Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Recalibrating SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid lateral flow test relative sensitivity from validation studies to absolute sensitivity for detecting individuals with live virus

View ORCID ProfileIrene Petersen, Alexander Crozier, Iain Buchan, View ORCID ProfileMichael Mina, Jonathan W Bartlett
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.19.21253922
Irene Petersen
1Department of Primary care & Population Health, University College London, United Kingdom
Roles: Professor of Epidemiology and Health Informatics
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Irene Petersen
  • For correspondence: i.petersen@ucl.ac.uk
Alexander Crozier
2Division of Biosciences, University College London, United Kingdom
Roles: researcher
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Iain Buchan
3Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom
Roles: Professor of Public Health and Clinical Informatics
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Mina
4Department of Epidemiology, Department of Immunology and Infectious Diseases Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
5Department of Pathology, Clinical Microbiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School
Roles: Assistant Professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Michael Mina
Jonathan W Bartlett
6Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Bath, UK
Roles: Reader in Statistics
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

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.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted March 24, 2021.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Recalibrating SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid lateral flow test relative sensitivity from validation studies to absolute sensitivity for detecting individuals with live virus
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Recalibrating SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid lateral flow test relative sensitivity from validation studies to absolute sensitivity for detecting individuals with live virus
Irene Petersen, Alexander Crozier, Iain Buchan, Michael Mina, Jonathan W Bartlett
medRxiv 2021.03.19.21253922; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.19.21253922
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Recalibrating SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid lateral flow test relative sensitivity from validation studies to absolute sensitivity for detecting individuals with live virus
Irene Petersen, Alexander Crozier, Iain Buchan, Michael Mina, Jonathan W Bartlett
medRxiv 2021.03.19.21253922; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.19.21253922

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Epidemiology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (76)
  • Allergy and Immunology (198)
  • Anesthesia (54)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (492)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (90)
  • Dermatology (56)
  • Emergency Medicine (169)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (213)
  • Epidemiology (5706)
  • Forensic Medicine (3)
  • Gastroenterology (217)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (870)
  • Geriatric Medicine (88)
  • Health Economics (232)
  • Health Informatics (763)
  • Health Policy (394)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (254)
  • Hematology (105)
  • HIV/AIDS (182)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (6498)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (391)
  • Medical Education (118)
  • Medical Ethics (28)
  • Nephrology (93)
  • Neurology (850)
  • Nursing (44)
  • Nutrition (141)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (163)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (263)
  • Oncology (515)
  • Ophthalmology (163)
  • Orthopedics (44)
  • Otolaryngology (107)
  • Pain Medicine (48)
  • Palliative Medicine (21)
  • Pathology (149)
  • Pediatrics (251)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (147)
  • Primary Care Research (114)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (972)
  • Public and Global Health (2237)
  • Radiology and Imaging (377)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (174)
  • Respiratory Medicine (313)
  • Rheumatology (109)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (81)
  • Sports Medicine (82)
  • Surgery (118)
  • Toxicology (25)
  • Transplantation (34)
  • Urology (42)