Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Diagnostic Efficacy of Rapid Antigen Testing for SARS-CoV-2: The COVid-19 AntiGen (COVAG) study

View through CrossRef
Abstract Background Widely available rapid testing is pivotal to the fight against COVID-19. Real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) remains the gold standard. We compared two frequently used commercial rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2-antigens, the SD Biosensor SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche Diagnostics) and the Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (Abbott Diagnostics), against rRT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Methods We compared the tests in 2215 all-comers at a diagnostic centre between February 1 and March 31, 2021. rRT-PCR-positive samples were examined for SARS-CoV-2 variants. Findings 338 participants (15%) were rRT-PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2. The sensitivities of Roche-RDT and Abbott-RDT were 60.4% and 56.8% (P<0·0001) and specificities 99.7% and 99.8% (P=0·076), respectively. Sensitivity inversely correlated with rRT-PCR-derived Ct values. Unadjusted, the RDTs had higher sensitivities in individuals referred by treating physicians and health departments than those tested for other reasons, in persons without comorbidities compared to those with comorbidities, in individuals with symptoms suggesting COVID-19, and in the absence of SARS-CoV-2 variants compared to Alpha variant carriers. The associations of sensitivity with clinical symptoms and the SARS-CoV-2 genotype were robust against adjustment for Ct values. Assuming that 10 000 symptomatic individuals are tested, 500 of which are truly positive, the RDTs would generate 38 false-positive and 124 false-negative results. Assuming that 10 000 asymptomatic individuals are tested, including 50 true positives, 18 false-positives and 34 false-negatives would be generated. Interpretation The sensitivities of the two RDTs are unsatisfactory. This calls into question whether their widespread use is effective in the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Funding SYNLAB Holding Deutschland GmbH Research in context Evidence before this study Small studies and a meta-analysis from the Cochrance collaboration indicate vastly different diagnostic efficacies of commercial rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 antigen. The impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants has not been known. Added value of this study This is one of the largest real-world studies of the diagnostic efficacy of two widely recommended RDTs SARS-CoV-2 antigen in comparison to rRT-PCR. The sensitivities of the two RDTs are unsatisfactory, mainly in asymptomatic persons. Presence of the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha Variant decreased both tests’ sensitivities significantly. Implications of all the available evidence Policy and health care providers should account for substantial limitations of RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 particular in asymptomatic persons. Research into alternative approaches to the screening for SARS-CoV-2 should be intensified.
Title: Diagnostic Efficacy of Rapid Antigen Testing for SARS-CoV-2: The COVid-19 AntiGen (COVAG) study
Description:
Abstract Background Widely available rapid testing is pivotal to the fight against COVID-19.
Real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) remains the gold standard.
We compared two frequently used commercial rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2-antigens, the SD Biosensor SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche Diagnostics) and the Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (Abbott Diagnostics), against rRT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 detection.
Methods We compared the tests in 2215 all-comers at a diagnostic centre between February 1 and March 31, 2021.
rRT-PCR-positive samples were examined for SARS-CoV-2 variants.
Findings 338 participants (15%) were rRT-PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2.
The sensitivities of Roche-RDT and Abbott-RDT were 60.
4% and 56.
8% (P<0·0001) and specificities 99.
7% and 99.
8% (P=0·076), respectively.
Sensitivity inversely correlated with rRT-PCR-derived Ct values.
Unadjusted, the RDTs had higher sensitivities in individuals referred by treating physicians and health departments than those tested for other reasons, in persons without comorbidities compared to those with comorbidities, in individuals with symptoms suggesting COVID-19, and in the absence of SARS-CoV-2 variants compared to Alpha variant carriers.
The associations of sensitivity with clinical symptoms and the SARS-CoV-2 genotype were robust against adjustment for Ct values.
Assuming that 10 000 symptomatic individuals are tested, 500 of which are truly positive, the RDTs would generate 38 false-positive and 124 false-negative results.
Assuming that 10 000 asymptomatic individuals are tested, including 50 true positives, 18 false-positives and 34 false-negatives would be generated.
Interpretation The sensitivities of the two RDTs are unsatisfactory.
This calls into question whether their widespread use is effective in the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
Funding SYNLAB Holding Deutschland GmbH Research in context Evidence before this study Small studies and a meta-analysis from the Cochrance collaboration indicate vastly different diagnostic efficacies of commercial rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 antigen.
The impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants has not been known.
Added value of this study This is one of the largest real-world studies of the diagnostic efficacy of two widely recommended RDTs SARS-CoV-2 antigen in comparison to rRT-PCR.
The sensitivities of the two RDTs are unsatisfactory, mainly in asymptomatic persons.
Presence of the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha Variant decreased both tests’ sensitivities significantly.
Implications of all the available evidence Policy and health care providers should account for substantial limitations of RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 particular in asymptomatic persons.
Research into alternative approaches to the screening for SARS-CoV-2 should be intensified.

Related Results

KECEMASAN SAAT PANDEMI COVID 19: LITERATUR REVIEW Hardiyati, Efri Widianti, Taty Hernawaty Departemen Keperawatan Jiwa Poltekkes Kemenkes Mamuju Sulbar, Universitas Pad...
The Hidden Problem of Cross-Reactivity: Challenges in HIV Testing During the COVID-19 Era: A Systematic Review
The Hidden Problem of Cross-Reactivity: Challenges in HIV Testing During the COVID-19 Era: A Systematic Review
Abstract Introduction Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) surface glycoproteins, including shared epitope motifs, sho...
The Potential of Medicinal Plants and Bioactive Compounds in the Fight Against COVID-19
The Potential of Medicinal Plants and Bioactive Compounds in the Fight Against COVID-19
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a novel coronavirus , is causing a serious worldwide COVID-19 pandemic. The emergence of strains with rapid spread and...
Mutations in SARS-CoV
Mutations in SARS-CoV
The coronavirus family is named for the large spike protein molecules found on the pathogen exterior, which give the virus a crown-like appearance, the coronavirus genome is the bi...
Performance characteristics of the VIDAS® SARS-COV-2 IgM and IgG serological assays
Performance characteristics of the VIDAS® SARS-COV-2 IgM and IgG serological assays
ABSTRACTThe COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), continues to spread worldwide. Serological testing for SARS-CoV-2-spe...
From SARS and MERS CoVs to SARS‐CoV‐2: Moving toward more biased codon usage in viral structural and nonstructural genes
From SARS and MERS CoVs to SARS‐CoV‐2: Moving toward more biased codon usage in viral structural and nonstructural genes
AbstractBackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) is an emerging disease with fatal outcomes. In this study, a fundamental knowledge gap question is to...

Back to Top