Diagnostic Accuracy of Commercially Available Tests for Respiratory Syncytial Virus: A Scoping Literature Review in the COVID-19 Era

Abstract

Background: Non-pharmaceutical interventions to prevent the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 also decreased the spread of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza. Viral diagnostic testing in patients with respiratory tract infections (RTI) is a necessary tool for patient management; therefore, sensitive and specific tests are required. This scoping literature review evaluated the analytical validity of commercially available sample-to-answer RSV diagnostic tests in different contexts. Content: PubMed and Embase were queried for studies reporting on the analytical validity of tests for RSV in patients with RTI (published January 2005–January 2021). Sensitivity and specificity of RSV tests and information on study design, patient, and setting characteristics were extracted from 77 studies that met predefined inclusion criteria. A literature gap was identified for studies of RSV tests conducted in adult-only populations (5.3% of total sub-records), and in outpatient (7.5%) or household (0.8%) settings. Overall, RSV tests with analytical time >30 min had higher sensitivity (62.5–100%) versus RSV tests with analytical time ≤30 min (25.7–100%), this sensitivity range could be partially attributed to the different modalities (antigen versus molecular) used. Molecular-based rapid RSV tests had higher sensitivity (66.7–100%) and specificity (94.3–100%) than antigen-based RSV tests (25.7–100% and 80.3–100%). Summary: Molecular-based RSV tests should be considered for first-line use when possible, given their high sensitivity and specificity and that adults with RTI typically have low viral load, necessitating a highly sensitive test. This review benefits healthcare professionals by summarizing the diagnostic accuracy data available for commercially available RSV tests.

Gold Nanourchins Improve Virus Targeting and Plasmonic Coupling for Virus Diagnosis on a Smartphone Platform

“…While sensitive and specific, laboratory tests have a long turnaround time and are inaccessible in resource-limited settings. 6 In contrast, rapid antigen tests suffer from low sensitivity 7 (Figure S1, 10 4 PFU/ mL compared with the viral load range 10 3 −10 6 PFU/mL among the hospitalized infants 8 ) and are not recommended for adults and elder children. 9 Therefore, there is an unmet and urgent need for simple and sensitive detection of RSV.…”