RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 The accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: a living systematic review and meta-analysis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.02.26.21252546
DO 10.1101/2021.02.26.21252546
A1 Brümmer, Lukas E.
A1 Katzenschlager, Stephan
A1 Gaeddert, Mary
A1 Erdmann, Christian
A1 Schmitz, Stephani
A1 Bota, Marc
A1 Grilli, Maurizio
A1 Larmann, Jan
A1 Weigand, Markus A.
A1 Pollock, Nira R.
A1 Macé, Aurélien
A1 Carmona, Sergio
A1 Ongarello, Stefano
A1 Sacks, Jilian A.
A1 Denkinger, Claudia M.
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/19/2021.02.26.21252546.abstract
AB Background SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being integrated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs.Methods and Results We registered the review on PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix and bioRvix, FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 up until April 30th, 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed and when more than four studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses, and rated study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS 2 assessment tool. From a total of 14,254 articles, we included 133 analytical and clinical studies resulting in 214 clinical accuracy data sets with 112,323 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity was 71.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 68.2 to 74.0) and increased to 76.3% (CI 73.1 to 79.2) if analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers’ instructions. The LumiraDx showed the highest sensitivity with 88.2% (CI 59.0 to 97.5). Of instrument-free Ag-RDTs, Standard Q nasal performed best with 80.2% sensitivity (CI 70.3 to 87.4). Across all Ag-RDTs sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower Ct-values, i.e., <20 (96.5%, CI 92.6 to 98.4) and <25 (95.8%, CI 92.3 to 97.8), in comparison to those with Ct ≥25 (50.7%, CI 35.6 to 65.8) and ≥30 (20.9%, CI 12.5 to 32.8). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (83.8%, CI 76.3 to 89.2) compared to testing after one week (61.5%, CI 52.2 to 70.0). The best Ag-RDT sensitivity was found with anterior nasal sampling (75.5%, CI 70.4 to 79.9) in comparison to other sample types (e.g., nasopharyngeal 71.6%, CI 68.1 to 74.9) although CIs were overlapping. Concerns of bias were raised across all data sets, and financial support from the manufacturer was reported in 24.1% of data sets. Our analysis was limited by the included studies’ heterogeneity in design and reporting, making it difficult to draw conclusions from.Conclusion In this study we found that Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of cases within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load. Thus, they can have high utility for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease, making them a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization in conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data.AUTHOR SUMMARY Why was this study done? – Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are considered an important diagnostic tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2– An increasing number of Ag-RDTs is offered on the market, and a constantly growing body of literature evaluating their performance is available– To inform decision makers about the best test to choose, an up to date summary of their performance is neededWhat did the researchers do and find? – On a weekly basis, we search multiple data bases for evaluations of Ag-RDTs detecting SARS-CoV-2 and post the results on www.diagnosticsglobalhealth.org– Based on the search results up until April 30th, 2021, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, including a total of 133 clinical and analytical accuracy studies– Across all meta-analyzed studies, when Ag-RDTs were performed according to manufacturers’ recommendations, they showed a sensitivity of 76.3% (CI 73.1 to 79.2), with the LumiraDx (sensitivity 88.2%, CI 59.0 to 97.5) and of the instrument-free Ag-RDT Standard Q (74.9% sensitivity, CI 69.3 to 79.7) performing best.– Across all Ag-RDTs, sensitivity increased to 95.8% (CI 92.3 to 97.8) when restricting the analysis to samples with high viral loads (i.e., a Ct-value <25) and to 83.8% (CI 76.3 to 89.2) when tests were performed on patients within the first week after symptom onsetWhat do these findings mean? – Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of cases within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load. Thus, they can have high utility for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease– Out of all assessed tests, the Lumira Dx showed the highest accuracy. The Standard Q wasthe best performing test when only considering those that don’t require an instrument– A standardization of reporting methods for clinical accuracy studies would enhance future test-comparisonsCompeting Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe study was supported by the Ministry of Science, Research and Arts of the State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany and internal funds from the Heidelberg University Hospital as well as grants from UK Department of International Development (DFID, recently replaced by FCMO), grants from World Health Organization (WHO), grants from Unitaid to Foundation of New Diagnostics (FIND). The corresponding author had access to all data at all time.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:All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed. There were no IRB or ethics committee approvals required.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.YesAll data is available upon request. https://zenodo.org/record/4924035#.YMSDcS2230p Ag-RDT= antigen rapid diagnostic testAN/MT= anterior nasal or mid-turbinateBAL/TW= bronchoalveolar lavage or throat washCI= confidence intervalCt-value= cycle threshold valueFIND= Foundation for Innovative New DiagnosticsFP= false positiveFN= false negativeIFU= instructions for useLRT= lower respiratory tractML= milliliterN= sample sizeNP= nasopharyngealOP= oropharyngealPFU= plaque forming unitsRT-PCR= reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reactionTP= true positiveTN= true negativeVTM/UT= viral or universal transport medium