An optimized stepwise algorithm combining rapid antigen and RT-qPCR for screening of COVID-19 patients

Halfon, Philippe; Pénaranda, Guillaume; Khiri, Hacène; Garcia, Vincent; Drouet, Hortense; Philibert, Patrick; Psomas, Christina; Delord, M; Allemand-Sourrieu, Julie; Rétornaz, F.; Charpin, C; Gonzales, Thomas; Pégliasco, Hervé; Allardet-Servent, Jérôme

doi:10.1101/2021.01.13.21249254

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 23 publications

(25 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the end of the data extraction process, 37 studies were still in preprint form [4,171,173,174,177,180,190,192,201,204,205,207,211,[214][215][216]218,220,222,223,225,227,231,233,234,238,240,244,247,253,257,265,267,284,287,290,293]. All studies were written in English, except for 2 in Spanish [175,280].…”

Section: Summary Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being integrated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs. Methods and findings We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix, bioRvix, and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 up until 30 April 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses, and rated study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 assessment tool. From a total of 14,254 articles, we included 133 analytical and clinical studies resulting in 214 clinical accuracy datasets with 112,323 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 71.2% (95% CI 68.2% to 74.0%) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6% to 99.1%), respectively. Sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.1% to 79.2%) if analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers’ instructions. LumiraDx showed the highest sensitivity, with 88.2% (95% CI 59.0% to 97.5%). Of instrument-free Ag-RDTs, Standard Q nasal performed best, with 80.2% sensitivity (95% CI 70.3% to 87.4%). Across all Ag-RDTs, sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, i.e., <20 (96.5%, 95% CI 92.6% to 98.4%) and <25 (95.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 97.8%), in comparison to those with Ct ≥ 25 (50.7%, 95% CI 35.6% to 65.8%) and ≥30 (20.9%, 95% CI 12.5% to 32.8%). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (83.8%, 95% CI 76.3% to 89.2%) compared to testing after 1 week (61.5%, 95% CI 52.2% to 70.0%). The best Ag-RDT sensitivity was found with anterior nasal sampling (75.5%, 95% CI 70.4% to 79.9%), in comparison to other sample types (e.g., nasopharyngeal, 71.6%, 95% CI 68.1% to 74.9%), although CIs were overlapping. Concerns of bias were raised across all datasets, and financial support from the manufacturer was reported in 24.1% of datasets. Our analysis was limited by the included studies’ heterogeneity in design and reporting. Conclusions In this study we found that Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2-infected persons within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load. Thus, they can have high utility for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease, making them a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization in conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data.

show abstract

Section: Summary Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the end of the data extraction process, 37 studies were still in preprint form [4,171,173,174,177,180,190,192,201,204,205,207,211,214–216,218,220,222,223,225,227,231,233,234,238,240,244,247,253,257,265,267,284,287,290,293]. All studies were written in English, except for two in Spanish [175, 280].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: a living systematic review and meta-analysis

Brümmer

Katzenschlager

Gaeddert

et al. 2021

Preprint

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being inte-grated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensi-tivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs. Methods: We registered the review on PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix and bioRvix, FINDdx) for publications up until December 11th, 2020. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed and when more than four studies were avail-able, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses ((1) performed conform with manufacturers instructions for use (IFU) or not, (2) symptomatic vs. asymptomatic, (3) duration of symptoms less than seven days vs. more than seven days, (4) Ct-value <25 vs. <30 vs. >30, (5) by sample type)) and with meta-regression. We assessed study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS 2 assessment tool. Results: From a total of 11,715 articles, we extracted 98 analytical and clinical data sets. 74 clinical accuracy data sets were evaluated that included 31,202 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity was 73.8% (CI 68.6 to 78.5). If analysis was re-stricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers instructions using fresh upper res-piratory swab samples, the sensitivity increased to 79.1% (95%CI 75.0 to 82.8). The SD Biosensor Standard Q and Abbott Panbio showed the highest sensitivity with 81.7% and 72.7%, respectively. The best Ag-RDT performance was found with nasopharyngeal sampling (77.3%, CI 72.0 to 81.9) in comparison to other sample types (e.g., anterior nasal or mid turbinate 63.5%, CI 49.5 to 75.5). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in higher sensitivity (87.5%, CI 86.0 to 89.1) compared to testing after one week (64.1%, CI 54.4 to 73.8). The tests performed markedly better on samples with lower Ct-values, i.e., <30 (87.9%, CI 86.7 to 88.8), in comparison to those with Ct >30 (47.8%, CI 41.1 to 54.5). Bias concerns were raised across all data sets, and financial support from the manufacturer was reported in 28.2% of data sets. Conclusion: As Ag-RDTs detect most cases within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load, they can have high utility for screening purposes in the early phase of disease, and thus can be a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization of con-duct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data.

show abstract

“…All studies were written in English, except for 3 in Spanish [53, 62, 134], 1 in Turkish [95], and 1 in French [153]. Out of the 196 studies, 26 conducted a case-control study [21, 32, 34, 66, 67, 72, 81, 84, 88-90, 93, 94, 96, 103, 108, 135, 140, 144, 145, 151, 156, 166, 168, 182, 184], while the remaining 168 were cross-sectional or cohort studies. The reference method was RT-PCR in all except 1 study, which used viral culture [135].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of rapid point-of-care antigen-based diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis with meta regression analyzing influencing factors

Brümmer

Katzenschlager

McGrath

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Comprehensive information about the accuracy of antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 is essential to guide public health decision makers in choosing the best tests and testing policies. In August 2021, we published a systematic review and meta-analysis about the accuracy of Ag-RDTs. We now update this work and analyze the factors influencing test sensitivity in further detail. Methods and findings We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix, bioRvix, and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 until August 31, 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing as a reference. To evaluate factors influencing test sensitivity, we performed 3 different analyses using multivariate mixed-effects meta-regression models. We included 194 studies with 221,878 Ag-RDTs performed. Overall, the pooled estimates of Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 72.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.8 to 74.2) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6 to 99.1), respectively. When manufacturer instructions were followed, sensitivity increased to 76.4% (95%CI 73.8 to 78.8). Sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values (sensitivity of 97.9% [95% CI 96.9 to 98.9] and 90.6% [95% CI 88.3 to 93.0] for Ct-values <20 and <25, compared to 54.4% [95% CI 47.3 to 61.5] and 18.7% [95% CI 13.9 to 23.4] for Ct-values ≥25 and ≥30) and was estimated to increase by 2.9 percentage points (95% CI 1.7 to 4.0) for every unit decrease in mean Ct-value when adjusting for testing procedure and patients symptom status. Concordantly, we found the mean Ct-value to be lower for true positive (22.2 [95% CI 21.5 to 22.8]) compared to false negative (30.4 [95% CI 29.7 to 31.1]) results. Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (81.9% [95% CI 77.7 to 85.5]) compared to testing after 1 week (51.8%, 95% CI 41.5 to 61.9). Similarly, sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (76.2% [95% CI 73.3 to 78.9]) compared to asymptomatic (56.8% [95% CI 50.9 to 62.4]) persons. However, both effects were mainly driven by the Ct-value of the sample. With regards to sample type, highest sensitivity was found for nasopharyngeal (NP) and combined NP/oropharyngeal samples (70.8% [95% CI 68.3 to 73.2]), as well as in anterior nasal/mid-turbinate samples (77.3% [95% CI 73.0 to 81.0]). Conclusion Ag-RDTs detect most of the individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2, and almost all when high viral loads are present (>90%). With viral load, as estimated by Ct-value, being the most influential factor on their sensitivity, they are especially useful to detect persons with high viral load who are most likely to transmit the virus. To further quantify the effects of other factors influencing test sensitivity, standardization of clinical accuracy studies and access to patient level Ct-values and duration of symptoms are needed.

show abstract

An optimized stepwise algorithm combining rapid antigen and RT-qPCR for screening of COVID-19 patients

Cited by 4 publications

References 23 publications

Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis

Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis

The accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: a living systematic review and meta-analysis

Accuracy of rapid point-of-care antigen-based diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis with meta regression analyzing influencing factors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About