ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Rapid antigen tests, or RATs, are a type of lateral flow chromatographic immunoassay utilized to aid the 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 to detect current SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly in high-viral-load populations.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Prospective Studies , Sensitivity and Specificity , Serologic TestsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Due to the number of asymptomatic infections and limited access to high-performance antibody tests, the true prevalence and seropositivity of SARS-CoV-2 infection remains unknown. To fill this gap, the clinical performance of a point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Assay, a chromatographic immunoassay for detecting IgM/IgG antibodies, in near patient settings was assessed. METHODS: Forty-two anti-SARS-Cov-2 positive (CoV+) and 92 anti-SARS-Cov-2 negative (CoV-) leftover samples from before December 2019 were assessed; the Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 was used as the reference assay. Analytical specificity was tested using leftover samples collected before December 2019 from patients with common cold symptoms. RESULTS: The SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test was 100.0% (95% CI 91.59-100.0) sensitive and 96.74% (95% CI 90.77-99.32) specific, with 0.00% assay failure rate. No cross-reactivity was observed against the common cold panel. Method comparison was additionally conducted by two external laboratories, using 100 CoV+ and 275 CoV- samples, also comparing whole blood versus plasma matrix. The comparison demonstrated 96.00% positive and 96.36% negative percent agreement for plasma with the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 and 99.20% percent overall agreement between whole blood and EDTA plasma. CONCLUSION: The SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test demonstrated similar performance to the manufacturer's data and a centralised automated immunoassay, with no cross-reactivity with common cold panels.