PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Lukas E. Brümmer AU - Stephan Katzenschlager AU - Mary Gaeddert AU - Christian Erdmann AU - Stephani Schmitz AU - Marc Bota AU - Maurizio Grilli AU - Jan Larmann AU - Markus A. Weigand AU - Nira R. Pollock AU - Sergio Carmona AU - Stefano Ongarello AU - Jilian Sacks AU - Claudia M. Denkinger TI - The accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: a living systematic review and meta-analysis AID - 10.1101/2021.02.26.21252546 DP - 2021 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2021.02.26.21252546 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/01/2021.02.26.21252546.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/01/2021.02.26.21252546.full AB - Background SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being integrated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs.Methods We registered the review on PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix and bioRvix, FINDdx) for publications up until December 11th, 2020. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed and when more than four studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses ((1) performed con-form with manufacturer’s instructions for use (IFU) or not, (2) symptomatic vs. asymptomatic, (3) duration of symptoms less than seven days vs. more than seven days, (4) Ct-value <25 vs. <30 vs. ≥30, (5) by sample type)) and with meta-regression. We assessed study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS 2 assessment tool.Results From a total of 11,715 articles, we extracted 98 analytical and clinical data sets. 74 clinical accuracy data sets were evaluated that included 31,202 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity was 73.8% (CI 68.6 to 78.5). If analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers’ instructions using fresh upper respiratory swab samples, the sensitivity increased to 79.1% (95%CI 75.0 to 82.8). The SD Biosensor Standard Q and Abbott Panbio showed the highest sensitivity with 81.7% and 72.7%, respectively. The best Ag-RDT performance was found with nasopharyngeal sampling (77.3%, CI 72.0 to 81.9) in comparison to other sample types (e.g., anterior nasal or mid turbinate 63.5%, CI 49.5 to 75.5). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in higher sensitivity (87.5%, CI 86.0 to 89.1) compared to testing after one week (64.1%, CI 54.4 to 73.8). The tests performed markedly better on samples with lower Ct-values, i.e., <30 (87.9%, CI 86.7 to 88.8), in comparison to those with Ct ≥ 30 (47.8%, CI 41.1 to 54.5). Bias concerns were raised across all data sets, and financial support from the manufacturer was re-ported in 28.2% of data sets.Conclusion As Ag-RDTs detect most cases within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load, they can have high utility for screening purposes in the early phase of disease, and thus can be a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization of conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data.Summary In this living systematic review we analyzed 98 data sets for performance of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs compared to RT-PCR. Best-performing tests achieved a sensitivity of 81.7%. Highest sensitivity was found in patients within seven days of symptom onset when NP swabs were utilized.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe study was supported by the Ministry of Science, Research and Arts of the State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany and internal funds from the Heidelberg University Hospital as well as grants from UK Department of International Development (DFID, recently replaced by FCMO), grants from World Health Organization (WHO), grants from Unitaid to Foundation of New Diagnostics (FIND). The corresponding author had access to all data at all time.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed. There were no IRB or ethics committee approvals required.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAll data is available upon request.Ag-RDTantigen rapid diagnostic testAN/MTanterior nasal or midturbinateARArubaBAL/TWbronchoalveolar lavage or throat washCIconfidence intervalCt-valuecycle threshold valueEREmergency RoomFINDdxFoundation for Innovative New DiagnosticsFPfalse positiveFNfalse negativeIFUinstructions for useLRTlower respiratory tractNsample sizeNPnasopharyngealOPoropharyngealPOCpoint of carePCprofessional-collectedRT-PCRreverse transcriptase polymerase chain reactionSCself-collectedTPtrue positiveTRtravelersTNtrue negativeUTUtrechtVTM/UTMviral or universal transport medium