Dataset Information

COVID-19 rapid antigen tests approved for self-testing in Australia: published diagnostic test accuracy studies and manufacturer-supplied information. A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To review evaluations of the diagnostic accuracy of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) rapid antigen tests (RATs) approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for self-testing by ambulatory people in Australia; to compare these estimates with values reported by test manufacturers.

Study design

Systematic review of publications in any language that reported cross-sectional, case-control, or cohort studies in which the participants were ambulatory people in the community or health care workers in hospitals in whom severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was suspected, and the results of testing self-collected biological samples with a TGA-approved COVID-19 RAT were compared with those of reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2. Estimates of diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity) were checked and compared with manufacturer estimates published on the TGA website.

Data sources

Publications (to 1 September 2022) identified in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the World Health Organization COVID-19 research database. Information on manufacturer diagnostic accuracy evaluations was obtained from the TGA website.

Data synthesis

Twelve publications that reported a total of eighteen evaluations of eight RATs approved by the TGA for self-testing (manufacturers: All Test, Roche, Flowflex, MP Biomedicals, Clungene, Panbio, V-Chek, Whistling) were identified. Five studies were undertaken in the Netherlands, two each in Germany and the United States, and one each in Denmark, Belgium, and Canada; test sample collection was unsupervised in twelve studies, and supervised by health care workers or researchers in six. Estimated sensitivity with unsupervised sample collection ranged from 20.9% (MP Biomedicals) to 74.3% (Roche), and with supervised collection from 7.7% (V-Chek) to 84.4% (Panbio); the estimates were between 8.2 and 88 percentage points lower than the values reported by the manufacturers. Test specificity was high for all RATs (97.9-100%).

Conclusions

The risk of false negative results when using COVID-19 RATs for self-testing may be considerably higher than apparent in manufacturer reports on the TGA website, with implications for the reliability of these tests for ruling out infection.

SUBMITTER: Bell KJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10952141 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

COVID-19 rapid antigen tests approved for self-testing in Australia: published diagnostic test accuracy studies and manufacturer-supplied information. A systematic review.

Bell Katy Jl KJ Li Yuyang Y Medcalf Ellie E Ackermann Deonna D

The Medical journal of Australia 20231030 11

<h4>Objectives</h4>To review evaluations of the diagnostic accuracy of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) rapid antigen tests (RATs) approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for self-testing by ambulatory people in Australia; to compare these estimates with values reported by test manufacturers.<h4>Study design</h4>Systematic review of publications in any language that reported cross-sectional, case-control, or cohort studies in which the participants were ambulatory people in the ...[more]

PMID: 37903650

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo investigate the accuracy of screening tests for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in Southeast Asian pregnant women.MethodsWe searched PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google Scholar, and Google for relevant articles published in English up to November 2018 using search terms related to GDM, screening tests for GDM and diagnostic performance. The studies were independently screened and selected by both authors. The methodological quality of the included studies was independently assessed by quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2. A hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model was created to estimate the HSROC curve. The summary sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were calculated in a meta-analysis using bivariate random-effects model.ResultsA total of 19 studies were included in which the 100 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and 75 g OGTT were the two common reference standards for diagnosis of GDM. Most points of diagnostic performance in the HSROC 50 g GCT curve compared with the 100 g OGTT reference standard were clustered in the upper left-hand quadrant. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the 50 g GCT were 79% (95% confidence interval [CI] 64%-89%) and 74% (95% CI 59%-85%), respectively. For the 75 g OGTT reference standard, the non-fasting 2-hour plasma glucose showed quite similar sensitivity the 50 g GCT compared with the 100 g OGTT reference standard. The pooled sensitivities and specificities of the fasting plasma glucose and hemoglobin A1c were 81% (95% CI 76%-86%) and 70% (95% CI 67%-72%), and 80% (95% CI 66%-90%) and 69% (95% CI 58%-78%), respectively.ConclusionOur findings indicate that the 50 g GCT using the threshold of 140 mg/dL is a good screening test for identifying GDM at 24 to 28 weeks' gestational age for both high-risk and universal screening strategies in Southeast Asian countries. The non-fasting 2-hour PG, fasting plasma glucose or hemoglobin A1c are alternative choices for screening.

Project description:ImportanceVariants of SARS-CoV-2 have sequence variations in the viral genome that may alter the accuracy of rapid diagnostic tests.ObjectiveTo assess the analytical and clinical accuracy of 2 rapid diagnostic tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 during 3 phases of variants.Design, setting, and participantsThis diagnostic study included participants aged 18 years or older who reported onset of COVID-19-like symptoms within the prior 5 days and were tested at multiple COVID-19 testing locations in King County, Washington, from February 17, 2021, to January 11, 2022, during 3 distinct phases of SARS-CoV-2 infection (pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron).InterventionsTwo anterior nasal swab specimens were collected from each participant-1 for onsite testing by the SCoV-2 Ag Detect Rapid Self-Test and 1 for reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing.Main outcomes and measuresThe analytical limit of detection of the 2 rapid diagnostic tests (SCoV-2 Ag Detect Rapid Self-Test and BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card) was assessed using Omicron (B.1.1.529/BA.1), Delta (B.1.617.2), and a wild-type (USA-WA1/2020) variant. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of clinical testing for the rapid antigen tests were compared with that of RT-PCR testing.ResultsA total of 802 participants were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 37.3 [13.3] years; 467 [58.2%] female), 424 (52.9%) of whom had not received COVID-19 vaccination and presented a median of 2 days (IQR, 1-3 days) from symptom onset. Overall, no significant differences were found in the analytical limit of detection or clinical diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen testing across SARS-CoV-2 variants. The estimated limit of detection for both rapid nucleocapsid antigen tests was at or below a 50% tissue culture infectious dose of 62.5, and the positive percent agreement of the SCoV-2 Ag Detect Rapid Self-Test ranged from 81.2% (95% CI, 69.5%-89.9%) to 90.7% (95% CI, 77.9%-97.4%) across the 3 phases of variants. The diagnostic sensitivity increased for nasal swabs with a lower cycle threshold by RT-PCR, which correlates with a higher viral load.Conclusions and relevanceIn this diagnostic study, analytical and clinical performance data demonstrated accuracy of 2 rapid antigen tests among adults with COVID-19 symptoms across 3 phases of SARS-CoV-2 variants. The findings suggest that home-based rapid antigen testing programs may be an important intervention to reduce global SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Project description:BackgroundThe global spread of COVID-19 created an explosion in rapid tests with results in < 1 hour, but their relative performance characteristics are not fully understood yet. Our aim was to determine the most sensitive and specific rapid test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2.MethodsDesign: Rapid review and diagnostic test accuracy network meta-analysis (DTA-NMA).Eligibility criteriaRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing rapid antigen and/or rapid molecular test(s) to detect SARS-CoV-2 in participants of any age, suspected or not with SARS-CoV-2 infection.Information sourcesEmbase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, up to September 12, 2021.Outcome measuresSensitivity and specificity of rapid antigen and molecular tests suitable for detecting SARS-CoV-2. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment: Screening of literature search results was conducted by one reviewer; data abstraction was completed by one reviewer and independently verified by a second reviewer. Risk of bias was not assessed in the included studies.Data synthesisRandom-effects meta-analysis and DTA-NMA.ResultsWe included 93 studies (reported in 88 articles) relating to 36 rapid antigen tests in 104,961 participants and 23 rapid molecular tests in 10,449 participants. Overall, rapid antigen tests had a sensitivity of 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.70-0.79) and specificity of 0.99 (0.98-0.99). Rapid antigen test sensitivity was higher when nasal or combined samples (e.g., combinations of nose, throat, mouth, or saliva samples) were used, but lower when nasopharyngeal samples were used, and in those classified as asymptomatic at the time of testing. Rapid molecular tests may result in fewer false negatives than rapid antigen tests (sensitivity: 0.93, 0.88-0.96; specificity: 0.98, 0.97-0.99). The tests with the highest sensitivity and specificity estimates were the Xpert Xpress rapid molecular test by Cepheid (sensitivity: 0.99, 0.83-1.00; specificity: 0.97, 0.69-1.00) among the 23 commercial rapid molecular tests and the COVID-VIRO test by AAZ-LMB (sensitivity: 0.93, 0.48-0.99; specificity: 0.98, 0.44-1.00) among the 36 rapid antigen tests we examined.ConclusionsRapid molecular tests were associated with both high sensitivity and specificity, while rapid antigen tests were mainly associated with high specificity, according to the minimum performance requirements by WHO and Health Canada. Our rapid review was limited to English, peer-reviewed published results of commercial tests, and study risk of bias was not assessed. A full systematic review is required.Review registrationPROSPERO CRD42021289712.

Project description:ObjectiveHighly sensitive guaiac-based faecal occult blood (Hemoccult SENSA) and Helicobacter pylori stool antigen testing might help detect upper gastrointestinal lesions when appended to a colorectal cancer screening programme with faecal immunochemical testing. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracies of two stool tests in detecting upper gastrointestinal lesions.DesignCross-sectional design.SettingHospital-based and community-based screening settings.ParticipantsA hospital-based deviation cohort of 3172 participants to evaluate test performance and a community-based validation cohort of 3621 to verify the findings.InterventionsThree types of stool tests with bidirectional endoscopy as the reference standard.OutcomesSensitivity, specificity and positive and negative likelihood ratios.ResultsFor detecting upper gastrointestinal lesions in cases with negative immunochemical tests, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios of the guaiac-based and H pylori antigen tests were 16.3% (95% CI 13.3% to 19.8%), 90.1% (88.9% to 91.2%), 1.64 (1.31 to 2.07), and 0.93 (0.89 to 0.97), respectively, and 52.5% (48.1% to 56.9%), 80.6% (79.0% to 82.1%), 2.71 (2.41 to 3.04) and 0.59 (0.54 to 0.65), respectively. For detecting upper gastrointestinal lesions in cases with normal colonoscopy, the results of the guaiac-based and H pylori antigen tests were 17.9% (14.8% to 21.5%), 90.1% (88.9% to 91.2%), 1.81 (1.45 to 2.26) and 0.91 (0.87 to 0.95), respectively, and 53.1% (48.6% to 57.4%), 80.7% (79.1% to 82.2%), 2.75 (2.45 to 3.08) and 0.58 (0.53 to 0.64), respectively. Within the community, positive predictive values of the immunochemical and H pylori antigen tests were 36.0% (26.0% to 46.0%) and 31.9% (28.3% to 35.5%), respectively, for detecting lower and upper gastrointestinal lesions, which were similar to expected values.ConclusionsThe H pylori stool antigen test is more accurate than the guaiac-based test in the screening of upper gastrointestinal lesions in a population with high prevalence of H pylori infection and upper gastrointestinal lesions. It is applicable to add the H pylori antigen test to the immunochemical test for pan detection.Trial registrationNCT01341197 (ClinicalTrial.gov).

Dataset Information

COVID-19 rapid antigen tests approved for self-testing in Australia: published diagnostic test accuracy studies and manufacturer-supplied information. A systematic review.

Objectives

Study design

Data sources

Data synthesis

Conclusions

Publications

COVID-19 rapid antigen tests approved for self-testing in Australia: published diagnostic test accuracy studies and manufacturer-supplied information. A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets