1
|
Manten K, Katzenschlager S, Brümmer LE, Schmitz S, Gaeddert M, Erdmann C, Grilli M, Pollock NR, Macé A, Erkosar B, Carmona S, Ongarello S, Johnson CC, Sacks JA, Faehling V, Bornemann L, Weigand MA, Denkinger CM, Yerlikaya S. Clinical accuracy of instrument-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen diagnostic tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Virol J 2024; 21:99. [PMID: 38685117 PMCID: PMC11059670 DOI: 10.1186/s12985-024-02371-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/02/2024] [Accepted: 04/17/2024] [Indexed: 05/02/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND During the COVID-19 pandemic, antigen diagnostic tests were frequently used for screening, triage, and diagnosis. Novel instrument-based antigen tests (iAg tests) hold the promise of outperforming their instrument-free, visually-read counterparts. Here, we provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 iAg tests' clinical accuracy. METHODS We systematically searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, medRxiv, and bioRxiv for articles published before November 7th, 2022, evaluating the accuracy of iAg tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection. We performed a random effects meta-analysis to estimate sensitivity and specificity and used the QUADAS-2 tool to assess study quality and risk of bias. Sub-group analysis was conducted based on Ct value range, IFU-conformity, age, symptom presence and duration, and the variant of concern. RESULTS We screened the titles and abstracts of 20,431 articles and included 114 publications that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Additionally, we incorporated three articles sourced from the FIND website, totaling 117 studies encompassing 95,181 individuals, which evaluated the clinical accuracy of 24 commercial COVID-19 iAg tests. The studies varied in risk of bias but showed high applicability. Of 24 iAg tests from 99 studies assessed in the meta-analysis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity compared to molecular testing of a paired NP swab sample were 76.7% (95% CI 73.5 to 79.7) and 98.4% (95% CI 98.0 to 98.7), respectively. Higher sensitivity was noted in individuals with high viral load (99.6% [95% CI 96.8 to 100] at Ct-level ≤ 20) and within the first week of symptom onset (84.6% [95% CI 78.2 to 89.3]), but did not differ between tests conducted as per manufacturer's instructions and those conducted differently, or between point-of-care and lab-based testing. CONCLUSION Overall, iAg tests have a high pooled specificity but a moderate pooled sensitivity, according to our analysis. The pooled sensitivity increases with lower Ct-values (a proxy for viral load), or within the first week of symptom onset, enabling reliable identification of most COVID-19 cases and highlighting the importance of context in test selection. The study underscores the need for careful evaluation considering performance variations and operational features of iAg tests.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katharina Manten
- Department of Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 324, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Anesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Stephan Katzenschlager
- Department of Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 324, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Lukas E Brümmer
- Department of Anesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Stephani Schmitz
- Department of Anesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Developmental Biology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Mary Gaeddert
- Department of Anesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | | | - Maurizio Grilli
- Library, University Medical Center Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Nira R Pollock
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | | | | | | | - Cheryl C Johnson
- Global HIV, Hepatitis and STIs Programmes, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Jilian A Sacks
- Department of Epidemic and Pandemic Preparedness and Prevention, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Verena Faehling
- Department of Anesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Linus Bornemann
- Institute of Virology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Centre, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Markus A Weigand
- Department of Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 324, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Claudia M Denkinger
- Department of Anesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), partner site Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Seda Yerlikaya
- Department of Anesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
- German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), partner site Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Osterman A, Krenn F, Iglhaut M, Badell I, Lehner A, Späth PM, Stern M, Both H, Bender S, Muenchhoff M, Graf A, Krebs S, Blum H, Grimmer T, Durner J, Czibere L, Dächert C, Grzimek-Koschewa N, Protzer U, Kaderali L, Baldauf HM, Keppler OT. Automated antigen assays display a high heterogeneity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including several Omicron sublineages. Med Microbiol Immunol 2023; 212:307-322. [PMID: 37561226 PMCID: PMC10501957 DOI: 10.1007/s00430-023-00774-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2022] [Accepted: 07/11/2023] [Indexed: 08/11/2023]
Abstract
Diagnostic tests for direct pathogen detection have been instrumental to contain the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Automated, quantitative, laboratory-based nucleocapsid antigen (Ag) tests for SARS-CoV-2 have been launched alongside nucleic acid-based test systems and point-of-care (POC) lateral-flow Ag tests. Here, we evaluated four commercial Ag tests on automated platforms for the detection of different sublineages of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant of concern (VoC) (B.1.1.529) in comparison with "non-Omicron" VoCs. A total of 203 Omicron PCR-positive respiratory swabs (53 BA.1, 48 BA.2, 23 BQ.1, 39 XBB.1.5 and 40 other subvariants) from the period February to March 2022 and from March 2023 were examined. In addition, tissue culture-expanded clinical isolates of Delta (B.1.617.2), Omicron-BA.1, -BF.7, -BN.1 and -BQ.1 were studied. These results were compared to previously reported data from 107 clinical "non-Omicron" samples from the end of the second pandemic wave (February to March 2021) as well as cell culture-derived samples of wildtype (wt) EU-1 (B.1.177), Alpha VoC (B.1.1.7) and Beta VoC (B.1.351)). All four commercial Ag tests were able to detect at least 90.9% of Omicron-containing samples with high viral loads (Ct < 25). The rates of true-positive test results for BA.1/BA.2-positive samples with intermediate viral loads (Ct 25-30) ranged between 6.7% and 100.0%, while they dropped to 0 to 15.4% for samples with low Ct values (> 30). This heterogeneity was reflected also by the tests' 50%-limit of detection (LoD50) values ranging from 44,444 to 1,866,900 Geq/ml. Respiratory samples containing Omicron-BQ.1/XBB.1.5 or other Omicron subvariants that emerged in 2023 were detected with enormous heterogeneity (0 to 100%) for the intermediate and low viral load ranges with LoD50 values between 23,019 and 1,152,048 Geq/ml. In contrast, detection of "non-Omicron" samples was more sensitive, scoring positive in 35 to 100% for the intermediate and 1.3 to 32.9% of cases for the low viral loads, respectively, corresponding to LoD50 values ranging from 6181 to 749,792 Geq/ml. All four assays detected cell culture-expanded VoCs Alpha, Beta, Delta and Omicron subvariants carrying up to six amino acid mutations in the nucleocapsid protein with sensitivities comparable to the non-VoC EU-1. Overall, automated quantitative SARS-CoV-2 Ag assays are not more sensitive than standard rapid antigen tests used in POC settings and show a high heterogeneity in performance for VoC recognition. The best of these automated Ag tests may have the potential to complement nucleic acid-based assays for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics in settings not primarily focused on the protection of vulnerable groups. In light of the constant emergence of new Omicron subvariants and recombinants, most recently the XBB lineage, these tests' performance must be regularly re-evaluated, especially when new VoCs carry mutations in the nucleocapsid protein or immunological and clinical parameters change.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andreas Osterman
- Max von Pettenkofer Institute and Gene Center, Virology, National Reference Center for Retroviruses, LMU München, Munich, Germany
| | - Franziska Krenn
- Max von Pettenkofer Institute and Gene Center, Virology, National Reference Center for Retroviruses, LMU München, Munich, Germany
| | - Maximilian Iglhaut
- Max von Pettenkofer Institute and Gene Center, Virology, National Reference Center for Retroviruses, LMU München, Munich, Germany
| | - Irina Badell
- Max von Pettenkofer Institute and Gene Center, Virology, National Reference Center for Retroviruses, LMU München, Munich, Germany
| | - Andreas Lehner
- Max von Pettenkofer Institute and Gene Center, Virology, National Reference Center for Retroviruses, LMU München, Munich, Germany
| | - Patricia M Späth
- Max von Pettenkofer Institute and Gene Center, Virology, National Reference Center for Retroviruses, LMU München, Munich, Germany
| | - Marcel Stern
- Max von Pettenkofer Institute and Gene Center, Virology, National Reference Center for Retroviruses, LMU München, Munich, Germany
| | - Hanna Both
- Max von Pettenkofer Institute and Gene Center, Virology, National Reference Center for Retroviruses, LMU München, Munich, Germany
| | - Sabine Bender
- Max von Pettenkofer Institute and Gene Center, Virology, National Reference Center for Retroviruses, LMU München, Munich, Germany
| | - Maximilian Muenchhoff
- Max von Pettenkofer Institute and Gene Center, Virology, National Reference Center for Retroviruses, LMU München, Munich, Germany
- German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Partner Site, Munich, Germany
- COVID‑19 Registry of the LMU Munich (CORKUM), University Hospital, LMU München, Munich, Germany
| | - Alexander Graf
- Laboratory for Functional Genome Analysis, Gene Center, LMU München, Munich, Germany
| | - Stefan Krebs
- Laboratory for Functional Genome Analysis, Gene Center, LMU München, Munich, Germany
| | - Helmut Blum
- Laboratory for Functional Genome Analysis, Gene Center, LMU München, Munich, Germany
| | - Timo Grimmer
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Jürgen Durner
- Labor Becker MVZ GbR, Munich, Germany
- Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital, LMU München, Munich, Germany
| | | | - Christopher Dächert
- Max von Pettenkofer Institute and Gene Center, Virology, National Reference Center for Retroviruses, LMU München, Munich, Germany
| | - Natascha Grzimek-Koschewa
- Max von Pettenkofer Institute and Gene Center, Virology, National Reference Center for Retroviruses, LMU München, Munich, Germany
- German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Partner Site, Munich, Germany
| | - Ulrike Protzer
- German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Partner Site, Munich, Germany
- Institute of Virology, Technical University of Munich/Helmholtz Zentrum München, Munich, Germany
| | - Lars Kaderali
- Institute of Bioinformatics, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany
| | - Hanna-Mari Baldauf
- Max von Pettenkofer Institute and Gene Center, Virology, National Reference Center for Retroviruses, LMU München, Munich, Germany.
| | - Oliver T Keppler
- Max von Pettenkofer Institute and Gene Center, Virology, National Reference Center for Retroviruses, LMU München, Munich, Germany.
- German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Partner Site, Munich, Germany.
- COVID‑19 Registry of the LMU Munich (CORKUM), University Hospital, LMU München, Munich, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Li X, Wang Y, Pan J, Xu J, Zhou Q. Combined Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2: Rapid Antigen Detection as an Adjunct to Nucleic Acid Detection. Lab Med 2023; 54:e37-e43. [PMID: 35895307 PMCID: PMC9384589 DOI: 10.1093/labmed/lmac089] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Coronavirus disease 2019 is a serious threat to human life, and early diagnosis and screening can help control the COVID-19 pandemic. The high sensitivity of reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay is the gold standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19, but there are still some false-negative results. Rapid antigen detection (RAD) is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a screening method for COVID-19. This review analyzed the characteristics of RDT and found that although the overall sensitivity of RAD was not as high as that of RT-PCR, but RAD was more sensitive in COVID-19 patients within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and in COVID-19 patients with Ct ≤ 25. Therefore, RAD can be used as an adjunct to RT-PCR for screening patients with early COVID-19. Finally, this review provides a combined diagnostic protocol for RAD and nucleic acid testing with the aim of providing a feasible approach for COVID-19 screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xuewen Li
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China
| | - Yiting Wang
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China
| | - Junqi Pan
- Bachelor of Biomedicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Jiancheng Xu
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China
| | - Qi Zhou
- Department of Pediatrics, First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Lau CS, Aw TC. SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Testing Intervals: Twice or Thrice a Week? Diagnostics (Basel) 2022; 12:1039. [PMID: 35626195 PMCID: PMC9139623 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12051039] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/23/2022] [Revised: 04/12/2022] [Accepted: 04/19/2022] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 has become an increasingly prominent screening tool in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and can be performed multiple times a week. However, the optimal weekly frequency of antigen testing is unclear; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends 1-3 times a week, while some experts support testing 2-3 times a week. In our own laboratory, all staff (n = 161) underwent twice- and thrice-weekly antigen tests during different periods from August 2021 to the present as part of routine COVID-19 surveillance of healthcare workers. No cases of COVID-19 were detected with either regimen. While more frequent SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing may allow antigen testing to be an important surrogate for RT-PCR testing, performing SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests twice or thrice a week shows no inferiority to each other in screening for COVID-19.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chin Shern Lau
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, Changi General Hospital, Singapore 529889, Singapore;
| | - Tar-Choon Aw
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, Changi General Hospital, Singapore 529889, Singapore;
- Department of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore 119077, Singapore
- Academic Pathology Program, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore 169857, Singapore
| |
Collapse
|