%0 Journal Article %A Alhassan Abdul-Mumin %A Abdulai Abubakari %A Faith Agbozo %A Abass Abdul-Karim %A Benjamin Demah Nuertey %A Kareem Mumuni %A Anna-Katharina Heuschen %A Lisa Hennig %A Claudia M. Denkinger %A Olaf Müller %A Albrecht Jahn %T Field evaluation of specificity and sensitivity of a standard SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic test: A prospective study at a teaching hospital in Northern Ghana %D 2021 %R 10.1101/2021.06.03.21258300 %J medRxiv %P 2021.06.03.21258300 %X Background The testing capacity for SARS-CoV-2 in Africa is rather limited. Antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are a cheap and rapid alternative to reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests, but there is little data about their performance under real life conditions in tropical countries.Objective To evaluate the performance of a standard Ag-RDT in a population of a major hospital in northern Ghana.Methods Prospective, cross-sectional, blinded verification of the performance of the SD Biosensor Standard Q SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT under real life conditions in 135 symptomatic patients and 58 contacts of RT-PCR positives at Tamale Teaching Hospital in February 2021. Nasopharyngeal samples were taken under standard conditions and tested against RT-PCR in the hospital laboratory.Results 193 participants (median age 35 years, 109 male) were included into the study for which both RT-PCR test and Ag-RDT results were available. A total of 42 (22%) were RT-PCR positive. Of the 42 RT-PCR positives, 27 were Ag-RDT positive, resulting in a sensitivity of 64% (95% CI 49-79). Sensitivity among symptomatic patients was 58% (95% CI 38-78). 123 were identified Ag-RDT negatives of the 151 RT-PCR negatives, resulting in a specificity of 81% (95% CI 75-87).Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs appear to have a rather low sensitivity and particularly a low specificity under real life conditions in Africa. The role of existing Ag-RDTs in countries with high-temperature climates and limited resources still needs more data and discussion.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe study has received funding from the Gesellschaft fuer Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) in Germany.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:The evaluation protocol was approved by the Ethical Review Committee of the Tamale Teaching Hospital. The data used for the evaluation were routine data from the hospital services. Laboratory samples were anonymized and results could not be traced to individual participants. All participants provided verbal informed consent, and there were no refusals.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.YesThe datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. %U https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/09/17/2021.06.03.21258300.full.pdf