Abstract
Background Antigen-based point of care tests for identification of SARS-CoV-2 may markedly enhance effectiveness of population-based controlling strategies. Previous studies have demonstrated acceptable sensitivity and high specificity compared to RT-qPCR in symptomatic individuals, but test performance for asymptomatic individuals is unknown.
Methods Test performance of the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (Abbott) was compared to RT-qPCR in a longitudinal cohort study of asymptomatic football players and staff members of professional football clubs. Based on timing of symptoms and prior and subsequent test results, positive RT-qPCR tests were categorized as pre-symptomatic, early or late infection or persistent RNA shedding.
Findings 2425 tests were performed in 824 individuals, of which 52 (6.3%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive based on RT-qPCR. There were 2406 paired sets from asymptomatic subjects for analysis. Sixteen Panbio™ tests were inconclusive, for which sensitivity analyses were performed (considering results as either positive or negative or being excluded). Sensitivity of Panbio™ ranged from 61.76% (95% CI 49.2-73.3) to 69.12% (95% CI: 56.7-79.8) and specificity from 99.53% (95% CI: 99.2-99.8) to 100% (95% CI: 99.8-100). Sensitivity of Panbio™ to detect subjects with pre-symptomatic/early infection (n= 42) ranged from 81.82% (95% CI: 67.3-91.8) to 90.91% (95% CI: 78.3-97.5) with specificity always above 99%.
Interpretation In asymptomatic subjects the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test had sensitivity of 81.82% to 90.91% and specificity above 99% for identifying pre-symptomatic and early SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Funding This study was funded by the executing institutes. The Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Tests were provided by the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS).
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was investigator initiated and funded by the executing parties. No external funding was received. The Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Tests were provided by the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The medical research ethics committee (MREC) of Utrecht decided the study is not subject to the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) and did not require full review by an accredited MREC. All participants have provided written informed consent.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
De-identified participant data can be made available upon request per email to the corresponding author following publication.
