Comparison of the analytical and clinical sensitivity of thirty-four rapid antigen tests with the most prevalent SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK
Byrne, R. L.; Aljayyoussi, G.; Greenland - Bews, C.; Kontogianni, K.; Wooding, D.; Williams, C. T.; de Vos, M.; Body, R.; Adams, E. R.; Escadafel, C.; Edwards, T. R.; Cubas Atienzar, A. I.
Show abstract
Antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) have become a central pillar for the management of COVID-19 worldwide due to their speed and ease of use, and are now being developed for use in other emerging outbreaks. Like other viruses, SARS-CoV-2 is subject to rapid mutation as it spreads, and new Variants of Concern (VOCs) emerge frequently, posing a significant challenge for the reliability of Ag-RDTs designed against the original strain to detect newer, highly mutated variants. It is therefore important that the performance of Ag-RDTs is regularly evaluated, particularly in outbreak scenarios where rapid diagnostics are key to limiting disease spread. Here, we present a comprehensive evaluation of the analytical and clinical sensitivity of 34 commercially available Ag-RDTs with five VOCs, all of which were highly prevalent in the UK at various times between 2019 and 2023. This evaluation highlights the importance of regular evaluation of Ag-RDT performance, with several Ag-RDTs demonstrating reduced performance with some VOCs. This study also highlights the challenges that arise when different organisations lack a consensus approval threshold, causing confusion over Ag-RDT performance and making it difficult to properly evaluate individual tests. We conclude that regular performance evaluation through our proposed pipeline combined with a broad consensus approval threshold across global organisations is essential to maintaining the effectiveness of Ag-RDTs as a disease management tool during outbreaks. ImportanceAntigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) came to global prominence during the COVID-19 pandemic, where they offered a quick and simple at home diagnostic which could be used to manage disease spread. A major ongoing challenge for the broad use of Ag-RDTs is the speed at which new SARS-CoV-2 variants emerge, each of which has the potential to reduce the performance of the available Ag-RDTs. As Ag-RDTs are explored for use in other viral disease outbreaks, pipelines for the regular evaluation of test performance are essential for ensuring that Ag-RDTs can be employed effectively. Here, we have developed a robust pipeline for the large-scale evaluation of commercially available Ag-RDTs against several major SARS-CoV-2 variants, which can be adapted and applied to other emerging outbreaks to ensure test performance is maintained as a virus evolves.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A Reagent and Virus Benchmarking Panel for a Uniform Analytical Performance Assessment of N Antigen–Based Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19 95%
- Investigating sensitivity of nasal or throat (ISNOT): A combination of both swabs increases sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests 95%
- Generation of false positive SARS-CoV-2 antigen results with testing conditions outside manufacturer recommendations: A scientific approach to pandemic misinformation 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- A highly effective reverse-transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) assay for the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection 96%
- Performance characteristics of five antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) for SARS-CoV-2 asymptomatic infection: a head-to-head benchmark comparison 94%
- Comparison between mid-nasal swabs and buccal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection in mild COVID-19 patients 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Analytical and Clinical Comparison of Three Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Detection 95%
- Performance evaluation of the BD SARS-CoV-2 reagents for the BD MAX™ system 94%
- Comparison of Commercially Available and Laboratory Developed Assays for in vitro Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Clinical Laboratories 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Diagnostic accuracy of two commercial SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-detecting rapid tests at the point of care in community-based testing centers 95%
- From “don, doff, and discard” to “don, doff, and decontaminate” – determination of filtering facepiece respirator and surgical mask integrity and inactivation of a SARS-CoV-2 surrogate and a small non-enveloped virus following multiple-cycles of vaporised hydrogen peroxide, ultraviolet germicidal irradiation, and dry heat decontamination 94%
- Analytical performance of 17 commercially available point-of-care tests for CRP to support patient management at lower levels of the health system 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Impaired performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid tests at elevated temperatures 96%
- Is the glass half full? Extraction-free RT-LAMP to detect SARS-CoV-2 is less sensitive but highly specific compared to standard RT-PCR in 101 samples 95%
- Handling and accuracy of four rapid antigen tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.