Abstract
Testing for SARS-CoV-2 internationally has focused on COVID-19 diagnosis among symptomatic individuals using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. Recently, however, SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid lateral flow tests (LFT) have been rolled out in several countries for testing asymptomatic individuals in public health programmes. Validation studies for LFT have been largely cross-sectional, reporting sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of LFT relative to PCR. However, because PCR detects genetic material left behind for a long period when the individual is no longer infectious, these statistics can under-represent sensitivity of LFT for detecting infectious individuals, especially when sampling asymptomatic populations. LFTs (intended to detect individuals with live virus) validated against PCR (intended to diagnose infection) are not reporting against a gold standard of equivalent measurements. Instead, these validation studies have reported relative performance statistics that need recalibrating to the purpose for which LFT is being used. We present an approach to this recalibration.
We derive a formula for recalibrating relative performance statistics from LFT vs PCR validation studies to give likely absolute sensitivity of LFT for detecting individuals with live virus. We show the differences between widely reported apparent sensitivities of LFT and its absolute sensitivity as a test of presence of live virus. After accounting for within-individual viral kinetics and epidemic dynamics within asymptomatic populations we show that a highly performant test of live virus should show a LFT-to-PCR relative sensitivity of less than 50% in conventional validation studies, which after re-calibration would be an absolute sensitivity of more than 80%.
Further studies are needed to ascertain the absolute sensitivity of LFT as a test of infectiousness in COVID-19 responses. These studies should include sampling for viral cultures and longitudinal series of LFT and PCR, ideally in cohorts sampled from both contacts of cases and the general population.
Competing Interest Statement
MJM reports research funding by the US National Institutes of Health Directors Early Independence Award DP5-OD028145 and from Open Philanthropy and Good Ventures. MJM is also an advisor for Detect. IEB received grant funding from the UK Department of Health and Social Care to evaluate LFT in the Liverpool pilot that mentioned in this study. IEB reports fees from AstraZeneca as chief data scientist adviser via Liverpool University and a senior investigator grant from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) outside the submitted work. IP reports grant funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and Novo Nordisk foundation outside the submitted work. JWB reports statistical consultancy for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis and Roche through the University of Bath outside the submitted work.
Funding Statement
No funding was received.
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:
N/A
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
The figures used in this study is based on published material.
