Johannes Hayer1, Dusanka Kasapic2, Claudia Zemmrich3. 1. Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany. Electronic address: johannes.hayer@roche.com. 2. Roche Diagnostics International Ltd., Rotkreuz, Switzerland. Electronic address: dusanka.kasapic@roche.com. 3. Roche Diagnostics International Ltd., Rotkreuz, Switzerland; Institute for Pharmacology and Preventive Medicine, Menzelstrasse 21, 15831 Mahlow, Germany. Electronic address: claudia.zemmrich@ippmed.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Rapid antigen tests, or RATs, are a type of lateral flow chromatographic immunoassay that have been utilized to aid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We performed a systematic meta-analysis to compare the real-world performance of commercially available RATs. METHODS: We searched several databases and websites for manufacturer-independent prospective clinical performance studies comparing SARS-CoV-2 RATs and RT-PCR. Only studies on RATs that did not need a separate reader for result retrieval and that reported data on viral load, patients' symptom status, sample type, and PCR assay used were included. RESULTS: 19 studies utilizing 11,109 samples with 2,509 RT-PCR-positives were included. RAT sensitivity varied between 28.9% (95% CI 16.4-44.3) and 98.3% (95% CI 91.1-99.7), likely dependent upon population characteristics, viral load, and symptom status. RAT specificity varied between 92.4% (95% CI 87.4-95.9) and 100% (95% CI 99.7-100) with one outlier. The RATs by Roche Diagnostics/SD Biosensor and Abbott had the highest pooled sensitivity (82.4% [95% CI 74.2-88.4] and 76.9% [95% CI 72.1-81.2], respectively). Sensitivity in high-viral-load samples (cycle threshold ≤25) showed heterogeneity among the different RATs. CONCLUSION: The RATs offered by Roche Diagnostics/SD Biosensor and Abbott provide sufficient manufacturer-independent, real-world performance data to support their use for detection of current SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly in high-viral-load populations.
OBJECTIVES: Rapid antigen tests, or RATs, are a type of lateral flow chromatographic immunoassay that have been utilized to aid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We performed a systematic meta-analysis to compare the real-world performance of commercially available RATs. METHODS: We searched several databases and websites for manufacturer-independent prospective clinical performance studies comparing SARS-CoV-2RATs and RT-PCR. Only studies on RATs that did not need a separate reader for result retrieval and that reported data on viral load, patients' symptom status, sample type, and PCR assay used were included. RESULTS: 19 studies utilizing 11,109 samples with 2,509 RT-PCR-positives were included. RAT sensitivity varied between 28.9% (95% CI 16.4-44.3) and 98.3% (95% CI 91.1-99.7), likely dependent upon population characteristics, viral load, and symptom status. RAT specificity varied between 92.4% (95% CI 87.4-95.9) and 100% (95% CI 99.7-100) with one outlier. The RATs by Roche Diagnostics/SD Biosensor and Abbott had the highest pooled sensitivity (82.4% [95% CI 74.2-88.4] and 76.9% [95% CI 72.1-81.2], respectively). Sensitivity in high-viral-load samples (cycle threshold ≤25) showed heterogeneity among the different RATs. CONCLUSION: The RATs offered by Roche Diagnostics/SD Biosensor and Abbott provide sufficient manufacturer-independent, real-world performance data to support their use for detection of current SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly in high-viral-load populations.
Authors: Brit Long; Brandon M Carius; Summer Chavez; Stephen Y Liang; William J Brady; Alex Koyfman; Michael Gottlieb Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2022-01-21 Impact factor: 4.093
Authors: Fausto Baldanti; Nirmal K Ganguly; Guiqiang Wang; Martin Möckel; Luke A O'Neill; Harald Renz; Carlos Eduardo Dos Santos Ferreira; Kazuhiro Tateda; Barbara Van Der Pol Journal: Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 6.250
Authors: Lukas E Brümmer; Stephan Katzenschlager; Mary Gaeddert; Christian Erdmann; Stephani Schmitz; Marc Bota; Maurizio Grilli; Jan Larmann; Markus A Weigand; Nira R Pollock; Aurélien Macé; Sergio Carmona; Stefano Ongarello; Jilian A Sacks; Claudia M Denkinger Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Silvia Carbonell-Sahuquillo; María I Lázaro-Carreño; Jorge Camacho; Ana Barrés-Fernández; Eliseo Albert; Ignacio Torres; José R Bretón-Martínez; Cecilia Martínez-Costa; David Navarro Journal: J Med Virol Date: 2021-07-27 Impact factor: 20.693