Abstract: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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 acceptabl -Abstract Truncated-

SARS-CoV-2 Transmission Control Measures in the Emergency Department: The Role of Rapid Antigenic Testing in Asymptomatic Subjects

Frontline Screening for SARS-CoV-2 Infection at Emergency Department Admission by Third Generation Rapid Antigen Test: Can We Spare RT-qPCR?

IFCC interim guidelines on rapid point-of-care antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 detection in asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals

Performance of Rapid Antigen Tests to Detect Symptomatic and Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Diagnostic Accuracy of a Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test Among People Experiencing Homelessness: A Prospective Cohort and Implementation Study

Low performance of rapid antigen detection test as frontline testing for COVID-19 diagnosis

Validation of a rapid antigen test as a screening tool for SARS-CoV-2 infection in asymptomatic populations. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values

Evaluating the field performance of multiple SARS-Cov-2 antigen rapid tests using nasopharyngeal swab samples

Diagnostic accuracy of two commercial SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid tests at the point of care in community-based testing centers

Clinical performance evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing in point of care usage in comparison to RT-qPCR

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

Comparison of the Rapid Antigen Testing Method With RT-qPCR for the Diagnosis of COVID-19

The Comparative Clinical Performance of Four SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Tests and Their Correlation to Infectivity In Vitro

Combined Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2: Rapid Antigen Detection As an Adjunct to Nucleic Acid Detection

Evaluation of Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection as a Single Diagnostic Test and When Combined with C-Reactive Protein Level or Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio in Suspected COVID-19 Subjects

Comparative Diagnostic Utility of SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen and Molecular Testing in a Community Setting

Sensitivity, Specificity and Predictive Values of Molecular and Serological Tests for COVID-19: A Longitudinal Study in Emergency Room

Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Development and Diagnosis Performance of IgM-Based Rapid Antigen Test for Early Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in a Large Cohort of Suspected COVID-19 Cases - USA, Poland, and Sweden, 2021-2022

Universal admission laboratory screening for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) asymptomatic infection across a large health system

Epidemiologic Characteristics Associated With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Antigen-Based Test Results, Real-Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) Cycle Threshold Values, Subgenomic RNA, and Viral Culture Results From University Testing