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

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice Berger ◽  
Marie Therese Ngo Nsoga ◽  
Francisco Javier Perez-Rodriguez ◽  
Yasmine Abi Aad ◽  
Pascale Sattonnet-Roche ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Rapid Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Test Device ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Rapid Tests

AbstractBackgroundAntigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 offer new opportunities for the quick and laboratory-independent identification of infected individuals for control of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.MethodsWe performed a prospective, single-center, point of care validation of two antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) in comparison to RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs.FindingsBetween October 9th and 23rd, 2020, 1064 participants were enrolled. The Panbio™Covid-19 Ag Rapid Test device (Abbott) was validated in 535 participants, with 106 positive Ag-RDT results out of 124 positive RT-PCR individuals, yielding a sensitivity of 85.5% (95% CI: 78.0–91.2). Specificity was 100.0% (95% CI: 99.1–100) in 411 RT-PCR negative individuals. The Standard Q Ag-RDT (SD Biosensor, Roche) was validated in 529 participants, with 170 positive Ag-RDT results out of 191 positive RT-PCR individuals, yielding a sensitivity of 89.0% (95%CI: 83.7–93.1). One false positive result was obtained in 338 RT-PCR negative individuals, yielding a specificity of 99.7% (95%CI: 98.4–100). For individuals presenting with fever 1-5 days post symptom onset, combined Ag-RDT sensitivity was above 95%.InterpretationWe provide an independent validation of two widely available commercial Ag-RDTs, both meeting WHO criteria of ≥80% sensitivity and ≥97% specificity. Although less sensitive than RT-PCR, these assays could be beneficial due to their rapid results, ease of use, and independence from existing laboratory structures. Testing criteria focusing on patients with typical symptoms in their early symptomatic period onset could further increase diagnostic value.FundingFoundation of Innovative Diagnostics (FIND), Fondation privée des HUG, Pictet Charitable Foundation.

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

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. e0248921
Author(s):  
Alice Berger ◽  
Marie Therese Ngo Nsoga ◽  
Francisco Javier Perez-Rodriguez ◽  
Yasmine Abi Aad ◽  
Pascale Sattonnet-Roche ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Lower Sensitivity ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Test Device ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Rapid Tests

Objectives Determine the diagnostic accuracy of two antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) for SARS-CoV-2 at the point of care and define individuals’ characteristics providing best performance. Methods We performed a prospective, single-center, point of care validation of two Ag-RDT in comparison to RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs. Results Between October 9th and 23rd, 2020, 1064 participants were enrolled. The PanbioTM Covid-19 Ag Rapid Test device (Abbott) was validated in 535 participants, with 106 positive Ag-RDT results out of 124 positive RT-PCR individuals, yielding a sensitivity of 85.5% (95% CI: 78.0–91.2). Specificity was 100.0% (95% CI: 99.1–100) in 411 RT-PCR negative individuals. The Standard Q Ag-RDT (SD Biosensor, Roche) was validated in 529 participants, with 170 positive Ag-RDT results out of 191 positive RT-PCR individuals, yielding a sensitivity of 89.0% (95%CI: 83.7–93.1). One false positive result was obtained in 338 RT-PCR negative individuals, yielding a specificity of 99.7% (95%CI: 98.4–100). For individuals presenting with fever 1–5 days post symptom onset, combined Ag-RDT sensitivity was above 95%. Lower sensitivity of 88.2% was seen on the same day of symptom development (day 0). Conclusions We provide an independent validation of two widely available commercial Ag-RDTs, both meeting WHO criteria of ≥80% sensitivity and ≥97% specificity. Although less sensitive than RT-PCR, these assays could be beneficial due to their rapid results, ease of use, and independence from existing laboratory structures. Testing criteria focusing on patients with typical symptoms in their early symptomatic period onset could further increase diagnostic value.

scholarly journals Diagnostic Utility of Antigen Detection Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Covid- 19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mina Ebrahimi ◽  
Narges Nazari Harmooshi ◽  
Fakher Rahim
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Rapid Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Lower Sensitivity ◽  
Sample Type ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Asymptomatic Patients

Background: Early detection of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection to improve disease management, becomes the greatest challenge. Despite high sensitivity of RT-PCR, not only it was reported that 20-67% of infected patients have false negative results. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are widely used as a point-of-care test for SARS-CoV-2 detection in both pharyngeal and blood specimens. To be less time-consuming, not seem so costly, and requiring no special training make it more favorable, but the low sensitivity is the main limitation. Several reports indicated rapid test of blood and pharyngeal samples has the same sensitivity as the RT-PCR, but some reports have lower sensitivity especial in asymptomatic patients. Methods: In the present survey, we investigate the eligible studies for sensitivity and specificity of rapid tests and explore the factors that influence the result to help better diagnose COVID-19 infection. 20 studies met the inclusion criteria, which impose 33 different tests. Results: Our findings showed, type of sample, type of assay, time of sampling, and load of virus influence on sensitivity of RDTs. Conclusion: This research extends our knowledge of how to improve the sensitivity of RDTs to better diagnose of infected patients to address the controlling COVID-19 pandemic.

scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen detection testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic children in the clinical setting

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arnaud G. L’Huillier ◽  
Matthieu Lacour ◽  
Debora Sadiku ◽  
Mehdi A. Gadiri ◽  
Loraine De Siebenthal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Viral Load ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Rapid Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Test Device ◽  
Asymptomatic Children ◽  
Post Onset

Background. Antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are used in children despite the lack of data. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of the Panbio TM -COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device (P-RDT) in children. Methods. Symptomatic and asymptomatic participants 0-16yo had two NPS for both RT-PCR and P-RDT Results. 822 participants completed the study, of which 533 (64.9%) were symptomatic. Among the 119 (14.5%) RT-PCR-positive patients, the P-RDT sensitivity was 0.66 (95%CI 0.57-0.74). Mean viral load (VL) was higher among P-RDT-positive than negative ones (p<0.001). Sensitivity was 0.91 in specimens with VL>1.0E6 IU/mL (95%CI 0.83-0.99), and decreased to 0.75 (95%CI 0.66-0.83) for specimens >1.0E3 IU/mL. Among symptomatic participants, the P-RDT displayed a sensitivity of 0.73 (95%CI 0.64-0.82), which peaked at 1.00 at 2 days post-onset of symptoms (DPOS; 95%CI 1.00-1.00), then decreased to 0.56 (95%CI 0.23-0.88) at 5 DPOS. There was a trend towards lower P-RDT sensitivity in symptomatic children <12 years (0.62 [95%CI 0.45-0.78]) versus ≥12 years (0.80 [95%CI 0.69-0.91]; p=0.09). In asymptomatic participants, the P-RDT displayed a sensitivity of 0.43 (95%CI 0.26-0.61). Specificity was 1.00 in symptomatic and asymptomatic children (95%CI 0.99-1.00). Conclusion . The overall respective 73% and 43% sensitivities of P-RDT in symptomatic and asymptomatic children was below the 80% cut-off recommended by the WHO. We observed a correlation between VL and P-RDT sensitivity as well as variation of sensitivity according to DPOS, a major determinant of VL. These data highlight the limitations of RDTs in children, with the potential exception in early symptomatic children ≥12yrs.

scholarly journals Diagnostic Utility of Antigen Detection Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Covid- 19: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Somayeh Ghasemi ◽  
Narges Nazari Harmooshi ◽  
Fakher Rahim
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Rapid Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Lower Sensitivity ◽  
Sample Type ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Asymptomatic Patients

Abstract Background: Early detection of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection to improve disease management, becomes the greatest challenge. Despite high sensitivity of RT-PCR, not only it was reported that 20-67% of infected patients have false negative results. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are widely used as a point-of-care test for SARS-CoV-2 detection in both pharyngeal and blood specimens. To be less time-consuming, not seem so costly, and requiring no special training make it more favorable, but the low sensitivity is the main limitation. Several reports indicated rapid test of blood and pharyngeal samples has the same sensitivity as the RT-PCR, but some reports have lower sensitivity especial in asymptomatic patients. Methods: In the present survey, we investigate the eligible studies for sensitivity and specificity of rapid tests and explore the factors that influence the result to help better diagnose COVID-19 infection. 20 studies met the inclusion criteria, which impose 33 different tests. Results: Our findings showed, type of sample, type of assay, time of sampling, and load of virus influence on sensitivity of RDTs. Conclusion: This research extends our knowledge of how to improve the sensitivity of RDTs to better diagnose of infected patients to address the controlling COVID-19 pandemic.

scholarly journals Real-life evaluation of a rapid antigen test (Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device) for SARS-CoV-2 detection in asymptomatic close contacts of COVID-19 patients

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ignacio Torres ◽  
Sandrine Poujois ◽  
Eliseo Albert ◽  
Javier Colomina ◽  
David Navarro
Keyword(s):  
Point Of Care ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Optimal Timing ◽  
Upper Respiratory Tract ◽  
Limited Information ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Test Device ◽  
Household Contacts ◽  
Close Contacts

ABSTRACTObjectivesThere is limited information on the performance of rapid antigen detection (RAD) tests to identify SARS-CoV-2-infected asymptomatic individuals. In this field study, we evaluated the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device (Abbott Diagnostics, Jena, Germany) for the purpose.MethodsA total of 634 individuals (355 female; median age, 37 years; range, 9-87) were enrolled. Household (n=338) contacts were tested at a median of 2 days (range, 1-7) after diagnosis of the index case and non-household contacts (n=296) at a median of 6 days (range, 1-7) after exposure. RAD testing was carried out at the point of care. The RT-PCR test used was the TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Massachusetts, USA).ResultsIn total, 79 individuals (12.4%) tested positive by RT-PCR, of whom 38 (48.1%) yielded positive RAD results. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the RAD test was 48.1% (95% CI: 37.4-58.9) and 100% (95% CI: 99.3-100), respectively. Sensitivity was higher in household (50.8%; 95% CI: 38.9-62.5) than in non-household (35.7%; 95% CI:16.3-61.2%) contacts. Individuals testing positive by RAD test were more likely (P<0.001) to become symptomatic than their negative counterparts.ConclusionThe Panbio test displays low sensitivity in asymptomatic close contacts of COVID-19 patients, particularly in non-household contacts. Nonetheless, establishing the optimal timing for upper respiratory tract collection in this group seems imperative to pinpoint test sensitivity.

LABORATORY METHODS AND PREVALENCE OF SARS-COV-2 INFECTIONS IN THE 2ND SEMESTER OF 2021 IN THE EMERGENCY CLINICAL COUNTY HOSPITAL OF CONSTANTA

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stoicescu Ramona ◽  
Stoicescu Razvan-Alexandru ◽  
Codrin Gheorghe ◽  
Schroder Verginica
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Tract ◽  
Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Rapid Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Antigen Detection ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Laboratory Methods ◽  
Rapid Tests ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Tract Infections

"Diagnosing infections with SARS-CoV-2 is still of great interest due to the health and economic impact of COVID pandemic. The 4th wave of the COVID-19 pandemic is expected and is considered to be stronger and faster due to the dominance of Delta variant which is highly contagious [1]. SARS-CoV-2 also known as 2019-nCoV is one of the three coronaviruses (together with SARS-CoV or SARS-CoV1/Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus), MERS-CoV /Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus) which can cause severe respiratory tract infections in humans [2]. Early diagnosis in COVID 19 infection is the key for preventing infection transmission in collectivity and proper medical care for the ill patients. Gold standard for diagnosing SARS-Co-V-2 infection according to WHO recommendation is using nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT)/ reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The search is on to develop reliable but less expensive and faster diagnostic tests that detect antigens specific for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antigen-detection diagnostic tests are designed to directly detect SARSCoV-2 proteins produced by replicating virus in respiratory secretions so-called rapid diagnostic tests, or RDTs. The diagnostic development landscape is dynamic, with nearly a hundred companies developing or manufacturing rapid tests for SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection [3]. In the last 3 months our hospital introduced the antigen test or Rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) which detects the presence of viral proteins (antigens) expressed by the COVID-19 virus in a sample from the respiratory tract of a person. All RDT were confirmed next day with a RT-PCR. The number of positive cases detected during 3 months in our laboratory was 425. There were 326 positive tests in April, 106 positive tests in May and 7 positive tests in June. Compared with the number of positive tests in the 1st semester of 2021, the positive tests have significantly declined."

scholarly journals Point-of-Care Diagnostic Tests for Detecting SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Real-World Data

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 1515 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matteo Riccò ◽  
Pietro Ferraro ◽  
Giovanni Gualerzi ◽  
Silvia Ranzieri ◽  
Brandon Michael Henry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Rapid Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Diagnostic Methods ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
Healthcare Facilities

SARS-CoV-2 is responsible for a highly contagious infection, known as COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 was discovered in late December 2019 and, since then, has become a global pandemic. Timely and accurate COVID-19 laboratory testing is an essential step in the management of the COVID-19 outbreak. To date, assays based on the reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in respiratory samples are the gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis. Unfortunately, RT-PCR has several practical limitations. Consequently, alternative diagnostic methods are urgently required, both for alleviating the pressure on laboratories and healthcare facilities and for expanding testing capacity to enable large-scale screening and ensure a timely therapeutic intervention. To date, few studies have been conducted concerning the potential utilization of rapid testing for COVID-19, with some conflicting results. Therefore, the present systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to explore the feasibility of rapid diagnostic tests in the management of the COVID-19 outbreak. Based on ten studies, we computed a pooled sensitivity of 64.8% (95%CI 54.5–74.0), and specificity of 98.0% (95%CI 95.8–99.0), with high heterogeneity and risk of reporting bias. We can conclude that: (1) rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 are necessary, but should be adequately sensitive and specific; (2) few studies have been carried out to date; (3) the studies included are characterized by low numbers and low sample power, and (4) in light of these results, the use of available tests is currently questionable for clinical purposes and cannot substitute other more reliable molecular tests, such as assays based on RT-PCR.

scholarly journals Head-to-head comparison of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test with self-collected anterior nasal swab versus professional-collected nasopharyngeal swab

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas K. Lindner ◽  
Olga Nikolai ◽  
Franka Kausch ◽  
Mia Wintel ◽  
Franziska Hommes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Point Of Care ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
High Viral Load ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Healthcare Personnel ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Swab Sample ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Percent Agreement ◽  
Accuracy Study

AbstractBackgroundTwo antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are now approved through the WHO Emergency Use Listing procedure and can be performed at the point-of-care. However, both tests use nasopharyngeal (NP) swab samples. NP swab samples must be collected by trained healthcare personnel with protective equipment and are frequently perceived as uncomfortable by patients.MethodsThis was a manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study with comparison of a supervised, self-collected anterior nose (AN) swab sample with a professional-collected NP swab sample, using a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT, STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test (SD Biosensor), which is also being distributed by Roche. The reference standard was RT-PCR from an oro-/nasopharyngeal swab sample. Percent positive and negative agreement as well as sensitivity and specificity were calculated.ResultsAmong the 289 participants, 39 (13.5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. The positive percent agreement of the two different sampling techniques for the Ag-RDT was 90.6% (CI 75.8-96.8). The negative percent agreement was 99.2% (CI 97.2-99.8). The Ag-RDT with AN sampling showed a sensitivity of 74.4% (29/39 PCR positives detected; CI 58.9-85.4) and specificity of 99.2% (CI 97.1-99.8) compared to RT-PCR. The sensitivity with NP sampling was 79.5% (31/39 PCR positives detected; CI 64.5-89.2) and specificity was 99.6% (CI 97.8-100). In patients with high viral load (>7.0 log 10 RNA SARS-CoV2/swab), the sensitivity of the Ag-RDT with AN sampling was 96% and 100% with NP sampling.ConclusionSupervised self-sampling from the anterior nose is a reliable alternative to professional nasopharyngeal sampling using a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. Considering the ease-of-use of Ag-RDTs, self-sampling and potentially patient self-testing at home may be a future use case.

scholarly journals Field evaluation of a rapid antigen test (Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device) for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in primary healthcare centers

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eliseo Albert ◽  
Ignacio Torres ◽  
Felipe Bueno ◽  
Dixie Huntley ◽  
Estefanía Molla ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Healthcare ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Field Evaluation ◽  
Antigen Test ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Test Device ◽  
Specificity And Sensitivity ◽  
Primary Healthcare Centers

AbstractWe evaluated the Panbio™ COVID-19 AG Rapid Test Device (RAD) for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in symptomatic patients attended in primary healthcare centers (n=412). Overall specificity and sensitivity of RAD was 100% and 79.6%, respectively, taking RT-PCR as the reference. SARS-CoV-2 could not be cultured from specimens yielding RT-PCR+/RAD- results.

Point-Of-Care Clinical Evaluation of the Clungene® SARS-CoV-2 Virus IgG/IgM 15-minute rapid test cassette with the Cobas® Roche RT-PCR platform in patients with or without Covid-19

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fadi Haddad ◽  
Christopher C Lamb ◽  
Ravina Kullar ◽  
George Sakoulas
Keyword(s):  
Symptom Onset ◽  
Serological Test ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Lateral Flow ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Lateral Flow Immunoassay ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Past Infection

Background: Covid-19 remains a pandemic with multiple challenges to confirm patient infectivity: lack of sufficient tests, accurate results, validated quality, and timeliness of results. We hypothesize that a rapid 15-minute Point-Of-Care serological test to evaluate past infection complements diagnostic testing for Covid-19 and significantly enhances testing availability. Method: A three arm observational study at Sharp Healthcare, San Diego, California was conducted using the Clungene® lateral flow immunoassay (LFI) and compared with the Cobas® Roche RT PCR results. Arm 1: Thirty-five (35) subjects with confirmed Covid-19 using RT-PCR were tested twice: prior to 14 days following symptom onset and once between 12 and 70 days. Arm 2: Thirty (30) subjects with confirmed Covid-19 using RT-PCR were tested 12-70 days post symptom onset. Arm 3: Thirty (30) subjects with a negative RT-PCR for Covid-19 were tested 1-10 days following the RT-PCR test date. Results: Specificity of confirmed negative Covid-19 by RT-PCR was 100% (95% CI, 88.4%-100.0%); meaning there was 100% negative positive agreement between the RT-PCR and the Clungene® serological test results. Covid-19 subjects tested prior to day 7 symptom onset were antibody negative. In subjects 7-12 days following symptom onset with a confirmed positive Covid-19 by RT-PCR, the combined sensitivity of IgM and IgG was 58.6% (95% CI, 38.9%-76.5%). In subjects 13-70 days following symptom onset with a confirmed positive Covid-19 by RT-PCR the combined sensitivity of IgM and IgG was 90.5% (95% CI, 80.4%-96.4%). Conclusion: The Clungene® lateral flow immunoassay (LFI) is a useful tool to confirm individuals with an adaptive immune response to SARS-CoV-2 indicating past infection. Providing Point-Of-Care results within 15 minutes without any laboratory instrumentation or specialized software has an added value of increasing test availability to patients who have been symptomatic for more than one week to confirm past infection. Performance characteristics are optimal after 13 days with a sensitivity and specificity of 90% and 100%, respectively.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document