Abstract
Background Diagnostics are essential for controlling the pandemic. Identifying a reliable and fast diagnostic is needed to support testing. We assessed performance and ease-of-use of the Abbott PanBio antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT).
Methods This prospective, multi-centre diagnostic accuracy study enrolled at two sites in Germany. Following routine testing with RT-PCR, a second study-exclusive swab was performed for Ag-RDT testing. Routine swabs were nasopharyngeal (NP) or combined NP/oropharyngeal (OP) whereas the study-exclusive swabs were NP. To evaluate performance, sensitivity and specificity were assessed overall and in predefined sub analyses accordingly to cycle-threshold values, days of symptoms, disease severity and study site. Additionally, an ease-of-use assessment and System Usability Scale (SUS) were performed.
Findings 1108 participants were enrolled between Sept 28 and Oct 30, 2020. Of these, 106 (9·6%) were PCR-positive. The Abbott PanBio detected 92/106 PCR-positive participants with a sensitivity of 86·8% (95% CI: 79·0% - 92·0%) and a specificity of 99·9% (95% CI: 99·4%-100%). The sub analyses indicated that sensitivity was 95·8% in CT-values <25 and within the first seven days from symptom onset. The test was characterized as easy to use (SUS: 86/100) and considered suitable for point-of- care settings.
Interpretation The Abbott PanBio Ag-RDT performs well for SARS-CoV-2 testing in this large manufacturer independent study, confirming its WHO recommendation for Emergency Use in settings with limited resources.
Funding The Foundation of Innovative New Diagnostics supplied the test kits for the study. The internal funds from the Heidelberg University as well as the Charité Berlin supported this study.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
German Clinical Trial Registry DRKS00021220
Funding Statement
The Foundation of Innovative New Diagnostics supplied the test kits for the study. The internal funds from the Heidelberg University as well as the Charité Berlin supported this study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study protocol was approved in March 2020 by the ethical review committee at the Heidelberg University Hospital for the two study sites Heidelberg and Berlin in Germany (Registration number S-180/2020).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I 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).
Yes
I 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.
Yes
Data Availability
Anonymised data is available upon request from the corresponding author
https://apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=DRKS00021220
