Abstract
Background Antigen lateral flow devices (LFDs) have been widely used to control SARS-CoV-2. Changes in LFD sensitivity and detection of infectious individuals during the pandemic with successive variants, vaccination, and changes in LFD use are incompletely understood.
Methods Paired LFD and PCR tests were collected from asymptomatic and symptomatic participants, across multiple settings in the UK between 04-November-2020 and 21-March-2022. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyse LFD sensitivity and specificity, adjusting for viral load, LFD manufacturer, setting, age, sex, assistance, symptoms, vaccination, and variant. National contact tracing data were used to estimate the proportion of transmitting index cases (with ≥1 PCR/LFD-positive contact) potentially detectable by LFDs over time, accounting for viral load, variant, and symptom status.
Findings 4131/75,382 (5.5%) participants were PCR-positive. Sensitivity vs. PCR was 63.2% (95%CI 61.7-64.6%) and specificity 99.71% (99.66-99.74%). Increased viral load was independently associated with being LFD-positive. There was no evidence LFD sensitivity differed between Delta vs. Alpha/pre-Alpha infections, but Omicron infections were more likely to be LFD positive. Sensitivity was higher in symptomatic participants, 68.7% (66.9-70.4%) than in asymptomatic participants, 52.8% (50.1-55.4%). 79.4% (68.6-81.3%) of index cases resulting in probable onward transmission with were estimated to have been detectable using LFDs, this proportion was relatively stable over time/variants, but lower in asymptomatic vs. symptomatic cases.
Interpretation LFDs remained able to detect most SARS-CoV-2 infections throughout vaccine roll-out and different variants. LFDs can potentially detect most infections that transmit to others and reduce risks. However, performance is lower in asymptomatic compared to symptomatic individuals.
Funding UK Government.
Evidence before this study Lateral flow devices (LFDs; i.e. rapid antigen detection devices) have been widely used for SARS-CoV-2 testing. However, due to their imperfect sensitivity when compared to PCR and a lack of a widely available gold standard proxy for infectiousness, the performance and use of LFDs has been a source of debate. We conducted a literature review in PubMed and bioRxiv/medRxiv for all studies examining the performance of lateral flow devices between 01 January 2020 and 31 October 2022. We used the search terms ‘SARS-CoV-2’/’COVID-19’ and ‘antigen’/’lateral flow test’/’lateral flow device’. Multiple studies have examined the sensitivity and specificity of LFDs, including several systematic reviews. However, the majority of the studies are based on pre-Alpha infections. Large studies examining the test accuracy for different variants, including Delta and Omicron, and following vaccination are limited.
Added value of this study In this large national LFD evaluation programme, we compared the performance of three different LFDs relative to PCR in various settings. Compared to PCR testing, sensitivity was 63.2% (95%CI 61.7-64.6%) overall, and 71.6% (95%CI 69.8-73.4%) in unselected communitybased testing. Specificity was 99.71% (99.66-99.74%). LFDs were more likely to be positive as viral loads increased. LFD sensitivity was similar during Alpha/pre-Alpha and Delta periods but increased during the Omicron period. There was no association between sensitivity and vaccination status. Sensitivity was higher in symptomatic participants, 68.7% (66.9-70.4%) than in asymptomatic participants, 52.8% (50.1-55.4%). Using national contact tracing data, we estimated that 79.4% (68.6-81.3%) of index cases resulting in probable onward transmission (i.e. with ≥1 PCR/LFD-positive contact) were detectable using LFDs. Symptomatic index cases were more likely to be detected than asymptomatic index cases due to higher viral loads and better LFD performance at a given viral load. The proportion of index cases detected remained relatively stable over time and with successive variants, with a slight increase in the proportion of asymptomatic index cases detected during Omicron.
Implications of all the available evidence Our data show that LFDs detect most SARS-CoV-2 infections, with findings broadly similar to those summarised in previous meta-analyses. We show that LFD performance has been relatively consistent throughout different variant-dominant phases of the pandemic and following the roll-out of vaccination. LFDs can detect most infections that transmit to others and can therefore be used as part of a risk reduction strategy. However, performance is lower in asymptomatic compared to symptomatic individuals and this needs to be considered when designing testing programmes.
Competing Interest Statement
DWE has received lecture fees from Gilead outside the submitted work. No other author has a conflict of interest to declare.
Funding Statement
Supported by the UK Government Department of Health and Social Care; the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, in partnership with Public Health England (NIHR200915); and the University of Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. DWE is a Robertson Foundation Fellow.
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:
Public Health England's Research Ethics (PHEREG) provided approval for the studies as Service Evaluation and Ongoing Evaluation. This was reviewed and approved under REGG R and D 438.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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
Applications to use the data in this study can be made to NHS Digital's Data Access Request Service, please see https://digital.nhs.uk/services/data-access-request-service-dars for more details.
