ABSTRACT
Introduction Testing is critical to controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) that can be used at the point of care have the potential to increase access to COVID-19 testing, particularly in settings with limited laboratory capacity. This systematic review synthesized literature on specific use cases and performance of Ag-RDTs for detecting SARS-CoV-2, for the first comprehensive assessment of Ag-RDT use in real-world settings.
Methods We searched three databases (PubMed, EMBASE and medRxiv) up to 12 April 2021 for publications on Ag-RDT use for large-scale screening, irrespective of symptoms, and surveillance of COVID-19, excluding studies of only presumptive COVID-19 patients. We tabulated data on the study setting, populations, type of test, diagnostic performance and operational findings. We assessed risk of bias using QUADAS-2 and an adapted tool for prevalence studies.
Results From 4313 citations, 39 studies conducted in asymptomatic and symptomatic adults were included. Study sample sizes varied from 40 to >5 million. Of 39 studies, 37 (94.9%) investigated lateral flow Ag-RDTs and two (5.1%) investigated multiplex sandwich chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay Ag-RDTs. Six categories of testing (screening/surveillance) initiatives were identified: mass screening (n=13), targeted screening (n=11), healthcare entry testing (n=6), at-home testing (n=4), surveillance (n=4) and prevalence survey (n=1). Across studies, Ag-RDT sensitivity varied from 40% to 100%. Ag-RDTs were noted as convenient, easy-to-use and low cost, with a rapid turnaround time and high user acceptability. Risk of bias was generally low or unclear across the studies.
Conclusion This systematic review demonstrates the use of Ag-RDTs across a wide range of real-world settings for screening and surveillance of COVID-19 in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. Ag-RDTs were overall found to be easy-to-use, low cost and rapid tools, when consideration is given to their implementation and interpretation. The review was funded by FIND, the global alliance for diagnostics.
What is already known?
Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) have the potential to substantially improve access to timely testing for COVID-19 and are being deployed in a variety of settings around the world
While studies have investigated the diagnostic accuracy of Ag-RDTs, less is known about how and in what settings Ag-RDTs are being used around the world and their performance in these different settings
What are the new findings?
Ag-RDTs are being used in a diverse range of real-world settings for mass screening and surveillance of COVID-19 among symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals
The sensitivity of Ag-RDTs is variable - ranging from 40% to 100% - and in some cases low compared with RT-PCR, meaning that the value of testing with Ag-RDTs needs to be carefully evaluated for each use case taking into account factors such as the prevalence of COVID-19 in the population, the consequences of false positive or false negative results, and whether confirmatory testing of positive or negative Ag-RDT results with RT-PCR is required
Nevertheless, Ag-RDTs are generally reported as being easy to use and low cost, with a rapid turnaround time that enables timely identification of cases and subsequent interventions to prevent onward transmission of COVID-19
What do the new findings imply?
The evidence indicates that Ag-RDTs can be effectively deployed across a broad range of settings when consideration is given to how they are implemented and interpreted
The development of more detailed, evidence-based testing policies for Ag-RDTs will be important to help countries implement effective testing programmes and make the best use of Ag-RDTs as part of the COVID-19 testing toolkit
Competing Interest Statement
AT and SC are employed by FIND and SGS was employed by FIND at the time of the study. TU is a consultant for FIND. AA and NPP report a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for a project on COVID-19 testing unrelated to this study and copyright for a digital program for COVID-19 self-testing. FIND is a not-for-profit foundation that supports the evaluation of publicly prioritized tuberculosis assays and the implementation of WHO-approved (guidance and prequalification) assays using donor grants. FIND has product evaluation agreements with several private sector companies that design diagnostics for tuberculosis and other diseases. These agreements strictly define FIND's independence and neutrality with regard to these private sector companies.
Funding Statement
Funding for the study was provided by FIND; however, ultimate responsibility for opinions and conclusions in the article lies with the authors.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
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
The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
