PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Konstantinus, Iyaloo
AU  - Chiwara, Douglas
AU  - Ndevaetela, Emmy-Else
AU  - Ndarukwa-Phiri, Victoria
AU  - !Garus-oas, Nathalia
AU  - Frans, Ndahafa
AU  - Ndumbu, Pentikainen
AU  - Shiningavamwe, Andreas
AU  - van Rooyen, Gerhard
AU  - Schiceya, Ferlin
AU  - Hlahla, Lindile
AU  - Namundjebo, Pendapala
AU  - Ndozi-Okia, Ifeoma
AU  - Chikuse, Francis
AU  - Bantiewalu, Sirak Hailu
AU  - Tjombonde, Kapena
TI  - Laboratory and field evaluation of the STANDARD Q and Panbio™ SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid test in Namibia using nasopharyngeal samples
AID  - 10.1101/2021.09.21.21263886
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.09.21.21263886
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/23/2021.09.21.21263886.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/23/2021.09.21.21263886.full
AB  - Background As new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern emerge, there is a need to scale up testing to minimize transmission of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Many countries especially those in the developing world continue to struggle with scaling up reverse transcriptase polymerase reaction (RT-PCR) to detect SARS-CoV-2 due to scarcity of resources. Alternatives such as antigen rapid diagnostics tests (Ag-RDTs) may provide a solution to enable countries to scale up testing.Methods In this study, we evaluated the Panbio™ and STANDARD Q Ag-RDTs in the laboratory using 80 COVID-19 RT-PCR confirmed and 80 negative nasopharyngeal swabs. The STANDARD-Q was further evaluated in the field on 112 symptomatic and 61 asymptomatic participants.Results For the laboratory evaluation, both tests had a sensitivity above 80% (Panbio™ = 86% vs STANDARD Q = 88%). The specificity of the Panbio™ was 100%, while that of the STANDARD Q was 99%. When evaluated in the field, the STANDARD Q maintained a high specificity of 99%, however the sensitivity was reduced to 56%.Conclusion Using Ag-RDTs in low resource settings will be helpful, however, negative results should be confirmed by RT-PCR where possible to rule out COVID-19 infection.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was not fundedAuthor 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 study was approved by the research ethics committee of the Ministry of Health and Social ServicesAll 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 on request