Background SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being integrated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs. Methods and findings We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix, bioRvix, and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 up until 30 April 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses, and rated study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 assessment tool. From a total of 14,254 articles, we included 133 analytical and clinical studies resulting in 214 clinical accuracy datasets with 112,323 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 71.2% (95% CI 68.2% to 74.0%) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6% to 99.1%), respectively. Sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.1% to 79.2%) if analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers’ instructions. LumiraDx showed the highest sensitivity, with 88.2% (95% CI 59.0% to 97.5%). Of instrument-free Ag-RDTs, Standard Q nasal performed best, with 80.2% sensitivity (95% CI 70.3% to 87.4%). Across all Ag-RDTs, sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, i.e., <20 (96.5%, 95% CI 92.6% to 98.4%) and <25 (95.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 97.8%), in comparison to those with Ct ≥ 25 (50.7%, 95% CI 35.6% to 65.8%) and ≥30 (20.9%, 95% CI 12.5% to 32.8%). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (83.8%, 95% CI 76.3% to 89.2%) compared to testing after 1 week (61.5%, 95% CI 52.2% to 70.0%). The best Ag-RDT sensitivity was found with anterior nasal sampling (75.5%, 95% CI 70.4% to 79.9%), in comparison to other sample types (e.g., nasopharyngeal, 71.6%, 95% CI 68.1% to 74.9%), although CIs were overlapping. Concerns of bias were raised across all datasets, and financial support from the manufacturer was reported in 24.1% of datasets. Our analysis was limited by the included studies’ heterogeneity in design and reporting. Conclusions In this study we found that Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2-infected persons within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load. Thus, they can have high utility for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease, making them a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization in conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data.

These guidelines are intended as an update to those published in the Southern African Journal of HIV Medicine in 2014 and the update on when to initiate antiretroviral therapy in 2015. Since the release of the previous guidelines, the scale-up of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in southern Africa has continued. New antiretroviral drugs have become available with improved efficacy, safety and robustness. The guidelines are intended for countries in the southern African region, which vary between lower and middle income.

None.

To achieve global targets for universal treatment set forth by the Joint United Nations Programme on human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) (UNAIDS), viral load monitoring for HIV-infected persons receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) must become the standard of care in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) (1). CDC and other U.S. government agencies, as part of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, are supporting multiple countries in sub-Saharan Africa to change from the use of CD4 cell counts for monitoring of clinical response to ART to the use of viral load monitoring, which is the standard of care in developed countries. Viral load monitoring is the preferred method for immunologic monitoring because it enables earlier and more accurate detection of treatment failure before immunologic decline. This report highlights the initial successes and challenges of viral load monitoring in seven countries that have chosen to scale up viral load testing as a national monitoring strategy for patients on ART in response to World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations. Countries initiating viral load scale-up in 2014 observed increases in coverage after scale-up, and countries initiating in 2015 are anticipating similar trends. However, in six of the seven countries, viral load testing coverage in 2015 remained below target levels. Inefficient specimen transport, need for training, delays in procurement and distribution, and limited financial resources to support scale-up hindered progress. Country commitment and effective partnerships are essential to address the financial, operational, technical, and policy challenges of the rising demand for viral load monitoring.