RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Multicentre diagnostic evaluation of OnSite COVID-19 Rapid Test (CTK Biotech) among symptomatic individuals in Brazil and The United Kingdom
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.09.12.22279847
DO 10.1101/2022.09.12.22279847
A1 Thompson, Caitlin R
A1 Torres, Pablo Muñoz
A1 Kontogianni, Konstantina
A1 Bengey, Daisy
A1 Byrne, Rachel L
A1 ,
A1 Noguera, Saidy Vásconez
A1 Luna-Muschi, Alessandra
A1 Marchi, Ana Paula
A1 Andrade, Pâmela S
A1 dos Santos Barboza, Antonio
A1 Nishikawara, Marli
A1 Body, Richard
A1 ,
A1 de Vos, Margaretha
A1 Escadafal, Camille
A1 Adams, Emily
A1 Costa, Silvia Figueiredo
A1 Cubas Atienzar, Ana I
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/10/03/2022.09.12.22279847.abstract
AB The COVID-19 pandemic has given rise to numerous commercially available antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs). To generate and share accurate and independent data with the global community, multi-site prospective diagnostic evaluations of Ag-RDTs are required. This report describes the clinical evaluation of OnSite COVID-19 Rapid Test (CTK Biotech, California, USA) in Brazil and The United Kingdom.A total of 496 paired nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs were collected from symptomatic healthcare workers at Hospital das Clínicas in São Paulo, and 211 NP swabs were collected from symptomatic participants at a COVID-19 drive-through testing site in Liverpool, England. These swabs were analysed by Ag-RDT and results were compared to RT-qPCR.The clinical sensitivity of the OnSite COVID-19 Rapid test in Brazil was 90.3% [95% Cl 75.1 – 96.7%] and in the United Kingdom was 75.3% [95% Cl 64.6 – 83.6%]. The clinical specificity in Brazil was 99.4% [95% Cl 98.1 – 99.8%] and in the United Kingdom was 95.5% [95% Cl 90.6 – 97.9%]. Analytical evaluation of the Ag-RDT was assessed using direct culture supernatant of SARS-CoV-2 strains from Wild-Type (WT), Alpha, Delta, Gamma and Omicron lineages. Analytical limit of detection was 1.0×103 pfu/mL, 1.0×103 pfu/mL, 1.0×102 pfu/mL, 5.0×103 pfu/mL and 1.0×103 pfu/mL, giving a viral copy equivalent of approximately 2.1×105 copies/mL, 2.1×104 copies/mL, 1.6×104 copies/mL, 3.5×106 copies/mL and 8.7 × 104 for the Ag-RDT, when tested on the WT, Alpha, Delta, Gamma and Omicron lineages, respectively.This study provides comparative performance of an Ag-RDT across two different settings, geographical areas, and population. Overall, the OnSite Ag-RDT demonstrated a lower clinical sensitivity than claimed by the manufacturer. Sensitivity and specificity from the Brazil study fulfilled the performance criteria determined by the World Health Organisation but the performance obtained from the UK study failed to. Further evaluation of the use of Ag-RDTs should include harmonised protocols between laboratories to facilitate comparison between settings.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Trialclinical trial ID: NCT04408170Funding StatementThis work was funded as part of FIND's work as co-convener of the diagnostics pillar of the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator, including support from Unitaid [grant number: 2019-32-FIND MDR], the governments of the Netherlands [grant number: MINBUZA-2020.961444] and from UK Department for International Development [grant number 300341-102]. The FALCON study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation. This work is partially funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections (200907), a partnership between the UK Health Security Agency, The University of Liverpool, The University of Oxford and The Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the UKHSA 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:In Brazil, Ethical approval was obtained from the Hospital Ethics Committee with the CAAE number 35246720.0.0000.0068. Informed consent was obtained from all study participants for respiratory samples and clinical data collection. In the UK, Participants were recruited between July and August of 2021 under the Facilitating Accelerated COVID-19 Diagnostics (FALCON) study. Ethical approval was obtained from the National Research Ethics Service and the Health Research Authority (IRAS ID:28422, clinical trial ID: NCT04408170).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).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