obtained to carry out a (as yet unstarted) follow on study: Clinical utility of FebriDx in determining whether or not patients presenting to a UK Accident and Emergency Department with symptoms of acute respiratory infection require antibiotic treatment (Jon Moulton Foundation (2020) - 151,000 pounds (Co-Led by MHW)). The other authors declare no relevant conflicts of interest.Clinical TrialThis study was conducted at pace as part of the COVID-19 National Diagnostic Research and Evaluation (CONDOR) test evaluation programme, and as a result, no protocol was developed, and the study was not registered.Funding StatementThis study is part of the CONDOR platform which is funded by the UKRI, Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation. SGU, BCL, KG, JS, SG, DAP and AJA are supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Newcastle In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative. MHW is supported by the NIHR Leeds In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative. DSL and GH are supported by the NIHR Community Healthcare MedTech and In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust. This study is supported by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands through salary support to DSL The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.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:This work was based on anonymised data from three previous studies; the CoV-19POC study, described by Clark et al. (6), the 'Southampton study' [ISRCTN:14966673, date registered: 18/03/2020]; a study described by Karim et al. (10), the 'Kettering study'; and a study described by Houston et al. (26), the 'London study'. The Southampton study was approved by the South Central - Hampshire A Research Ethics Committee: REC reference 20/SC/0138, on the 16th March 2020. The protocol is available at: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/439309/1/CoV_19POC_Protocol_v1.1_eprints.pdf. The Kettering study was approved by the Kettering General Hospital Ethics Committee. The London study was approved by the London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust Research and Development Committee, but due to the study being a retrospective review of routinely collected data, ethical approval was not required. Informed consent was obtained from all patients in the Southampton and Kettering studies, and failure to consent was considered an exclusion criterion in both studies.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.YesAn anonymised minimum dataset containing enough information to reproduce the diagnostic accuracy statistics is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. The complete anonymised dataset is not currently available as it is still being used by the study teams to produce further publications.AMUAcute Medical UnitARIAcute respiratory illnessCIConfidence intervalsCOVID-19Coronavirus disease 2019CRPC-reactive proteinEDEmergency DepartmentGICUGeneral Intensive Care UnitHDUHigh Dependency UnitIPDIndividual patient dataIQRInterquartile rangeLFDLateral flow deviceMxAMyxovirus resistance protein ANLRNegative likelihood ratioNPVNegative predictive valuepP valuePHEPublic Health EnglandPLRPositive likelihood rationPOCPoint-of-carePPVPositive predictive valueRT-PCRReverse transcriptase polymerase chain reactionRdRpRNA-dependent RNA polymeraseREMLRestricted maximum likelihoodRoBRisk of biasROCReceiver operating characteristicSARS-CoV-2Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2SOBShortness of breathUKUnited Kingdom