Performance of six rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection and implications for practical use.

BACKGROUND: Direct detection of SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins in nasopharyngeal swabs using lateral flow immunoassays is a simple, fast and cheap approach to diagnose the infection. AIMS AND METHODS: The performance of 6 SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests has been assessed in 634 hospitalized patients or outpatients including 297 patients found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by means of RT-PCR and 337 patients presumed to be SARS-CoV-2 RNA-negative. RESULTS: The specificity of SARS-CoV-2 RDTs was generally high (398.5%). One assay had a lower specificity of 93.2%. The overall sensitivity of the 6 RDTs was variable, from 32.3% to 61.7%. Sensitivity correlated with the delay of sampling after the onset of symptoms and the viral load estimated by the Ct value in RT-PCR. Four out of 6 RDTs tested achieved sensitivities 380% when clinical specimens were collected during the first 3 days following symptom onset or with a Ct value ≤25. CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that SARS-CoV-2 antigen can be easily and reliably detected by RDTs. These tests are easy and rapid to perform. However, the specificity and sensitivity of COVID-19 antigen RDTs may widely vary across different tests and must therefore be carefully evaluated before releasing these assays for realworld applications.

Performance and operational feasibility of antigen and antibody rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients in Cameroon: a clinical, prospective, diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Real-time PCR is recommended to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, PCR availability is restricted in most countries. Rapid diagnostic tests are considered acceptable alternatives, but data are lacking on their performance. We assessed the performance of four antibody-based rapid diagnostic tests and one antigen-based rapid diagnostic test for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community in Cameroon. METHODS: In this clinical, prospective, diagnostic accuracy study, we enrolled individuals aged at least 21 years who were either symptomatic and suspected of having COVID-19 or asymptomatic and presented for screening. We tested peripheral blood for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using the Innovita (Biological Technology; Beijing, China), Wondfo (Guangzhou Wondfo Biotech; Guangzhou, China), SD Biosensor (SD Biosensor; Gyeonggi-do, South Korea), and Runkun tests (Runkun Pharmaceutical; Hunan, China), and nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 antigen using the SD Biosensor test. Antigen rapid diagnostic tests were compared with Abbott PCR testing (Abbott; Abbott Park, IL, USA), and antibody rapid diagnostic tests were compared with Biomerieux immunoassays (Biomerieux; Marcy l'Etoile, France). We retrospectively tested two diagnostic algorithms that incorporated rapid diagnostic tests for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients using simulation modelling. FINDINGS: 1195 participants were enrolled in the study. 347 (29%) tested SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive, 223 (19%) rapid diagnostic test antigen-positive, and 478 (40%) rapid diagnostic test antibody-positive. Antigen-based rapid diagnostic test sensitivity was 80·0% (95% CI 71·0-88·0) in the first 7 days after symptom onset, but antibody-based rapid diagnostic tests had only 26·8% sensitivity (18·3-36·8). Antibody rapid diagnostic test sensitivity increased to 76·4% (70·1-82·0) 14 days after symptom onset. Among asymptomatic participants, the sensitivity of antigen-based and antibody-based rapid diagnostic tests were 37·0% (27·0-48·0) and 50·7% (42·2-59·1), respectively. Cohen's κ showed substantial agreement between Wondfo antibody rapid diagnostic test and gold-standard ELISA (κ=0·76; sensitivity 0·98) and between Biosensor and ELISA (κ=0·60; sensitivity 0·94). Innovita (κ=0·47; sensitivity 0·93) and Runkun (κ=0·43; sensitivity 0·76) showed moderate agreement. An antigen-based retrospective algorithm applied to symptomatic patients showed 94·0% sensitivity and 91·0% specificity in the first 7 days after symptom onset. For asymptomatic participants, the algorithm showed a sensitivity of 34% (95% CI 23·0-44·0) and a specificity of 92·0% (88·0-96·0). INTERPRETATION: Rapid diagnostic tests had good overall sensitivity for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. Rapid diagnostic tests could be incorporated into efficient testing algorithms as an alternative to PCR to decrease diagnostic delays and onward viral transmission. FUNDING: Médecins Sans Frontières WACA and Médecins Sans Frontières OCG. TRANSLATIONS: For the French and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Evaluating 10 Commercially Available SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Serological Tests by Use of the STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) Method.

Numerous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rapid serological tests have been developed, but their accuracy has usually been assessed using very few samples, and rigorous comparisons between these tests are scarce. In this study, we evaluated and compared 10 commercially available SARS-CoV-2 rapid serological tests using the STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) methodology. Two hundred fifty serum samples from 159 PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients (collected 0 to 32 days after the onset of symptoms) were tested with rapid serological tests. Control serum samples (n = 254) were retrieved from pre-coronavirus disease (COVID) periods from patients with other coronavirus infections (n = 11), positivity for rheumatoid factors (n = 3), IgG/IgM hyperglobulinemia (n = 9), malaria (n = 5), or no documented viral infection (n = 226). All samples were tested using rapid lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) from 10 manufacturers. Only four tests achieved ≥98% specificity, with the specificities ranging from 75.7% to 99.2%. The sensitivities varied by the day of sample collection after the onset of symptoms, from 31.7% to 55.4% (days 0 to 9), 65.9% to 92.9% (days 10 to 14), and 81.0% to 95.2% (>14 days). Only three of the tests evaluated met French health authorities' thresholds for SARS-CoV-2 serological tests (≥90% sensitivity and ≥98% specificity). Overall, the performances varied greatly between tests, with only one-third meeting acceptable specificity and sensitivity thresholds. Knowledge of the analytical performances of these tests will allow clinicians and, most importantly, laboratorians to use them with more confidence; could help determine the general population's immunological status; and may help diagnose some patients with false-negative real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) results.