Impaired performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests at elevated and low temperatures

An Evaluation of the Sensitivity and Specificity of Three COVID-19 Rapid Immunochromatographic Test Kits Compared to Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase-Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) Among Clinical Samples

Background and objective The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has imposed a significant burden on healthcare systems worldwide. This highlights the need for simple, rapid, and affordable diagnostic tests that can serve as alternatives to the existing costly and demanding polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay, especially in resource-limited countries like Ghana. In light of this, we aimed to assess the diagnostic efficacy of three COVID-19 rapid immunochromatographic antigen test kits vs. real-time reverse transcriptase-PCR (rRT-PCR). Methods This study evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of three COVID-19 rapid immunochromatographic antigen test kits: DG Rapid, SD Rapid, and SS Rapid. They were compared with the gold standard RT-PCR for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleocapsid antigen in 75 randomly selected archived nasopharyngeal samples. Results Of the 75 samples tested, 38 (50.7%) were positive and 37 (49.3%) were negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by rRT-PCR assay. No false positives were recorded. On the other hand, the DG Rapid kit detected 30 (78.9%) true positives and eight (21.1%) false negatives. SD Rapid kit detected 28 (73.7%) true positives and 10 (26.3%) false negatives, while the SS Rapid kit detected 19 (50.0%) true positives and 19 (50.0%) false negatives. While the specificity of each test kit was 100% (95% CI), the sensitivity of the DG Rapid, SD Rapid, and SS Rapid kits was 79%, 74%, and 50% (95% CI), respectively. Higher sensitivities were recorded among samples with cycle threshold (Ct) values <29.99 for each kit. Also, the DG Rapid kit demonstrated 79% excellent agreement with rRT-PCR, while the SD Rapid and SS Rapid kits demonstrated good agreement with rRT-PCR with 73% and 50% Cohen's kappa values, respectively. Conclusions Based on our findings, DG Rapid and SD Rapid kits are reliable alternatives to rRT-PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, especially in resource-limited settings like Ghana.

[From the practice of monitoring SARS-CoV-2 test sites in the city of Cologne]

In spring 2021, a law for the nationwide opening of test centers in Germany was passed. The local health department fulfilled the task of monitoring the test centers that subsequently opened throughout Cologne regarding the infectious and hygienic risks. Inspections were carried out using structured checklists. A retrospect evaluation of the identified deficiencies was run for the period between March 15 and July 31, 2021. In 84% of the cases, hygienic deficiencies were found when the test sites were inspected for the first time. 35% of the test sites were closed immediately, most of them temporarily. These first results provide information on frequent and important hygienic problems of the rapid set up of test sites and important advice for avoiding those and thus protecting employees and test persons.

Using geographic rescue time contours, point-of-care strategies, and spatial care paths to prepare island communities for global warming, rising oceans, and weather disasters

OBJECTIVES

To perform geographic contour analysis of sea and land ambulance rescue times in an archipelago subject to super typhoons; to design point-of-care testing strategies for medical emergencies and weather disasters made more intense by global warming and rising oceans; and to assess needs for prehospital testing on spatial care paths that accelerate decision making, increase efficiency, improve outcomes, and enhance standards of care in island nations.

METHODS

We performed needs assessments, inspected healthcare facilities, and collected ambulance rescue times from professionals in the Bantayan Archipelago, Philippines. We mapped sea/land ambulance rescue routes and time contours. To reveal gaps, we statistically compared the fastest and slowest patient rescue times from islands/islets and barangays to the District Hospital on Bantayan Island. We developed spatial care paths (the fastest routes to care) for acute myocardial infarction, community care, and infectious diseases. We generated a compendium of prehospital diagnostic testing and integrated outcomes evidence, diagnostic needs, and public health goals to recommend point-of-care strategies that build geographic health resilience.

RESULTS

We observed limited access to COVID-19 assays, absence of blood gas/pH testing for critical care support, and spatial gaps in land and airborne rescues that worsened during inclement weather and sea swells. Mean paired differences (slowest-fastest) in ambulance rescue times to the District Hospital for both islands and barangays were significant (P < 0.0001). Spatial care path analysis showed where point-of-care cardiac troponin testing should be implemented for expedited care of acute myocardial infarction. Geospatial strengths comprised distributed primary care that can be facilitated by point-of-care testing, logical interisland transfers for which decision making and triage could be accelerated with onboard diagnostics, and healthcare networks amenable to medical advances in prehospital testing that accelerate treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Point-of-care testing should be positioned upstream close to homes and island populations that have prolonged rescue time contours. Geospatially optimized point-of-need diagnostics and distributed prehospital testing have high potential to improve outcomes. These improvements will potentially decrease disparities in mortality among archipelago versus urban dwellers, help improve island public health, and enhance resilience for increasingly adverse and frequent climate change weather disasters that impact vulnerable coastal areas. [350 words].

Stability of the COVID-19 At-Home Test after Exposure to Extreme Temperatures

To ensure sufficient sensitivity and specificity of lateral flow tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen, manufacturers recommend appropriate conditions for storage, including a temperature range. However, there is a high likelihood that kits will be exposed to temperatures outside of this range during transit to some regions. In this prospective study, we evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of the COVID-19 At-Home Test kits (manufactured by SD Biosensor/distributed by Roche) currently being delivered through a US Government program, after exposure to a range of hot and cold temperatures. COVID-19 At-Home Test kits were stored at up to 5 different temperatures: frozen (-4.0°F [-20.0°C]), refrigerated (42.8°F [6.0°C]), room temperature (68.0°F [20.0°C]), warm (98.0°F [36.7°C]), and excessive heat (118.0 to 126.0°F [47.8 to 52.2°C]) for 24 h and left at room temperature for 60, 90, or 120 min before use. Test kits were also stored for 48 h, 1 week, or 2 weeks in frozen, warm, and excessive heat conditions, and left for 60 or 120 min before use. In each scenario (storage temperature + time at room temperature), 5 positive and 5 negative control samples were applied, and line intensity was recorded using a color scale (0 to 100%). In every scenario, every positive sample resulted in strong signal intensity (≥26%), and every negative sample returned a negative result. This study suggests that exposure of up to 2 weeks to extreme temperatures, such as those that may occur in transit, does not impact the stability of the COVID-19 At-Home Test. IMPORTANCE COVID-19 At-Home Test kits may be exposed to extreme temperatures in transit, which may impact test sensitivity and specificity. We investigated assay ability to identify SARS-CoV-2 antigen after 24 h to 2 weeks in frozen, refrigerated, room temperature, warm, or excessive heat conditions. The assay correctly identified all positive and negative samples in all scenarios. This study suggests that exposure of up to 2 weeks to extreme temperatures, such as those that may occur in transit, does not impact the stability of the COVID-19 At-Home Test.

Laboratory Evaluation Links Some False-Positive COVID-19 Antigen Test Results Observed in a Field Study to a Specific Lot of Test Strips

During a household-transmission field study using COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT), a common test strip lot was identified among 3 participants with false-positive results. In blinded laboratory evaluation, this lot exhibited a significantly higher false-positive rate than other lots. Because a positive Ag-RDT result often prompts action, reducing lot-specific false positives can maintain confidence and actionability of true-positive Ag-RDT results.

A Multicenter Clinical Diagnostic Accuracy Study of SureStatus, an Affordable, WHO Emergency Use-Listed, Rapid, Point-Of-Care Antigen-Detecting Diagnostic Test for SARS-CoV-2

Access to reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) testing, the gold standard for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection, is limited throughout the world, due to restricted resources, available infrastructure, and high costs. Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) overcome some of these barriers, but independent clinical validations in settings of intended use are scarce. To inform the World Health Organization's (WHO) emergency use listing (EUL) procedure and ensure affordable, high-quality Ag-RDTs, we assessed the performance and ease of use of the SureStatus for SARS-CoV-2. For this prospective, multicenter diagnostic accuracy study, we recruited unvaccinated participants with presumed SARS-CoV-2 infection in India and Germany from December 2020 to March 2021, when the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant was predominantly circulating. Paired swabs were performed for (i) routine clinical RT-PCR testing (sampling was either nasopharyngeal [NP] or combined NP and oropharyngeal [NP/OP]) and (ii) Ag-RDT (sampling was NP). Performance of the Ag-RDT was compared to RT-PCR overall and by predefined subgroups, e.g., cycle threshold (CT) value, symptoms, and days from symptom onset. To understand the usability, a system usability scale (SUS) questionnaire and ease-of-use (EoU) assessment were performed. A total of 1,119 participants were included in the analysis, of whom 205 (18.3%) were RT-PCR positive. SureStatus detected 169 out of 205 RT-PCR-positive participants, reporting a sensitivity of 82.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 76.6% to 87.1%) and a specificity of 98.5% (95% CI: 97.4% to 99.1%). In the first 7 days post-symptom onset, the sensitivity was 90.7% (95% CI: 83.5% to 94.9%), when CT values were low and viral loads were high. The test was characterized as easy to use (SUS, 85/100) and considered suitable for point-of-care settings, although quality concerns were raised due to visibly contaminated packaging of swabs included in the test kits. The SureStatus diagnostic test can be considered a reliable test during the first week of SARS-CoV-2 infection, with high sensitivity in combination with excellent usability. IMPORTANCE Our manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study assessed clinical performance in participants presumed to have a SARS-CoV-2 infection at three study sites in two countries. We assessed the accuracy overall and in predefined subgroups (CT values and symptom duration). SureStatus performed with high sensitivity. Its sensitivity was particularly high in the first 3 days after symptom onset and when CT values were low (i.e., the viral load was high). The system usability and ease-of-use assessment complements the accuracy assessment of the test and highlights critical factors to facilitate the widespread use of SureStatus in point-of-care settings. The high sensitivity demonstrated by the evaluated Ag-RDT within the first days of symptoms, when most transmission occurs, supports the role of Ag-RDTs for public health-relevant screening. Evidence from this study was used to inform the World Health Organization Emergency Use Listing procedure.

Role of population and test characteristics in antigen-based SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, Czechia, August to November 2021

BackgroundAnalyses of diagnostic performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (AG-RDTs) based on long-term data, population subgroups and many AG-RDT types are scarce.AimWe aimed to analyse sensitivity and specificity of AG-RDTs for subgroups based on age, incidence, sample type, reason for test, symptoms, vaccination status and the AG-RDT's presence on approved lists.MethodsWe included AG-RDT results registered in Czechia's Information System for Infectious Diseases between August and November 2021. Subpopulations were analysed based on 346,000 test results for which a confirmatory PCR test was recorded ≤ 3 days after the AG-RDT; 38 AG-RDTs with more than 100 PCR-positive and 300 PCR-negative samples were individually evaluated.ResultsAverage sensitivity and specificity were 72.4% and 96.7%, respectively. We recorded lower sensitivity for age groups 0-12 (65.5%) and 13-18 years (65.3%). The sensitivity level rose with increasing SARS-CoV-2 incidence from 66.0% to 76.7%. Nasopharyngeal samples had the highest sensitivity and saliva the lowest. Sensitivity for preventive reasons was 63.6% vs 86.1% when testing for suspected infection. Sensitivity was 84.8% when one or more symptoms were reported compared with 57.1% for no symptoms. Vaccination was associated with a 4.2% higher sensitivity. Significantly higher sensitivity levels pertained to AG-RDTs on the World Health Organization Emergency Use List (WHO EUL), European Union Common List and the list of the United Kingdom's Department of Health and Social Care.ConclusionAG-RDTs from approved lists should be considered, especially in situations associated with lower viral load. Results are limited to SARS-CoV-2 delta variant.

Transforming Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Precision Public Health: Open Guidelines for Manufacturers and Users

BACKGROUND

Precision public health (PPH) can maximize impact by targeting surveillance and interventions by temporal, spatial, and epidemiological characteristics. Although rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have enabled ubiquitous point-of-care testing in low-resource settings, their impact has been less than anticipated, owing in part to lack of features to streamline data capture and analysis.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to transform the RDT into a tool for PPH by defining information and data axioms and an information utilization index (IUI); identifying design features to maximize the IUI; and producing open guidelines (OGs) for modular RDT features that enable links with digital health tools to create an RDT-OG system.

METHODS

We reviewed published papers and conducted a survey with experts or users of RDTs in the sectors of technology, manufacturing, and deployment to define features and axioms for information utilization. We developed an IUI, ranging from 0% to 100%, and calculated this index for 33 World Health Organization-prequalified RDTs. RDT-OG specifications were developed to maximize the IUI; the feasibility and specifications were assessed through developing malaria and COVID-19 RDTs based on OGs for use in Kenya and Indonesia.

RESULTS

The survey respondents (n=33) included 16 researchers, 7 technologists, 3 manufacturers, 2 doctors or nurses, and 5 other users. They were most concerned about the proper use of RDTs (30/33, 91%), their interpretation (28/33, 85%), and reliability (26/33, 79%), and were confident that smartphone-based RDT readers could address some reliability concerns (28/33, 85%), and that readers were more important for complex or multiplex RDTs (33/33, 100%). The IUI of prequalified RDTs ranged from 13% to 75% (median 33%). In contrast, the IUI for an RDT-OG prototype was 91%. The RDT open guideline system that was developed was shown to be feasible by (1) creating a reference RDT-OG prototype; (2) implementing its features and capabilities on a smartphone RDT reader, cloud information system, and Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources; and (3) analyzing the potential public health impact of RDT-OG integration with laboratory, surveillance, and vital statistics systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Policy makers and manufacturers can define, adopt, and synergize with RDT-OGs and digital health initiatives. The RDT-OG approach could enable real-time diagnostic and epidemiological monitoring with adaptive interventions to facilitate control or elimination of current and emerging diseases through PPH.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection

BACKGROUND

Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection would be a useful tool to help manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Testing strategies that use rapid antigen tests to detect current infection have the potential to increase access to testing, speed detection of infection, and inform clinical and public health management decisions to reduce transmission. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included setting and indication for testing, assay format, sample site, viral load, age, timing of test, and study design.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) on 08 March 2021. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies of people with either suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, known SARS-CoV-2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen tests. We included evaluations of single applications of a test (one test result reported per person) and evaluations of serial testing (repeated antigen testing over time). Reference standards for presence or absence of infection were any laboratory-based molecular test (primarily reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)) or pre-pandemic respiratory sample.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard screening procedures with three people. Two people independently carried out quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and extracted study results. Other study characteristics were extracted by one review author and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test, and pooled data using the bivariate model. We investigated heterogeneity by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 155 study cohorts (described in 166 study reports, with 24 as preprints). The main results relate to 152 evaluations of single test applications including 100,462 unique samples (16,822 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly conducted in Europe (101/152, 66%), and evaluated 49 different commercial antigen assays. Only 23 studies compared two or more brands of test. Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (40, 26%); interpretation of the index test (6, 4%); weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection (119, 78%); and participant flow and timing 41 (27%). Characteristics of participants (45, 30%) and index test delivery (47, 31%) differed from the way in which and in whom the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (91%) used a single RT-PCR result to define presence or absence of infection. The 152 studies of single test applications reported 228 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies, with consistently high specificities. Average sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (73.0%, 95% CI 69.3% to 76.4%; 109 evaluations; 50,574 samples, 11,662 cases) compared to asymptomatic participants (54.7%, 95% CI 47.7% to 61.6%; 50 evaluations; 40,956 samples, 2641 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (80.9%, 95% CI 76.9% to 84.4%; 30 evaluations, 2408 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (53.8%, 95% CI 48.0% to 59.6%; 40 evaluations, 1119 cases). For those who were asymptomatic at the time of testing, sensitivity was higher when an epidemiological exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was suspected (64.3%, 95% CI 54.6% to 73.0%; 16 evaluations; 7677 samples, 703 cases) compared to where COVID-19 testing was reported to be widely available to anyone on presentation for testing (49.6%, 95% CI 42.1% to 57.1%; 26 evaluations; 31,904 samples, 1758 cases). Average specificity was similarly high for symptomatic (99.1%) or asymptomatic (99.7%) participants. We observed a steady decline in summary sensitivities as measures of sample viral load decreased. Sensitivity varied between brands. When tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, average sensitivities by brand ranged from 34.3% to 91.3% in symptomatic participants (20 assays with eligible data) and from 28.6% to 77.8% for asymptomatic participants (12 assays). For symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities for seven assays were 80% or more (meeting acceptable criteria set by the World Health Organization (WHO)). The WHO acceptable performance criterion of 97% specificity was met by 17 of 20 assays when tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, 12 of which demonstrated specificities above 99%. For asymptomatic participants the sensitivities of only two assays approached but did not meet WHO acceptable performance standards in one study each; specificities for asymptomatic participants were in a similar range to those observed for symptomatic people. At 5% prevalence using summary data in symptomatic people during the first week after symptom onset, the positive predictive value (PPV) of 89% means that 1 in 10 positive results will be a false positive, and around 1 in 5 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence using summary data for asymptomatic people, where testing was widely available and where epidemiological exposure to COVID-19 was suspected, resulting PPVs would be 38% to 52%, meaning that between 2 in 5 and 1 in 2 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. Assays that meet appropriate performance standards, such as those set by WHO, could replace laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. However, they are more suitable for use as triage to RT-PCR testing. The variable sensitivity of antigen tests means that people who test negative may still be infected. Many commercially available rapid antigen tests have not been evaluated in independent validation studies. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts has increased, however sensitivity is lower and there is a paucity of evidence for testing in different settings. Questions remain about the use of antigen test-based repeat testing strategies. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of screening programmes at reducing transmission of infection, whether mass screening or targeted approaches including schools, healthcare setting and traveller screening.

An updated review of SARS-CoV-2 detection methods in the context of a novel coronavirus pandemic

The World Health Organization has reported approximately 430 million confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), worldwide, including nearly 6 million deaths, since its initial appearance in China in 2019. While the number of diagnosed cases continues to increase, the need for technologies that can accurately and rapidly detect SARS-CoV-2 virus infection at early phases continues to grow, and the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) has licensed emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for virtually hundreds of diagnostic tests based on nucleic acid molecules and antigen-antibody serology assays. Among them, the quantitative real-time reverse transcription PCR (qRT-PCR) assay is considered the gold standard for early phase virus detection. Unfortunately, qRT-PCR still suffers from disadvantages such as the complex test process and the occurrence of false negatives; therefore, new nucleic acid detection devices and serological testing technologies are being developed. However, because of the emergence of strongly infectious mutants of the new coronavirus, such as Alpha (B.1.1.7), Delta (B.1.617.2), and Omicron (B.1.1.529), the need for the specific detection of mutant strains is also increasing. Therefore, this article reviews nucleic acid- and antigen-antibody-based serological assays, and compares the performance of some of the most recent FDA-approved and literature-reported assays and associated kits for the specific testing of new coronavirus variants.

Rapid Antigen Assays for SARS-CoV-2: Promise and Peril

Though rapid antigen tests have historically problematic performance characteristics for the diagnosis of respiratory viral infections such as influenza, they have attained an unprecedented level of use in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ease of use and scalability of rapid antigen tests has facilitated a democratization and scale of testing beyond anything reasonably achievable by traditional laboratory-based testing. In this chapter, we discuss the performance characteristics of rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 detection and their application to non-traditional uses beyond clinical diagnostic testing.

Clinical Accuracy of Instrument-Read SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests (Ag-IRRDTs)

This systematic review (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021282476) aims to collect and analyse current evidence on real-world performance based on clinical accuracy of instrument-read rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-IRRDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 identification. We used PRISMA Checklist and searched databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-IRRDTs as of 30 September 2021, and included 40 independent clinical studies resulting in 48 Ag-IRRDT datasets with 137,770 samples. Across all datasets, pooled Ag-IRRDT sensitivity was 67.1% (95% CI: 65.9%-68.3%) and specificity was 99.4% with a tight CI. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-IRRDTs did not demonstrate a significant superiority over SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests which do not require a reader instrument, even in the case where surveillance and screening datasets were excluded from the analysis. Nevertheless, they provide connectivity advantages and remove operator interface (in results-reading) issues. The lower sensitivity of certain brands of Ag-IRRDTs can be overcome in high prevalence areas with high frequency of testing. New SARS-CoV-2 variants are major concern for current and future diagnostic performance of these tests.

Rapid comparative evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care antigen tests

Purpose

The objective of this study was to develop a scalable approach for direct comparison of the analytical sensitivities of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antigen point-of-care tests (AgPOCTs) to rapidly identify poor-performing products.

Methods

We present a methodology for quick assessment of the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 AgPOCTs suitable for quality evaluation of many different products. We established reference samples with high, medium, and low SARS-CoV-2 viral loads along with a SARS-CoV-2 negative control sample. Test samples were used to semi-quantitatively assess the analytical sensitivities of 32 different commercial AgPOCTs in a head-to-head comparison.

Results

Among 32 SARS-CoV-2 AgPOCTs tested, we observe sensitivity differences across a broad range of viral loads (9.8 × 10⁸ to 1.8 × 10⁵ SARS-CoV-2 genome copies per ml). 23 AgPOCTs detected the Ct25 test sample (1.6 × 10⁶ copies/ml), while only five tests detected the Ct28 test sample (1.8 × 10⁵ copies/ml). In the low-range of analytical sensitivity, we found three saliva spit tests only delivering positive results for the Ct21 sample (2.7 × 10⁷ copies/ml). Comparison with published data supports our AgPOCT ranking. Importantly, we identified an AgPOCT widely offered, which did not reliably recognize the sample with the highest viral load (Ct16 test sample with 9.8 × 10⁸ copies/ml) leading to serious doubts about its usefulness in SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics.

Conclusion

The results show that the rapid sensitivity assessment procedure presented here provides useful estimations on the analytical sensitivities of 32 AgPOCTs and identified a widely-spread AgPOCT with concerningly low sensitivity.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s15010-022-01810-1.

An olfactory self-test effectively screens for COVID-19

Background

Key to curtailing the COVID-19 pandemic are wide-scale screening strategies. An ideal screen is one that would not rely on transporting, distributing, and collecting physical specimens. Given the olfactory impairment associated with COVID-19, we developed a perceptual measure of olfaction that relies on smelling household odorants and rating them online.

Methods

Each participant was instructed to select 5 household items, and rate their perceived odor pleasantness and intensity using an online visual analogue scale. We used this data to assign an olfactory perceptual fingerprint, a value that reflects the perceived difference between odorants. We tested the performance of this real-time tool in a total of 13,484 participants (462 COVID-19 positive) from 134 countries who provided 178,820 perceptual ratings of 60 different household odorants.

Results

We observe that olfactory ratings are indicative of COVID-19 status in a country, significantly correlating with national infection rates over time. More importantly, we observe indicative power at the individual level (79% sensitivity and 87% specificity). Critically, this olfactory screen remains effective in participants with COVID-19 but without symptoms, and in participants with symptoms but without COVID-19.

Conclusions

The current odorant-based olfactory screen adds a component to online symptom-checkers, to potentially provide an added first line of defense that can help fight disease progression at the population level. The data derived from this tool may allow better understanding of the link between COVID-19 and olfaction.

Performance Evaluation of Lateral Flow Assays for Coronavirus Disease-19 Serology

The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), has undoubtedly resulted in significant morbidities, mortalities, and economic disruptions across the globe. Affordable and scalable tools to monitor the transmission dynamics of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the longevity of induced antibodies will be paramount to monitor and control the pandemic as multiple waves continue to rage in many countries. Serologic assays detect humoral responses to the virus, to determine seroprevalence in target populations, or induction of antibodies at the individual level following either natural infection or vaccination. With multiple vaccines rolling out globally, serologic assays to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies will be important tools to monitor the development of herd immunity. To address this need, serologic lateral flow assays (LFAs), which can be easily implemented for both population surveillance and home use, will be vital to monitor the evolution of the pandemic and inform containment measures. Such assays are particularly important for monitoring the transmission dynamics and durability of immunity generated by natural infections and vaccination, particularly in resource-limited settings. In this review, we discuss considerations for evaluating the accuracy of these LFAs, their suitability for different use cases, and implementation opportunities.

Performance Evaluation of the STANDARDTM Q COVID-19 and PanbioTM COVID-19 Antigen Tests in Detecting SARS-CoV-2 during High Transmission Period in Mozambique

(1) Background: Laboratory-based molecular assays are the gold standard to detect SARS-CoV-2. In resource-limited settings, the implementation of these assays has been hampered by operational challenges and long turnaround times. Rapid antigen detection tests are an attractive alternative. Our aim is to evaluate the clinical performance of two SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests during a high transmission period. (2) Methods: A total of 1277 patients seeking SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis were enrolled at four health facilities. Nasopharyngeal swabs for rapid antigen and real time PCR testing were collected for each patient. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, misclassification rate, and agreement were determined. (3) Results: The overall sensitivity of Panbio COVID-19 was 41.3% (95% CI: 34.6-48.4%) and the specificity was 98.2% (95% CI: 96.2-99.3%). The Standard Q had an overall sensitivity and specificity of 45.0% (95% CI: 39.9-50.2%) and 97.6% (95% CI: 95.3-99.0%), respectively. The positive predictive value of a positive test was 93.3% and 95.4% for the Panbio and Standard Q Ag-RDTs, respectively. A higher sensitivity of 43.2% and 49.4% was observed in symptomatic cases for the Panbio and Standard Q Ag-RDTs, respectively. (4) Conclusions: Despite the overall low sensitivity, the two evaluated rapid tests are useful to improve the diagnosis of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections during high transmission periods.

Development, Analytical, and Clinical Evaluation of Rapid Immunochromatographic Antigen Test for SARS-CoV-2 Variants Detection

The antigen rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) is a useful diagnostic tool for the detection and management of COVID-19 spread. Global SARS-CoV-2 variant outbreaks have highlighted the need for a test capable of detecting SARS-CoV-2 variants with high sensitivity and a low limit of detection. This study aimed to develop and evaluate, both analytically and clinically, an antigen rapid diagnostic test (the KestrelTM COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test) for professional use. A lateral flow immunoassay-based diagnostic test kit was developed, and various aspects of its analytical performance were evaluated. This test kit was clinically evaluated by two independent laboratories and showed closely related results of 96.49% and 98.33% of sensitivity, 100% and 100% of specificity, and 99.01% and 99.44% of accuracy, respectively. A limit of detection was observed at values as low as 0.156 ng/mL for recombinant SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein. Moreover, the test kit successfully detected the recombinant SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (NP) of wild-type, Alpha-, Beta-, Gamma-, Delta-, Epsilon-, Kappa-, and Omicron-variants as positive results. Therefore, the KestrelTM COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test may have potential use for effective COVID-19 screening, surveillance, and infection control in a variety of global SARS-CoV-2 variant outbreaks.

Accuracy and ease-of-use of seven point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting tests: A multi-centre clinical evaluation

BACKGROUND

Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 are important diagnostic tools. We assessed clinical performance and ease-of-use of seven Ag-RDTs in a prospective, manufacturer-independent, multi-centre cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study to inform global decision makers.

METHODS

Unvaccinated participants suspected of a first SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited at six sites (Germany, Brazil). Ag-RDTs were evaluated sequentially, with collection of paired swabs for routine reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing and Ag-RDT testing. Performance was compared to RT-PCR overall and in sub-group analyses (viral load, symptoms, symptoms duration). To understandusability a System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire and ease-of-use (EoU) assessment were performed.

FINDINGS

7471 participants were included in the analysis. Sensitivities across Ag-RDTs ranged from 70·4%-90·1%, specificities were above 97·2% for all Ag-RDTs but one (93·1%).Ag-RDTs, Mologic, Bionote, Standard Q, showed diagnostic accuracy in line with WHO targets (> 80% sensitivity, > 97% specificity). All tests showed high sensitivity in the first three days after symptom onset (≥87·1%) and in individuals with viral loads≥ 6 log10SARS-CoV2 RNA copies/mL (≥ 88·7%). Usability varied, with Rapigen, Bionote and Standard Q reaching very good scores; 90, 88 and 84/100, respectively.

INTERPRETATION

Variability in test performance is partially explained by variable viral loads in population evaluated over the course of the pandemic. All Ag-RDTs reach high sensitivity early in the disease and in individuals with high viral loads, supporting their role in identifying transmission relevant infections. For easy-to-use tests, performance shown will likely be maintained in routine implementation.

FUNDING

Ministry of Science, Research and Arts, State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany, internal funds from Heidelberg University Hospital, University Hospital Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, UK Department of International Development, WHO, Unitaid.

Coronavirus Disease 2019: Clinics, Treatment, and Prevention

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), emerged at the end of 2019 in China and affected the entire world population, either by infection and its health consequences, or by restrictions in daily life as a consequence of hygiene measures and containment strategies. As of September 2021, more than 231,000.000 infections and 4,740.000 deaths due to COVID-19 have been reported. The infections present with varied clinical symptoms and severity, ranging from asymptomatic course to fatal outcome. Several risk factors for a severe course of the disease have been identified, the most important being age, gender, comorbidities, lifestyle, and genetics. While most patients recover within several weeks, some report persistent symptoms restricting their daily lives and activities, termed as post-COVID. Over the past 18months, we have acquired significant knowledge as reflected by an almost uncountable number of publications on the nature of the underlying virus and its evolution, host responses to infection, modes of transmission, and different clinical presentations of the disease. Along this line, new diagnostic tests and algorithms have been developed paralleled by the search for and clinical evaluation of specific treatments for the different stages of the disease. In addition, preventive non-pharmacological measures have been implemented to control the spread of infection in the community. While an effective antiviral therapy is not yet available, numerous vaccines including novel vaccine technologies have been developed, which show high protection from infection and specifically from a severe course or death from COVID-19. In this review, we tried to provide an up-to-date schematic of COVID-19, including aspects of epidemiology, virology, clinical presentation, diagnostics, therapy, and prevention.

Diagnostic Performance of Automated SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay in Nasal Swab during COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign

BACKGROUND

To control the spread of the pandemic brought about by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, it is necessary to have an automated reliable diagnostic assay. To date, the RT-PCR (RT-qPCR) has been the recommended laboratory method to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection, but there is a need for more automated and reliable tests. The aim of this real-life study was to assess the diagnostic performance of DiaSorin's LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Ag) chemiluminescence immunoassay in detecting SARS-CoV-2 in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

METHODS

A prospective study was performed on 300 nasopharyngeal swabs randomly collected from 31 May to 6 July 2021. Nasopharyngeal samples were assayed with DiaSorin's LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 Ag and TaqPath™ COVID-19 multiplex RT-qPCR.

RESULTS

Of 300 participants, 150 had a RT-qPCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection of whom 113 (75.33%) were also detected by the DiaSorin LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 Ag. Taking RT-qPCR as a reference, the sensitivity and specificity of the DiaSorin LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 Ag assay were evaluated as 75.33% (95% CI = 67.64-82) and 100% (95% CI = 97.57-100), respectively. When a viral load cut-off was applied for high viral load (median cycle threshold (Ct) < 18.57), the overall sensitivity was increased to 96.55% (95% CI = 88.09-99.58). Interestingly, median RT-qPCR Ct and SARS-CoV-2 Ag values were similar between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

Automated, quantitative LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 Ag assay shows good performance to identify SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals with moderate to high viral loads. LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 Ag testing could be used as frontline testing for COVID-19 diagnosis and be more suitable for large utilization.

Generation of False-Positive SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Results with Testing Conditions outside Manufacturer Recommendations: A Scientific Approach to Pandemic Misinformation

Antigen-based rapid diagnostics tests (Ag-RDTs) are useful tools for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection. However, misleading demonstrations of the Abbott Panbio coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Ag-RDT on social media claimed that SARS-CoV-2 antigen could be detected in municipal water and food products. To offer a scientific rebuttal to pandemic misinformation and disinformation, this study explored the impact of using the Panbio SARS-CoV-2 assay with conditions falling outside manufacturer recommendations. Using Panbio, various water and food products, laboratory buffers, and SARS-CoV-2-negative clinical specimens were tested with and without manufacturer buffer. Additional experiments were conducted to assess the role of each Panbio buffer component (tricine, NaCl, pH, and Tween 20) as well as the impact of temperature (4°C, 20°C, and 45°C) and humidity (90%) on assay performance. Direct sample testing (without the kit buffer) resulted in false-positive signals resembling those obtained with SARS-CoV-2 positive controls tested under proper conditions. The likely explanation of these artifacts is nonspecific interactions between the SARS-CoV-2-specific conjugated and capture antibodies, as proteinase K treatment abrogated this phenomenon, and thermal shift assays showed pH-induced conformational changes under conditions promoting artifact formation. Omitting, altering, and reverse engineering the kit buffer all supported the importance of maintaining buffering capacity, ionic strength, and pH for accurate kit function. Interestingly, the Panbio assay could tolerate some extremes of temperature and humidity outside manufacturer claims. Our data support strict adherence to manufacturer instructions to avoid false-positive SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT reactions, otherwise resulting in anxiety, overuse of public health resources, and dissemination of misinformation. IMPORTANCE With the Panbio severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen test being deployed in over 120 countries worldwide, understanding conditions required for its ideal performance is critical. Recently on social media, this kit was shown to generate false positives when manufacturer recommendations were not followed. While erroneous results from improper use of a test may not be surprising to some health care professionals, understanding why false positives occur can help reduce the propagation of misinformation and provide a scientific rebuttal for these aberrant findings. This study demonstrated that the kit buffer's pH, ionic strength, and buffering capacity were critical components to ensure proper kit function and avoid generation of false-positive results. Typically, false positives arise from cross-reacting or interfering substances; however, this study demonstrated a mechanism where false positives were generated under conditions favoring nonspecific interactions between the two antibodies designed for SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection. Following the manufacturer instructions is critical for accurate test results.

Limited Sensitivity of a Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection Assay for Surveillance of Asymptomatic Individuals in Thailand

COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and is a global pandemic. Therefore, rapid and accurate tests for SARS-CoV-2 screening are urgently needed to expedite disease prevention and control especially in community transmission. Since late December 2020, Thailand has faced a new wave of COVID-19 outbreaks. The Thai National Disease Control program at the Ministry of Public Health has identified suitable measure for mass screening. A SARS-CoV-2 antigen-based assay is a surveillance option for active cases. Here, we evaluated the feasibility and test performance of a rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen test during our field activities in 1,100 asymptomatic individuals in Samut Sakhon, Thailand, during the second wave COVID-19 outbreak (December 26-30, 2020). The results showed that the rapid antigen test had a sensitivity of 47.97% (95% CI: 36.10-59.96%) and a specificity of 99.71% (95% CI: 99.15-99.94%) versus standard reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. The rapid test performed better in cases with higher viral loads determined by the cycle threshold value. In real-world setting, the test performance can be compromised by several factors including viral loads, logistic chains, temperature, technical expertise of the operators, validity, and accuracy of the testing itself. Our study highlights a prerequisite for reevaluation of any given testing before implementing it at the national level.

Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being integrated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix, bioRvix, and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 up until 30 April 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses, and rated study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 assessment tool. From a total of 14,254 articles, we included 133 analytical and clinical studies resulting in 214 clinical accuracy datasets with 112,323 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 71.2% (95% CI 68.2% to 74.0%) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6% to 99.1%), respectively. Sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.1% to 79.2%) if analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers' instructions. LumiraDx showed the highest sensitivity, with 88.2% (95% CI 59.0% to 97.5%). Of instrument-free Ag-RDTs, Standard Q nasal performed best, with 80.2% sensitivity (95% CI 70.3% to 87.4%). Across all Ag-RDTs, sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, i.e., <20 (96.5%, 95% CI 92.6% to 98.4%) and <25 (95.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 97.8%), in comparison to those with Ct ≥ 25 (50.7%, 95% CI 35.6% to 65.8%) and ≥30 (20.9%, 95% CI 12.5% to 32.8%). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (83.8%, 95% CI 76.3% to 89.2%) compared to testing after 1 week (61.5%, 95% CI 52.2% to 70.0%). The best Ag-RDT sensitivity was found with anterior nasal sampling (75.5%, 95% CI 70.4% to 79.9%), in comparison to other sample types (e.g., nasopharyngeal, 71.6%, 95% CI 68.1% to 74.9%), although CIs were overlapping. Concerns of bias were raised across all datasets, and financial support from the manufacturer was reported in 24.1% of datasets. Our analysis was limited by the included studies' heterogeneity in design and reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study we found that Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2-infected persons within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load. Thus, they can have high utility for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease, making them a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization in conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data.

Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care lateral flow antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR in primary care (REAP-2)

BACKGROUND

Testing for COVID-19 with quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) may result in delayed detection of disease. Antigen detection via lateral flow testing (LFT) is faster and amenable to population-wide testing strategies. Our study assesses the diagnostic accuracy of LFT compared to RT-PCR on the same primarycare patients in Austria.

METHODS

Patients with mild to moderate flu-like symptoms attending a general practice network in an Austrian district (October 22 to November 30, 2020) received clinical assessment including LFT. All suspected COVID-19 cases obtained additional RT-PCR and were divided into two groups: Group 1 (true reactive): suspected cases with reactive LFT and positive RT-PCR; and Group 2 (false non-reactive): suspected cases with a non-reactive LFT but positive RT-PCR.

FINDINGS

Of the 2,562 symptomatic patients, 1,037 were suspected of COVID-19 and 826 (79.7%) patients tested RT-PCR positive. Among patients with positive RT-PCR, 788/826 tested LFT reactive (Group 1) and 38 (4.6%) non-reactive (Group 2). Overall sensitivity was 95.4% (95%CI: [94%,96.8%]), specificity 89.1% (95%CI: [86.3%, 91.9%]), positive predictive value 97.3% (95%CI:[95.9%, 98.7%]) and negative predictive value 82.5% (95%CI:[79.8%, 85.2%]). Reactive LFT and positive RT-PCR were positively correlated (r = 0.968,95CI=[0.952,0.985] and κ = 0.823 , 95%CI=[0.773,0.866]). Reactive LFT was negatively correlated with Ct-value ( r  = -0.2999, p  < 0.001) and pre-test symptom duration (r = -0.1299,p = 0.0043) while Ct-value was positively correlated with pre-test symptom duration (r = 0.3733),p < 0.001).

INTERPRETATION

We show that LFT is an accurate alternative to RT-PCR testing in primary care. We note the importance of administering LFT properly, here combined with clinical assessment in symptomatic patients.

FUNDING

Thomas Czypionka received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programe under the grant agreement No 101016233 (PERISCOPE). No further funding was available for this study.

Analytical sensitivity and specificity of four point of care rapid antigen diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 using real-time quantitative PCR, quantitative droplet digital PCR, and a mass spectrometric antigen assay as comparator methods

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the analytical sensitivity and specificity of four rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2, using reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) as the reference method; and further characterizing samples using droplet digital quantitative PCR (ddPCR) and a mass spectrometric antigen test.

METHODS

350 (150 negative and 200 RT-qPCR positive) residual phosphate buffered saline (PBS) samples were tested for antigen using the BD Veritor lateral flow (LF), ACON LF, ACON fluorescence immunoassay (FIA), and LumiraDx FIA. ddPCR was performed on RT-qPCR positive samples to quantitate the viral load in copies/mL applied to each Ag RDT. Mass spectrometric antigen testing was performed on PBS samples to obtain a set of RT-qPCR positive, antigen positive samples for further analysis.

RESULTS

All Ag RDTs had nearly 100% specificity compared to RT-qPCR. Overall analytical sensitivity varied from 66.5% to 88.3%. All methods detected antigen in samples with viral load >1,500,000 copies/mL RNA, and detected ≥75% of samples with viral load of 500,000 to 1,500,000 copies/mL. The BD Veritor LF detected only 25% of samples with viral load between 50,000-500,000 copies/mL, compared to 75% for the ACON LF device and >80% for LumiraDx and ACON FIA. The ACON FIA detected significantly more samples with viral load <50,000 copies/mL compared to the BD Veritor. Among samples with detectable antigen and viral load <50,000 copies/mL, sensitivity of the Ag RDT varied between 13.0% (BD Veritor) and 78.3% (ACON FIA).

CONCLUSIONS

Ag RDTs differ significantly in analytical sensitivity, particularly at viral load <500,000 copies/mL.

Field evaluation of specificity and sensitivity of a standard SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic test: A prospective study at a teaching hospital in Northern Ghana

The testing capacity for SARS-CoV-2 in Africa is rather limited. Antigen detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are a cheap and rapid alternative to reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests, but there is little data about their performance under real life conditions in tropical countries. The objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of a standard Ag-RDT in a population of a major hospital in northern Ghana. Prospective, cross-sectional, blinded verification of the performance of the SD Biosensor Standard Q SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT under real life conditions in 135 symptomatic patients and 58 contacts of RT-PCR positives at Tamale Teaching Hospital in February 2021. Nasopharyngeal samples were taken under standard conditions and tested against RT-PCR in the hospital laboratory. 193 participants (median age 35 years, 109 male) were included into the study for which both RT-PCR test and Ag-RDT results were available. A total of 42 (22%) were RT-PCR positive. Of the 42 RT-PCR positives, 27 were Ag-RDT positive, resulting in a sensitivity of 64% (95% CI 49-79). Sensitivity among symptomatic patients was 58% (95% CI 38-78). 123 were identified Ag-RDT negatives of the 151 RT-PCR negatives, resulting in a specificity of 81% (95% CI 75-87). SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs appear to have a rather low sensitivity and particularly a low specificity under real life conditions in Africa. The role of existing Ag-RDTs in countries with high-temperature climates and limited resources still needs more data and discussion.