Abstract
Background Pre-/asymptomatic close contacts of SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals were tested at day 5 after contact by real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Diagnostic accuracy of antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) in pre-/asymptomatic close contacts was up till now unknown.
Methods We performed a prospective cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy study. Close contacts (e.g. selected via the test-and-trace program or contact tracing app) aged ≥16 years and asymptomatic when requesting a test, were included consecutively and tested at day 5 at four Dutch public health service test sites. We evaluated two Ag-RDTs (BD Veritor™ System Ag-RDT (BD), and Roche/SD Biosensor Ag-RDT (SD-B)) with RT-PCR as the reference standard. Virus culture was performed in RT-PCR positive individuals to determine the viral load cut-off above which 95% was culture positive, as a proxy of infectiousness.
Results Of 2,678 BD-tested individuals, 233 (8.7%) were RT-PCR positive and BD detected 149 (sensitivity 63.9%; 95% confidence interval 57.4%-70.1%). Out of 1,596 SD-B-tested individuals, 132 (8.3%) were RT-PCR positive and SD-B detected 83 (sensitivity 62.9%; 54.0%-71.1%). When applying an infectiousness viral load cut-off ≥ 5.2 log10 gene copies/mL, the sensitivity was 90.1% (84.2%-94.4%) for BD, 86.8% (78.1% to 93.0%) for SD-B overall, and 88.1% (80.5%-93.5%) for BD, 85.1% (74.3%-92.6%) for SD-B for those still asymptomatic at the actual time of sampling. Specificity was >99% for both Ag-RDTs in all analyses.
Conclusions The sensitivity for detecting SARS-CoV-2 of both Ag-RDTs in pre-/asymptomatic close contacts is over 60%, increasing to over 85% after applying an infectiousness viral load cut-off.
Trial registration number Not applicable. A study protocol is available upon request.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The study was funded by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. The funder had no role in the design, conduct, data-analysis or report of the 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 Medical Ethics Review Committee (METC) Utrecht concluded that ethics approval was not required because the study is outside the scope of the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (protocol number: 20/750). All participants signed an informed consent form prior to any study procedure.
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
Footnotes
↵* Dual first authorship
↵# Dual senior authorship
The supplement contained errors in the numbering of tables and the figure. These have been corrected to make sure all cross-references to tables and the figure in the supplementary material are correct again. In addition, the caption of Table S4 has been adjusted, and a STARD reporting checklist was added as a supplement. No changes were made to the main text, analysis, or results.
Data Availability
Data will not available for sharing.
