Back

Diagnostic Performance of Rapid Antigen Testing for SARS-CoV-2: The COVid-19 AntiGen (COVAG) Extension study

Wertenauer, C.; Dressel, A.; Wieland, E.; Wertenauer, H.-J.; Braitmaier, H.; Straub, A.; Luetzner, N.; Maerz, W.

2023-11-29 infectious diseases
10.1101/2023.11.29.23299183 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundRapid antigen tests (RATs) for SARS-CoV-2 have been used to combat the still ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. This study is the extension of the COVAG study originally performed from February 1 to March 31, 2021. We compared two RATs, the Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (Abbott) and the SD Biosensor Q SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche), against RT-PCR on the foil of new variants. MethodsWe included 888 all-comers at a diagnostic center between October 20, 2021, and March 18, 2022. RT-PCR-positive samples with a Ct value [≤] 32 were examined for SARS-CoV-2 variants. FindingsThe sensitivity of the Abbott-RAT and Roche-RAT were 65% and 67%, respectively. For both RATs, lower Ct values were significantly correlated with higher sensitivity. For samples with Ct values [≤] 25, the sensitivities of the Roche-RAT and of the Abbott-RAT were 96% and 95%, for Ct values 25-30 both were 19%, and for Ct values [≥] 30 they were 6% and 2%, respectively. The RATs had substantially higher sensitivities in symptomatic than asymptomatic participants (76, 77%, vs. 29, 31%, for Abbott-RAT, Roche-RAT, respectively) and in participants referred to testing by their primary care physician (84%, 85%) compared to participants who sought testing due to referral by the health department (55%, 58%) or a warning by the Corona-Warn-App (49%, 49%). In persons with self-reported previous Covid-19 sensitivities were markedly lower than in patients without previous Covid-19: 27% vs. 75% for Roche-RAT and 27% vs. 73% for Abbott-RAT. Depending on the vaccination status, the sensitivity of the RATs is 67.6%, 61.5% and 70.6% for non-vaccinated, vaccinated and boostered participants, respectively. For the considered subpopulation of 888 participants, we find no significant correlation between vaccination status and sensitivity. The Omicron variant was detected with a sensitivity of 94% and 92%, the delta variant with a sensitivity of 80% and 80% for Abbott-RAT and Roche-RAT, respectively. This difference is attributable to the lower Ct values of the Omicron samples compared to the Delta samples. When adjusted for the Ct value, a multivariate logistic regression did not show a significant difference between Omicron and Delta. In terms of sensitivity, we found no significant difference between the wild-type and the Omicron and Delta variants, but a significantly lower sensitivity to the alpha variant compared to the other variants. For a Ct value [≤] 25 the sensitivities were 95.2% and 96.0% for the Abbott-RAT and the Roche-RAT, respectively (Table 4). For a Ct value of 25-30 both RATs had a sensitivity of 18.8%. For a Ct value of 30-32, the sensitivities were 0.0% and 7.1% respectively, for Ct values [≥]32 the sensitivities were 3.0% and 6.0% for Abbott-RAT and Roche-RAT, respectively. The specificities were >99% overall. Interpretation: The sensitivity of the RATs for asymptomatic carriers is unsatisfactory questioning their use for screening. When used in symptomatic patients or when requested by a primary care physician the sensitivities were higher. Our study does not suggest that the vaccination status influences the sensitivity of RATs.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 11%
17.4%
2
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.8%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 24%
4.8%
4
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.3%
5
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
6
Eurosurveillance
80 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
7
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
8
Journal of Clinical Virology
62 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
9
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.1%
10
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.1%
50% of probability mass above
11
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
12
Epidemiology and Infection
84 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
13
Journal of Medical Virology
137 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
14
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
36 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
15
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.9%
16
Infectious Diseases
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
17
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
18
Journal of Clinical Virology Plus
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
19
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
20
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
21
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
22
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
23
Infectious Diseases and Therapy
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.2%
24
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
25
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.2%
26
Vaccines
196 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
27
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
28
Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
29
Journal of Medical Microbiology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
30
JAMA
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%