Dear Editor,
We have carefully read the article published by Buliete et al. in your prestigious journal.1 This is, in our opinion, an excellent article about the usefulness of rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Its strengths are that it is a real-life, primary care study, its careful design and the large and calculated sample size, congratulations. However, there are some issues that we believe should be highlighted and others that should be nuanced based on their results, especially with regard to policy implications.
Firstly, we believe that the high specificity found in both, symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, close to 100%, has not been sufficiently highlighted. This near absence of false positives, as the authors comment, has been noted in other published articles. This finding is consistent with two recently published papers by our research group in two different contexts: population screening2 and an outbreak in a nursing home.3 As the authors conclude, this means that a positive test is a source of infection, but in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, so confirmatory tests are unnecessary. Based on the internal validity provided by the manufacturer, other authors recommend confirmatory testing in screening cases because of the expected high false positive rate.4 It is well known that if the expected prevalence is higher than 1 - Specificity the positive predictive value will be very low and even all positives could be false positives.5 However, if the prevalence is close to 100% the positive predictive value will be very high even with pre-test probabilities below 5%, which is the WHO recommended limit for the use of RADTs.6
With regard to nuance, we were surprised that the authors praise the reliability of the negative results in symptomatic subjects and question those of asymptomatic subjects with similar results and with confidence intervals that overlap widely. In both cases we believe that a negative test does not rule out the presence of infection. Even in those cases where the reason for the request for testing is unknown, the pre-test probability is high, 7.8%,1 and therefore a clear scenario of maintaining caution, the same in the case of close contacts, the quarantine situation should be maintained for the stipulated time regardless of the result of the test not only for antigen, but even for PCR.7 , 8 On the contrary, in a low pre-test probability scenario of less than 5%, as may be the case in population-based screening, the negative predictive value is very high and the presence of infection can be reasonably ruled out.2
In any case, we would like to congratulate the COVID-19 Primary Care Research Group for its interesting work and just remind that diagnostic tests are not to be read but must be interpreted in their context.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References
- 1.Bulilete O., Lorente P., Leiva A., Carandell E., Oliver A., Rojo E. Panbio™ rapid antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 has acceptable accuracy in symptomatic patients in primary health care. J Infect. 2021;82(3):391–398. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2021.02.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Fernández-Vázquez J.P., Reguero S., Sánchez-Antolín G., Martín-Sánchez V.Population-based screening for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection using rapid antigen testing and the 5% pre-test probability. Is the specifity our problem?. EIMC(accepted to publication).
- 3.Diez-Flecha C., Rivero Rodríguez A.M., Fernández-Villa T., Fernández García P., Ferreira de Jesús J.L., Sánchez Antolín G. et al. [Internal validity of a rapid test for COVID-19 antigens in a nursing home]. SEMERGEN 2021 (accepted to publication) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 4.Peeling R.W., Olliaro P.L., Boeras D.I. Scaling up COVID-19 rapid antigen tests: promises and challenges. Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00048-7. S1473-3099(21)00048-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Rogan W.J., Gladen B. Estimating prevalence from the results of a screening test. Am J Epidemiol. 1978;107:71–76. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112510. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.World Health Organization . World Health Organization; 2020. Antigen-detection in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection using rapid immunoassays.https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/antigen-detection-in-the-diagnosis-of-sars-cov-2infection-using-rapid-immunoassays [Internet]Available from: [Google Scholar]
- 7.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – CDC . Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – CDC; 2021. When to Quarantine. Stay home if you might have been exposed to COVID-19.https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/quarantine.html [Internet]Available from: [Google Scholar]
- 8.Salathé M., Althaus C.L., Neher R., Stringhini S., Hodcroft E., Fellay J. COVID-19 epidemic in Switzerland: on the importance of testing, contact tracing and isolation. Swiss Med Wkly. 2020;150:1112. doi: 10.4414/smw.2020.20225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]