PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Venekamp, Roderick P
AU  - Veldhuijzen, Irene K
AU  - Moons, Karel G M
AU  - van den Bijllaardt, Wouter
AU  - Pas, Suzan D
AU  - Lodder, Esther B
AU  - Molenkamp, Richard
AU  - Igloi, Zsofi
AU  - Wijers, Constantijn
AU  - Oliveira dos Santos, Claudy
AU  - Debast, Sylvia B
AU  - Bruins, Marjan J.
AU  - Polad, Khaled
AU  - Nagel-Imming, Carla R S
AU  - Han, Wanda G H
AU  - van de Wijgert, Janneke H H M
AU  - van den Hof, Susan
AU  - Schuit, Ewoud
TI  - Diagnostic accuracy of three prevailing rapid antigen tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population: cross sectional study
AID  - 10.1101/2021.11.19.21266579
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.11.19.21266579
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/11/19/2021.11.19.21266579.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/11/19/2021.11.19.21266579.full
AB  - Objective To assess the diagnostic accuracy of three rapid antigen tests (Ag-RDTs) for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population.Design Cross-sectional study with follow-up using pseudonymised record linkage.Setting Three Dutch public health service COVID-19 test sites.Participants Consecutively included individuals aged 16 years and older presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing.Main outcome measures Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of BD-Veritortm System (Becton Dickinson), PanBio (Abbott), and SD-Biosensor (Roche Diagnostics), applying routinely used sampling methods (combined oropharyngeal and nasal [OP-N] or nasopharyngeal [NP] swab), with molecular testing as reference standard. For SD-Biosensor, the diagnostic accuracy with OP-N sampling was also assessed. A viral load cut-off (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL) served as a proxy of infectiousness.Results SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and overall sensitivities with 95% confidence intervals were 188/1441 (13.0%) and 129/188 (68.6% [61.5%-75.2%]) for BD-Veritor, 173/2056 (8.4%) and 119/173 (68.8% [61.3%-75.6%]) for PanBio, and 215/1769 (12.2%) and 160/215 (74.4% [68.0%-80.1%]) for SD-Biosensor with routine sampling, and 164/1689 (9.7%) and 123/164 (75.0% [67.7%-81.4%]) for SD-Biosensor with OP-N sampling. In those symptomatic or asymptomatic at sampling, sensitivities were 72.2%-83.4% and 54.0%-55.9%, respectively. With a viral load cut-off, sensitivities were 125/146 (85.6% [78.9%-90.9%]) for BD-Veritor, 108/121 (89.3% [82.3%-94.2%]) for PanBio, 160/182 (87.9% [82.3%-92.3%]) for SD-Biosensor with routine sampling, and 118/141 (83.7% [76.5%-89.4%]) with OP-N sampling. Specificities were >99%, and positive and negative predictive values >95%, for all tests in most analyses. 61.3% of false negative Ag-RDT participants returned for testing within 14 days (median of 3 days, interquartile range 3) of whom 90.3% tested positive.Conclusions The overall sensitivities of the three Ag-RDTs were 68.6%-75.0%, increasing to at least 85.6% after the viral load cut-off was applied. For SD-Biosensor, the diagnostic accuracy with OP-N and NP sampling was comparable. Over 55% of false negative Ag-RDT participants tested positive during follow-up.Competing Interest Statementsupport from the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.Funding Statementthe Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport. The funder had no role in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; and decision to submit the paper for publication.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:Ethical approval Ethical approval was not required because the study was judged by the METC Utrecht to be outside the scope of the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (protocol No 21-146/C). All participants signed an informed consent form before any study procedure.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.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).YesxI 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 produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors