Field performance evaluation of the PanBio rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay in an epidemic driven by 501Y.v2 (lineage B.1.351) in the Eastern Cape, South Africa - Akingba, Oluwakemi Laguda; Sprong, Kaitlin; Hardie, Diana Ruth (medRxiv, 2021)
Background South Africa was the African country most severely affected by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic during 2020, experiencing 2 waves of infection. During the first wave, diagnostics were largely based on reverse transcription-linked PCR (RT-PCR). The Abbott PanBio antigen test was deployed during the 2nd wave which was driven by emergence of the 501Y.v2 variant. At the time of evaluation in mid-November 2020, 501Y.v2 was the dominant circulating virus in Nelson Mandela Bay, in the Eastern Cape Province.Methods A prospective diagnostic evaluation study was undertaken, during a period of high community transmission, to evaluate the field performance of the PanBio antigen RTD. Testing was conducted at mobile community testing centres on 677 ambulant patients seeking SARS-CoV-2 testing. RT-PCR was performed on the original naso-pharyngeal antigen swabs to evaluate test performance.Results Of 146 RT-PCR positive individuals, 101 were RTD positive in the clinic. The antigen RTD had an overall sensitivity of 69.2% (95%CI 61.4, 75.8) and specificity of 99.0% (95%CI 98.8, 99.3) in this clinical context. Sensitivity was strongly dependent on the amount of virus in clinical samples, as reflected by the PCR cycle threshold (CT) value, with 100% detection in samples where the CT was <20, 96% with CT between 20-25, 89% with CT between 26-30 and 64% when CT was 31-35.Conclusions The assay reliably detected 501Y.v2 infections in ambulatory ill patients. Assay sensitivity was >90% in patients with high viral loads who are expected to be most infectious. Negative and positive predictive values were also >90%.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding Statementno funding was provided for this evaluation. it was performed as a method verification exercise by National health laboratory service in South AfricaAuthor 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:University of Cape Town human research ethics committee UCT HREC 862.2020All 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.Yesdata is available on request from corresponding authorCOVID-19Coronavirus disease 2019;CTcycle threshold;SARS-CoV-2severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2;RTDrapid test device;PCRpolymerase chain reaction;RT-PCRreverse transcription polymerase chain reaction;WHOworld health organisation;501Y.v2501Y variant 2;IQRinterquartile range;NPnasopharyngeal;GISAIDglobal initiative for sharing all influenza data;