PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Kawser, Zannat AU - Hossain, Mohabbat AU - Suliman, Sara AU - Lockman, Shahin AU - Gitaka, Jesse AU - Bandawe, Gama AU - Rahmat, Redwan AU - Hasan, Imrul AU - Siddik, Abu Bakar AU - Afrad, Mokibul Hassan AU - Rahman, Mohammed Ziaur AU - Miller, Glenn AU - Walt, David R. AU - Ivers, Louise C. AU - LaRocque, Regina C. AU - Harris, Jason B. AU - Qadri, Firdausi TI - An assessment of a rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen test in Bangladesh AID - 10.1101/2021.10.05.21264551 DP - 2021 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2021.10.05.21264551 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/10/07/2021.10.05.21264551.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/10/07/2021.10.05.21264551.full AB - Early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection is crucial to prevent the spread of the virus. In this study, we evaluated the performance of a commercial rapid antigen detection test, BD Veritor, and compared this (and another rapid test, Standard Q) against a gold-standard of nasopharyngeal (NP) swab tested by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in prospectively-recruited adults in Dhaka, Bangladesh. We compared the sensitivity and specificity of the two rapid antigen tests against RT-PCR results in 130 symptomatic and 130 asymptomatic adults. In addition, we evaluated the suitability and ease-of-use of the BD Veritor test in a subsample of study participants (n=42) and implementers (n=5). The sensitivity of the BD Veritor rapid antigen test was 70% in symptomatic (95% confidence interval [CI]: 51-85%) and 87% (95% CI: 69-96%) in asymptomatic individuals with positive SARSCoV-2 RT-PCR, for overall sensitivity of 78% (95% CI: 66-88%). The sensitivity of the Standard Q rapid antigen test was 63% (95% CI: 44-80%) in symptomatic and 73% (95% CI: 54-87%) in asymptomatic individuals. One false positive in BD Veritor test (specificity 99.5) and no false positive in Standard Q tests were observed (specificity 100%). The BD Veritor rapid antigen test was 78% sensitive when compared with RT-PCR irrespective of the cycle threshold (Ct) levels in this evaluation in Bangladesh. The implementation evaluation data showed good acceptability in the field settings. This warrants large field evaluation as well as use of the rapid antigen test for quick assessment of SARS-CoV-2 for containment of epidemics in the country.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementWe gratefully acknowledge the support of Mass General Brigham (MGB) Center for COVID Innovation for providing the BD Veritor plus analyzer antigen detection kits and the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) for facilitation of the work. We thank the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for support to icddr,b investigators. icddr,b is grateful to the Governments of Bangladesh, Canada, Sweden, and the United Kingdom for providing core/unrestricted support. The overall support of Fondation Merieux to ideSHi is acknowledeged. We would like to express our gratitude to the participants for taking part and the field site staff of ideSHi for their effort to accomplish the work.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 study was approved by the Research Review Committee (RRC) and Ethical Review Committee (ERC) of icddr,b (Protocol no: PR- 20042)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.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 the data related to this manuscript are confidential. Hence, we are not able to make it public until our manuscript gets published in a peer reviewed journal.