Real-world clinical performance of commercial SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests in suspected COVID-19: A systematic meta-analysis of available data as per November 20, 2020 - Hayer, Johannes; Kasapic, Dusanka; Zemmrich, Claudia (medRxiv, 2020)
Background Immunochromatographic rapid antigen tests (RATs) emerged onto the COVID-19 pandemic testing landscape to aid in the rapid diagnosis of people with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. RATs are particularly useful where RT-PCR is not immediately available and symptoms suggestive of a high viral load and infectiousness are assumed. Several lateral flow immunoassays have been authorized for use under EUA and/or the CE mark, presenting varying overall clinical performance data generated by the manufacturer or by independent investigators. To compare the real-world clinical performance of commercially available rapid chromatographic immunoassays intended for the qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2, we performed a systematic meta-analysis of published data.Methods We searched the MEDLINE®, Embase, BIOSIS and Derwent Drug File (ProQuest)for manufacturer-independent prospective clinical performance studies comparing SARS-CoV-2 RATs and RT-PCR assays. Only studies on lateral flow assays not needing a separate reader for retrieving the result were included, if data were available on viral load, patients’ symptom status, sample type, and PCR assay used. For better data comparability, recalculation of the studies’ single performance data confidence intervals using the exact Clopper–Pearson method was applied.Results We could include 19 studies (ten peer-reviewed) presenting detailed clinical performance data on 11,209 samples with 2449 RT-PCR-positives out of study prevalence rates between 1.9–100 % and between 50– 100% symptomatic samples. Four studies directly compared two to three different RATs and 15 studies compared one RAT to RT-PCR. Overall specificity ranged, with one test outlier, between 92.4% (87.4– 95.9) and 100% (99.7–100), and overall clinical sensitivity varied between 28.9% (16.4–44.3) and 98.3% (91.1–99.7), depending on assay, population characteristics, viral load, and symptom status. Sensitivity in high-viral-load samples (cycle threshold <=25) showed a considerable heterogeneity among the assays ranging from 66.7% to 100%.Conclusion Only two RATs offered sufficient manufacturer-independent, real-world performance data supporting use for the detection of current SARS-CoV-2 infection in symptomatic or high-viral-load patient populations. Reliable positive predictive values require testing of symptomatic patients or asymptomatic individuals only in case of a high pre-test probability. If RATs are used for screening of asymptomatic cases in low-prevalence scenarios, a lower positive predictive value of the result has to be considered.Competing Interest StatementAll authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare support from Roche Diagnostics for the submitted work. Johannes Hayer and Dusanka Kasapic are employees of Roche Diagnostics. Claudia Zemmrich works as a freelance contractor for Roche Diagnostics.Funding StatementThis work was supported by Roche Diagnostics.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 data supporting this meta-analysis are from previously reported studies each reporting their own IRB approvals as published.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 data supporting this meta-analysis are from previously reported studies and datasets which have been cited. The processed data are available from the corresponding author upon request.