Differences in detected viral loads guide use of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection assays towards symptomatic college students and children

Martí, Juan; Gribschaw, Jamie; McCullough, Melissa; Mallon, Abbie; Acero, Jamie; Kinzler, Amy; Godesky, Jamie; Heidenreich, Kelly; Iagnemma, Jennifer; Vanek, Marian; Pasculle, A. William; Phan, Tung; Hoberman, Alejandro; Williams, John V.; Mitchell, Stephanie L.; Wells, A.

doi:10.1101/2021.01.28.21250365

Cited by 12 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 17 publications

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

“…One patient required testing for work, was asymptomatic and had no known prior COVID-19 disease. The C T value for this patient’s sample was > 35, where antigen testing has high likelihood to be falsely-negative [ 12 ]. The patient had a repeat COVID-19 test at an outside facility approximately 1 month later for unknown reasons, which was negative.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic adults: a single-center evaluation

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Antigen testing offers rapid and inexpensive testing for SARS-CoV-2 but concerns regarding performance, especially sensitivity, remain. Limited data exists for use of antigen testing in asymptomatic patients; thus, performance and reliability of antigen testing remains unclear. Methods 148 symptomatic and 144 asymptomatic adults were included. A nasal swab was collected for testing by Quidel Sofia SARS IFA (Sofia) as point of care. A nasopharyngeal swab was also collected and transported to the laboratory for testing by Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV RT-PCR (Cepheid). Results Overall, Sofia had good agreement with Cepheid (> 95%) in adults, however was less sensitive. Sofia had a sensitivity of 87.8% and 33.3% for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, respectively. Among symptomatic patients, testing > 5 days post symptom onset resulted in lower sensitivity (82%) when compared with testing within 5 days of symptom onset (90%). Of the four Sofia false-negative results in the asymptomatic cohort, 50% went on to develop COVID-19 disease within 5 days of testing. Specificity in both symptomatic and asymptomatic cohorts was 100%. Conclusions Sofia has acceptable performance in symptomatic adults when tested < 5 days of symptom onset. Caution should be taken when testing patients with ≥ 5 days of symptoms. The combination of low prevalence and reduced sensitivity results in relatively poor performance of in asymptomatic patients. NAAT-based diagnostic assays should be considered in when antigen testing is unreliable, particularly in symptomatic patients with > 5 days of symptom onset and asymptomatic patients.

show abstract

Differences in detected viral loads guide use of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection assays towards symptomatic college students and children

Cited by 12 publications

References 17 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

Performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic adults: a single-center evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About