EBioMedicine (Jan 2022)

Accuracy and ease-of-use of seven point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting tests: A multi-centre clinical evaluation

  • Lisa J. Krüger,
  • Amilcar Tanuri,
  • Andreas K. Lindner,
  • Mary Gaeddert,
  • Lisa Köppel,
  • Frank Tobian,
  • Lukas E. Brümmer,
  • Julian A.F. Klein,
  • Federica Lainati,
  • Paul Schnitzler,
  • Olga Nikolai,
  • Frank P. Mockenhaupt,
  • Joachim Seybold,
  • Victor M. Corman,
  • Terence C. Jones,
  • Christian Drosten,
  • Claudius Gottschalk,
  • Stefan F. Weber,
  • Stephan Weber,
  • Orlando C. Ferreira,
  • Diana Mariani,
  • Erika Ramos dos Santos Nascimento,
  • Terezinha M. Pereira Pinto Castineiras,
  • Rafael Mello Galliez,
  • Debora Souza Faffe,
  • Isabela de Carvalho Leitão,
  • Claudia dos Santos Rodrigues,
  • Thiago Silva Frauches,
  • Keity J. Chagas Vilela Nocchi,
  • Natalia Martins Feitosa,
  • Sabrina Santana Ribeiro,
  • Nira R. Pollock,
  • Britta Knorr,
  • Andreas Welker,
  • Margaretha de Vos,
  • JilianA. Sacks,
  • Stefano Ongarello,
  • Claudia M. Denkinger

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 75
p. 103774

Abstract

Read online

Summary: Background: Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 are important diagnostic tools. We assessed clinical performance and ease-of-use of seven Ag-RDTs in a prospective, manufacturer-independent, multi-centre cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study to inform global decision makers. Methods: Unvaccinated participants suspected of a first SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited at six sites (Germany, Brazil). Ag-RDTs were evaluated sequentially, with collection of paired swabs for routine reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing and Ag-RDT testing. Performance was compared to RT-PCR overall and in sub-group analyses (viral load, symptoms, symptoms duration). To understandusability a System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire and ease-of-use (EoU) assessment were performed. Findings: 7471 participants were included in the analysis. Sensitivities across Ag-RDTs ranged from 70·4%-90·1%, specificities were above 97·2% for all Ag-RDTs but one (93·1%).Ag-RDTs, Mologic, Bionote, Standard Q, showed diagnostic accuracy in line with WHO targets (> 80% sensitivity, > 97% specificity). All tests showed high sensitivity in the first three days after symptom onset (≥87·1%) and in individuals with viral loads≥ 6 log10SARS-CoV2 RNA copies/mL (≥ 88·7%). Usability varied, with Rapigen, Bionote and Standard Q reaching very good scores; 90, 88 and 84/100, respectively. Interpretation: Variability in test performance is partially explained by variable viral loads in population evaluated over the course of the pandemic. All Ag-RDTs reach high sensitivity early in the disease and in individuals with high viral loads, supporting their role in identifying transmission relevant infections. For easy-to-use tests, performance shown will likely be maintained in routine implementation. Funding: Ministry of Science, Research and Arts, State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany, internal funds from Heidelberg University Hospital, University Hospital Charité − Universitätsmedizin Berlin, UK Department of International Development, WHO, Unitaid.

Keywords