Virus variant-specific clinical performance of SARS coronavirus two rapid antigen tests in point-of-care use, from November 2020 to January 2022.

Abstract:

OBJECTIVES: Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are quick, widely available, and inexpensive. Consequently, RDTs have been established as an alternative and additional diagnostic strategy to quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). However, reliable clinical and large-scale performance data specific to a SARS-CoV-2 virus variant of concern (VOC) are limited, especially for the Omicron VOC. The aim of this study was to compare RDT performance among different VOCs. METHODS: This single-centre prospective performance assessment compared RDTs from three manufacturers (NADAL, Panbio, MEDsan) with RT-qPCR including deduced standardized viral load from oropharyngeal swabs for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a clinical point-of-care setting from November 2020 to January 2022. RESULTS: Among 35 479 RDT/RT-qPCR tandems taken from 26 940 individuals, 164 of the 426 SARS-CoV-2 positive samples tested true positive with an RDT corresponding to an RDT sensitivity of 38.50% (95% CI, 34.00-43.20%), with an overall specificity of 99.67% (95% CI, 99.60-99.72%). RDT sensitivity depended on viral load, with decreasing sensitivity accompanied by descending viral load. VOC-dependent sensitivity assessment showed a sensitivity of 42.86% (95% CI, 32.82-53.52%) for the wild-type SARS-CoV-2, 43.42% (95% CI, 32.86-54.61%) for the Alpha VOC, 37.67% (95% CI, 30.22-45.75%) for the Delta VOC, and 33.67% (95% CI, 25.09-43.49%) for the Omicron VOC. Sensitivity in samples with high viral loads of >/=10(6) SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies per mL was significantly lower in the Omicron VOC (50.00%; 95% CI, 36.12-63.88%) than in the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 (79.31%; 95% CI, 61.61-90.15%; p 0.015). DISCUSSION: RDT sensitivity for detection of the Omicron VOC is reduced in individuals infected with a high viral load, which curtails the effectiveness of RDTs. This aspect furthert: limits the use of RDTs, although RDTs are still an irreplaceable diagnostic tool for rapid, economic point-of-care and extensive SARS-CoV-2 screening.

SEEK ID: https://ldh.uk-wuerzburg.imise.uni-leipzig.de/publications/9

PubMed ID: 36028089

Trial Projects: WüRDT

Publication type: Journal

Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect

Citation: Clin Microbiol Infect. 2023 Feb;29(2):225-232. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.08.006. Epub 2022 Aug 24.

Date Published: 27th Aug 2022

Registered Mode: by PubMed ID

Authors: I. Wagenhauser, K. Knies, D. Hofmann, V. Rauschenberger, M. Eisenmann, J. Reusch, A. Gabel, S. Flemming, O. Andres, N. Petri, M. S. Topp, M. Papsdorf, M. McDonogh, R. Verma-Fuhring, A. Scherzad, D. Zeller, H. Bohm, A. Gesierich, A. K. Seitz, M. Kiderlen, M. Gawlik, R. Taurines, T. Wurmb, R. I. Ernestus, J. Forster, D. Weismann, B. Weissbrich, L. Dolken, J. Liese, L. Kaderali, O. Kurzai, U. Vogel, M. Krone

help Submitter
Activity

Views: 58

Created: 31st Oct 2024 at 16:28

help Tags

This item has not yet been tagged.

help Attributions

None

Powered by
(v.1.16.1)
Copyright © 2008 - 2023 The University of Manchester and HITS gGmbH