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-

Performance of rapid antigen tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 variant diversity and correlation with viral culture positivity: implication for diagnostic development and future public health strategies

Comparative evaluation of RT-PCR and antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 detection: performance, variant specificity, and clinical implications

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

Development and Clinical Performance of InteliSwab® COVID-19 Rapid Test: Evaluation of Antigen Test for the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 and Analytical Sensitivity to Detect Variants of Concern Including Omicron and Subvariants

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

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

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

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

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

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

SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid detection tests: test performance during the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact of COVID-19 vaccination

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

Diagnostic performance of rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2: the COVid-19 AntiGen (COVAG) extension study

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

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

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

Clinical Comparative Evaluation of the LabTurboTM AIO® Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction and World Health Organization-Recommended Assays for the Detection of Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern

Clinical Evaluation and Utilization of Multiple Molecular In Vitro Diagnostic Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2

Optimisation and evaluation of viral genomic sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 rapid diagnostic tests: a laboratory and cohort-based study

Evaluation of Serological SARS-CoV-2 Lateral Flow Assays for Rapid Point of Care Testing

Evaluation of Serological Tests for SARS-CoV-2: Implications for Serology Testing in a Low-Prevalence Setting