Author:
Manten Katharina,Katzenschlager Stephan,Brümmer Lukas E.,Schmitz Stephani,Gaeddert Mary,Erdmann Christian,Grilli Maurizio,Pollock Nira R.,Macé Aurélien,Erkosar Berra,Carmona Sergio,Ongarello Stefano,Johnson Cheryl C.,Sacks Jilian A.,Faehling Verena,Bornemann Linus,Weigand Markus A.,Denkinger Claudia M.,Yerlikaya Seda
Abstract
Abstract
Background
During the COVID-19 pandemic, antigen diagnostic tests were frequently used for screening, triage, and diagnosis. Novel instrument-based antigen tests (iAg tests) hold the promise of outperforming their instrument-free, visually-read counterparts. Here, we provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 iAg tests’ clinical accuracy.
Methods
We systematically searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, medRxiv, and bioRxiv for articles published before November 7th, 2022, evaluating the accuracy of iAg tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection. We performed a random effects meta-analysis to estimate sensitivity and specificity and used the QUADAS-2 tool to assess study quality and risk of bias. Sub-group analysis was conducted based on Ct value range, IFU-conformity, age, symptom presence and duration, and the variant of concern.
Results
We screened the titles and abstracts of 20,431 articles and included 114 publications that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Additionally, we incorporated three articles sourced from the FIND website, totaling 117 studies encompassing 95,181 individuals, which evaluated the clinical accuracy of 24 commercial COVID-19 iAg tests. The studies varied in risk of bias but showed high applicability. Of 24 iAg tests from 99 studies assessed in the meta-analysis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity compared to molecular testing of a paired NP swab sample were 76.7% (95% CI 73.5 to 79.7) and 98.4% (95% CI 98.0 to 98.7), respectively. Higher sensitivity was noted in individuals with high viral load (99.6% [95% CI 96.8 to 100] at Ct-level ≤ 20) and within the first week of symptom onset (84.6% [95% CI 78.2 to 89.3]), but did not differ between tests conducted as per manufacturer’s instructions and those conducted differently, or between point-of-care and lab-based testing.
Conclusion
Overall, iAg tests have a high pooled specificity but a moderate pooled sensitivity, according to our analysis. The pooled sensitivity increases with lower Ct-values (a proxy for viral load), or within the first week of symptom onset, enabling reliable identification of most COVID-19 cases and highlighting the importance of context in test selection. The study underscores the need for careful evaluation considering performance variations and operational features of iAg tests.
Funder
Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference141 articles.
1. FDA. In Vitro Diagnostics EUAs 2022 [updated 14.4.2022. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/in-vitro-diagnostics-euas.
2. Mina MJ, Parker R, Larremore DB. Rethinking Covid-19 test sensitivity - A strategy for Containment. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(22):e120.
3. Peto T, Affron D, Afrough B, Agasu A, Ainsworth M, Allanson A et al. COVID-19: Rapid Antigen detection for SARS-CoV-2 by lateral flow assay: a national systematic evaluation of sensitivity and specificity for mass-testing. eClinicalMedicine. 2021;36.
4. WHO. Antigen-detection in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection 2021 [updated 6.10.2021. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/antigen-detection-in-the-diagnosis-of-sars-cov-2infection-using-rapid-immunoassays.
5. Parvu V, Gary DS, Mann J, Lin Y-C, Mills D, Cooper L et al. Factors that influence the reported sensitivity of Rapid Antigen Testing for SARS-CoV-2. Front Microbiol. 2021;12.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献