PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Karuga, Irungu
AU  - Munyua, Peninah
AU  - Ochieng, Caroline
AU  - Juma, Bonventure
AU  - Amoth, Patrick
AU  - Kuria, Francis
AU  - Kiiru, John
AU  - Makayotto, Lyndah
AU  - Abade, Ahmed
AU  - Bulterys, Marc
AU  - Hunsperger, Elizabeth
AU  - Emukule, Gideon O.
AU  - Onyango, Clayton
AU  - Samandari, Taraz
AU  - Tippett Barr, Beth A.
AU  - Akelo, Victor
AU  - Weyenga, Herman
AU  - Munywoki, Patrick K
AU  - Bigogo, Godfrey
AU  - Otieno, Nancy A.
AU  - Kisivuli, Jackton Azenga
AU  - Ochieng, Edwin
AU  - Nyaga, Rufus
AU  - Hull, Noah
AU  - Herman-Roloff, Amy
AU  - Aman, Rashid
TI  - Diagnostic accuracy of the Panbio™ COVID-19 Antigen rapid test device for SARS-CoV-2 detection in Kenya, 2021: A field evaluation
AID  - 10.1101/2022.05.23.22275439
DP  - 2022 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2022.05.23.22275439
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/01/2022.05.23.22275439.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/01/2022.05.23.22275439.full
AB  - Background Accurate and timely diagnosis is essential in limiting the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), the reference standard, requires specialized laboratories, costly reagents, and a long turnaround time. Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag RDTs) provide a feasible alternative to rRT-PCR since they are quick, relatively inexpensive, and do not require a laboratory. The WHO requires that Ag RDTs have a sensitivity ≥80% and specificity ≥97%.Methods This evaluation was conducted at 11 health facilities in Kenya between March and July 2021. We enrolled persons of any age with respiratory symptoms and asymptomatic contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases. We collected demographic and clinical information and two nasopharyngeal specimens from each participant for Ag RDT testing and rRT-PCR. We calculated the diagnostic performance of the Panbio™ Ag RDT against the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) rRT-PCR test.Results We evaluated the Ag RDT in 2,245 individuals where 551 (24.5%, 95% CI: 22.8-26.3%) tested positive by rRT-PCR. Overall sensitivity of the Ag RDT was 46.6% (95% CI: 42.4-50.9%), specificity 98.5% (95% CI: 97.8-99.0%), PPV 90.8% (95% CI: 86.8-93.9%) and NPV 85.0% (95% CI: 83.4-86.6%). Among symptomatic individuals, sensitivity was 60.6% (95% CI: 54.3-66.7%) and specificity was 98.1% (95% CI: 96.7-99.0%). Among asymptomatic individuals, sensitivity was 34.7% (95% CI 29.3-40.4%) and specificity was 98.7% (95% CI: 97.8-99.3%). In persons with onset of symptoms <5 days (594/876, 67.8%), sensitivity was 67.1% (95% CI: 59.2-74.3%), and 53.3% (95% CI: 40.0-66.3%) among those with onset of symptoms >7 days (157/876, 17.9%). The highest sensitivity was 87.0% (95% CI: 80.9-91.8%) in symptomatic individuals with cycle threshold (Ct) values ≤30.Conclusion The overall sensitivity and NPV of the Panbio™ Ag RDT were much lower than expected. The specificity of the Ag RDT was high and satisfactory; therefore, a positive result may not require confirmation by rRT-PCR. The kit may be useful as a rapid screening tool for only symptomatic patients in high-risk settings with limited access to RT-PCR. A negative result should be interpreted based on clinical and epidemiological information and may require retesting by rRT-PCR.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was funded by the US CDC funded from February 2021 to August 2021 through an existing cooperative agreement number NU2HGH000032 with the association of public health laboratories (APHL). The support included: 1.Procurement of study materials, 2.Allowances, travel, and training of research assistants and other logistical support, 3.Procurement of the Panbio AG RDT testing kits, and reagents required for rRT-PCRAuthor 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:Ethics committee/IRB of Kenya Medical Research Institute gave ethical approval for this workI 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).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 produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors