Pre- and postapproval diagnostic test accuracy of FDA-authorized rapid antigen SARS-CoV-2 tests used according to instruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 8.5 1区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Mathias Damkjær, David Ruben Teindl Laursen, Mia Elkjær, Oke Gerke, Andreas Lundh, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Jeppe B Schroll
{"title":"Pre- and postapproval diagnostic test accuracy of FDA-authorized rapid antigen SARS-CoV-2 tests used according to instruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Mathias Damkjær, David Ruben Teindl Laursen, Mia Elkjær, Oke Gerke, Andreas Lundh, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Jeppe B Schroll","doi":"10.1016/j.cmi.2025.07.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Manufacturers claim high sensitivity for rapid antigen SARS-CoV-2 tests on product labels, yet systematic reviews report considerably lower sensitivity.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To describe study characteristics and compare the sensitivity and specificity United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved rapid antigen SARS-CoV-2 tests in pre-versus postapproval studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>FDA website, Medline, Embase, and Google Scholar.</p><p><strong>Study eligibility criteria: </strong>Diagnostic test accuracy studies according to instruction for use.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Patients with symptoms of COVID-19.</p><p><strong>Test(s): </strong>Rapid antigen SARS-CoV-2 tests.</p><p><strong>Reference standard: </strong>Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction.</p><p><strong>Assessment of risk of bias: </strong>QUADAS-2 tool.</p><p><strong>Methods of data synthesis: </strong>Bivariate binomial-normal restricted maximum likelihood random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regressions applying the delta method and likelihood ratio tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified postapproval studies for 13 of 61 (21%) rapid antigen tests, of which nine tests had eligible studies. The analysis incorporated 13 preapproval studies (591 COVID-19 cases, 3,155 participants) and 26 postapproval studies (2,765 cases, 12,444 participants). The pooled sensitivity for pre- and postapproval studies was 86.5% (95% CI: 83.3-89.1) and 84.5% (95% CI: 81.2-87.3), respectively. The absolute difference was 2.0% (95% CI: -1.9 to 6.2) and (0%, 95% CI: -0.6 to 0.6) for sensitivity and specificity, respectively. Two of the nine tests had lower sensitivity in postapproval studies.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our study found that sensitivity estimates from postapproval studies on FDA-approved rapid antigen tests are largely consistent with manufacturers' estimates. However, for two of the nine tests, postapproval sensitivity was lower than the manufacturers' high estimates. Differences in sensitivity observed in prior systematic reviews likely result from variations in study populations, not bias in study conduct. Given that 79% of FDA-approved rapid antigen tests lacked postapproval studies, ongoing evaluations are needed to ensure alignment with clinical expectations.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>The study was preregistered, and the protocol is available at https://osf.io/97cft.</p>","PeriodicalId":10444,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Microbiology and Infection","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Microbiology and Infection","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2025.07.009","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Manufacturers claim high sensitivity for rapid antigen SARS-CoV-2 tests on product labels, yet systematic reviews report considerably lower sensitivity.

Objectives: To describe study characteristics and compare the sensitivity and specificity United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved rapid antigen SARS-CoV-2 tests in pre-versus postapproval studies.

Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources: FDA website, Medline, Embase, and Google Scholar.

Study eligibility criteria: Diagnostic test accuracy studies according to instruction for use.

Participants: Patients with symptoms of COVID-19.

Test(s): Rapid antigen SARS-CoV-2 tests.

Reference standard: Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction.

Assessment of risk of bias: QUADAS-2 tool.

Methods of data synthesis: Bivariate binomial-normal restricted maximum likelihood random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regressions applying the delta method and likelihood ratio tests.

Results: We identified postapproval studies for 13 of 61 (21%) rapid antigen tests, of which nine tests had eligible studies. The analysis incorporated 13 preapproval studies (591 COVID-19 cases, 3,155 participants) and 26 postapproval studies (2,765 cases, 12,444 participants). The pooled sensitivity for pre- and postapproval studies was 86.5% (95% CI: 83.3-89.1) and 84.5% (95% CI: 81.2-87.3), respectively. The absolute difference was 2.0% (95% CI: -1.9 to 6.2) and (0%, 95% CI: -0.6 to 0.6) for sensitivity and specificity, respectively. Two of the nine tests had lower sensitivity in postapproval studies.

Discussion: Our study found that sensitivity estimates from postapproval studies on FDA-approved rapid antigen tests are largely consistent with manufacturers' estimates. However, for two of the nine tests, postapproval sensitivity was lower than the manufacturers' high estimates. Differences in sensitivity observed in prior systematic reviews likely result from variations in study populations, not bias in study conduct. Given that 79% of FDA-approved rapid antigen tests lacked postapproval studies, ongoing evaluations are needed to ensure alignment with clinical expectations.

Registration: The study was preregistered, and the protocol is available at https://osf.io/97cft.

fda批准的根据说明书使用的快速抗原SARS-CoV-2检测的批准前和批准后诊断测试准确性:系统回顾和荟萃分析
背景:制造商在产品标签上声称快速抗原SARS-CoV-2检测灵敏度高,但系统评价报告灵敏度低得多。目的:描述研究特点,比较美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)批准的快速抗原SARS-CoV-2检测在批准前和批准后的敏感性和特异性。方法:系统评价和荟萃分析。数据来源:FDA网站,Medline, Embase,谷歌Scholar。研究资格标准:根据使用说明书进行诊断试验准确性研究。参与者:有covid -19症状的患者。检测方法:快速抗原SARS-CoV-2检测。参考标准:逆转录酶聚合酶链反应。偏倚风险评估:QUADAS-2工具。数据综合方法:双变量二项正态限制最大似然随机效应荟萃分析和应用delta方法和似然比检验的元回归。结果:我们确定了61项快速抗原检测中的13项(21%)的批准后研究,其中9项检测符合条件。该分析纳入了13项批准前研究(591例COVID-19病例,3155名受试者)和26项批准后研究(2765例,12444名受试者)。批准前和批准后研究的总敏感性分别为86.5% (95% CI: 83.3-89.1)和84.5% (95% CI: 81.2-87.3)。敏感性和特异性的绝对差异分别为2.0% (95% CI: -1.9 ~ 6.2)和0% (95% CI: -0.6 ~ 0.6)。在批准后的研究中,9项检测中的2项灵敏度较低。讨论:我们的研究发现,fda批准的快速抗原检测在批准后的敏感性估计与制造商的估计在很大程度上是一致的。然而,对于9个测试中的2个,批准后的敏感性低于制造商的高估计。在先前的系统评价中观察到的敏感性差异可能是由于研究人群的差异,而不是研究行为的偏差。鉴于fda批准的快速抗原检测中有79%缺乏批准后的研究,需要进行持续的评估以确保与临床期望保持一致。注册:本研究已预注册,方案可在https://osf.io/97cft上获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
25.30
自引率
2.10%
发文量
441
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Microbiology and Infection (CMI) is a monthly journal published by the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. It focuses on peer-reviewed papers covering basic and applied research in microbiology, infectious diseases, virology, parasitology, immunology, and epidemiology as they relate to therapy and diagnostics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信