scholarly journals Evaluation of saliva molecular point of care for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in ambulatory care

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerome Le Goff ◽  
Solen Kerneis ◽  
Caroline Elie ◽  
Severine Mercier Delarue ◽  
Nabil Gastli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Point Of Care ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Lamp Assay ◽  
Rapid Identification ◽  
Ambulatory Setting ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Lower Sensitivity ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
A Prospective Study ◽  
Antigen Testing

Background: The rapid identification of SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals is a cornerstone in strategies for the control of virus spread. The sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection by RT-PCR is similar in saliva and nasopharyngeal swab. Rapid molecular point-of-care tests in saliva could facilitate, broaden and speed up the diagnosis. Objectives and methods: We conducted a prospective study in two community COVID-19 screening centers to evaluate the performances of a CE-marked RT-LAMP assay (EasyCoV) specifically designed for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA from fresh saliva samples, compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR as reference test, saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen testing. Results: Overall, 117 of the 1718 participants (7%) were tested positive with nasopharyngeal RT-PCR. Sensitivities of saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen test were 93% (95% Confidence Interval (95%CI): 86-97) and 85% (95%CI: 77-91), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the RT-LAMP assay in saliva were 34% (95%CI: 26-44) and 97% (95%CI: 96-98). The performance was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic participants and whatever the reference standard considered. Ct values of nasopharyngeal RT-PCR were significantly lower in the 40 true positive subjects with saliva RT-LAMP (Ct 25.9) than in the 48 false negative subjects with saliva RT-LAMP (Ct 28.4) (p=0.028). Conclusion: In the ambulatory setting, the detection of SARS-CoV-2 from crude saliva samples with the RT-LAMP assay had a lower sensitivity than nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen testing.

scholarly journals Evaluation of saliva molecular point of care for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in ambulatory care

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jérôme LeGoff ◽  
Solen Kernéis ◽  
Caroline Elie ◽  
Séverine Mercier Delarue ◽  
Nabil Gastli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Point Of Care ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Lamp Assay ◽  
Rapid Identification ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Lower Sensitivity ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
A Prospective Study ◽  
Antigen Testing

Abstract Background Rapid identification of SARS-Cov-2 infected individuals is a cornerstone for the control of virus spread. The sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection by RT-PCR is similar in saliva and nasopharyngeal swab. Rapid molecular point-of-care tests in saliva could facilitate, broaden and speed up the diagnosis. Methods We conducted a prospective study in two community COVID-19 screening centers to evaluate the performances of a CE-marked RT-LAMP assay (EasyCoV™) designed for the detection of SARS-CoV2 RNA from fresh saliva samples, compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, to saliva RT-PCR and to nasopharyngeal antigen testing. Results Overall, 117 of the 1718 participants (7%) were tested positive with nasopharyngeal RT-PCR. Compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, the sensitivity and specificity of the RT-LAMP assay in saliva were 34% and 97% respectively. The Ct values of nasopharyngeal RT-PCR were significantly lower in the 40 true positive subjects with saliva RT-LAMP (Ct 25.9) than in the 48 false negative subjects with saliva RT-LAMP (Ct 28.4) (p = 0.028). Considering six alternate criteria for reference test, including saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen, the sensitivity of saliva RT-LAMP ranged between 27 and 44%. Conclusion The detection of SARS-CoV-2 from crude saliva samples with a RT-LAMP assay had a lower sensitivity than nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen testing. Registration number : NCT04578509

scholarly journals The Performance of Two Rapid Antigen Tests During Population-Level Screening for SARS-CoV-2 Infection

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Alghounaim ◽  
Hamad Bastaki ◽  
Farah Bin Essa ◽  
Hoda Motlagh ◽  
Salman Al-Sabah
Keyword(s):  
Positive Predictive Value ◽  
Prospective Study ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Population Level ◽  
Lower Sensitivity ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Antigen Tests ◽  
A Prospective Study ◽  
Antigen Testing

Background: SARS-CoV-2 antigen assays offer a rapid mean to diagnose and isolate infected individuals. However, their utility in population-level screening is unknown.Objectives: The performance of two antigen tests in detecting SARS-CoV-2 was assessed among individuals randomly selected in the community.Study Design: A prospective study that performed head-to-head comparison of two SARS-CoV-2 antigen assays. Individuals were recruited during community SARS-CoV-2 screening over 10 working days. Demographic and clinical data were collected. Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test, a point-of-care chromatographic assay, was conducted immediately, and then the sample was transported to the virology laboratory to perform PCR and the LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 Ag chemiluminesence immunoassay.Results: respiratory samples from 991 individuals were collected, and 62 were positive by PCR. Inconclusive PCR results were observed in 19 samples and were excluded. The median age of participants was 40.2 years (IQR 32.3–47.8), and 932 (94%) were males. Most (77.4%) of infections were asymptomatic. The sensitivity and the specificity of the LIAISON assay were 43.3% (95%CI 30.6–56.8) and 99.9% (95%CI 99.3–100). The Standard Q assay had lower sensitivity (30.6%, 95%CI 19.6–43.7) but similar specificity (98.8%, 95%CI, 97.8–99.4). Similarly, the LIAISON assay had higher positive predictive value (96.3%, 95%CI 81–99.9% vs. 63.3%, 95%CI, 43.9–80.1%). Both assays performed better in symptomatic patients and among samples with a low-cycle threshold (Ct < 25).Conclusion: In our setting of random community surveillance, rapid antigen testing of nasopharyngeal swabs by either LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 Ag (DiaSorin) or Standard Q COVID-19 Ag (SD Biosensor) was less sensitive to detecting SARS-CoV-2 than the TaqPath COVID-19 RT-PCR.

scholarly journals Performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic adults: a single-center evaluation

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie L. Mitchell ◽  
Steven Orris ◽  
Tanner Freeman ◽  
Megan C. Freeman ◽  
Michelle Adam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Symptom Onset ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Lower Sensitivity ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
Asymptomatic Patients ◽  
False Negative Results ◽  
Antigen Testing

Abstract Background Antigen testing offers rapid and inexpensive testing for SARS-CoV-2 but concerns regarding performance, especially sensitivity, remain. Limited data exists for use of antigen testing in asymptomatic patients; thus, performance and reliability of antigen testing remains unclear. Methods 148 symptomatic and 144 asymptomatic adults were included. A nasal swab was collected for testing by Quidel Sofia SARS IFA (Sofia) as point of care. A nasopharyngeal swab was also collected and transported to the laboratory for testing by Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV RT-PCR (Cepheid). Results Overall, Sofia had good agreement with Cepheid (> 95%) in adults, however was less sensitive. Sofia had a sensitivity of 87.8% and 33.3% for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, respectively. Among symptomatic patients, testing > 5 days post symptom onset resulted in lower sensitivity (82%) when compared with testing within 5 days of symptom onset (90%). Of the four Sofia false-negative results in the asymptomatic cohort, 50% went on to develop COVID-19 disease within 5 days of testing. Specificity in both symptomatic and asymptomatic cohorts was 100%. Conclusions Sofia has acceptable performance in symptomatic adults when tested < 5 days of symptom onset. Caution should be taken when testing patients with ≥ 5 days of symptoms. The combination of low prevalence and reduced sensitivity results in relatively poor performance of in asymptomatic patients. NAAT-based diagnostic assays should be considered in when antigen testing is unreliable, particularly in symptomatic patients with > 5 days of symptom onset and asymptomatic patients.

scholarly journals Is the glass half full? Extraction-free RT-LAMP to detect SARS-CoV-2 is less sensitive but highly specific compared to standard RT-PCR in 101 samples

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
John J. Schellenberg ◽  
Margaret Ormond ◽  
Yoav Keynan
Keyword(s):  
Point Of Care ◽  
N Gene ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Lower Sensitivity ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Viral Loads ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
Viral Transport Medium ◽  
Point Of Care Tests

AbstractThe current scale of public and private testing cannot be expected to meet the emerging need for higher levels of community-level and repeated screening of asymptomatic Canadians for SARS-CoV-2. Rapid point-of-care techniques are increasingly being deployed to fill the gap in screening levels required to identify undiagnosed individuals with high viral loads. However, rapid, point-of-care tests often have lower sensitivity in practice. Reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) for SARS-CoV-2 has proven sensitive and specific and provides visual results in minutes. Using a commercially available kit for RT-LAMP and primer set targetting nucleocapsid (N) gene, we tested a blinded set of 101 archived nasopharyngeal (NP) swab samples with known RT-PCR results. RT-LAMP reactions were incubated at 65°C for 30 minutes, using heat-inactivated nasopharyngeal swab sample in viral transport medium, diluted tenfold in water, as input. RT-LAMP agreed with all RT-PCR defined negatives (N=51), and all positives with Ct less than 20 (N=24), 65% of positives with Ct between 20-30 (N=17), and no positives with Ct greater than 30 (N=9). RT-LAMP requires fewer and different core components, so may not compete directly with the mainline testing workflow, preserving precious central laboratory resources and gold standard tests for those with the greatest need. Careful messaging must be provided when using less-sensitive tests, so that people are not falsely reassured by negative results – “glass half empty” – in exchange for reliable detection of those with high levels of virus within an hour, using <$10 worth of chemicals – “glass half full”.

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 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.

Scoring System for the Diagnosis of COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 413-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed Farouk Allam
Keyword(s):  
Scoring System ◽  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Pcr Assay ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
False Negative Results ◽  
Symptoms And Signs

Due to the international spread of COVID-19, the difficulty of collecting nasopharyngeal swab specimen from all suspected patients, the costs of RT-PCR and CT, and the false negative results of RT-PCR assay in 41% of COVID-19 patients, a scoring system is needed to classify the suspected patients in order to determine the need for follow-up, home isolation, quarantine or the conduction of further investigations. A scoring system is proposed as a diagnostic tool for suspected patients. It includes Epidemiological Evidence of Exposure, Clinical Symptoms and Signs, and Investigations (if available). This scoring system is simple, could be calculated in a few minutes, and incorporates the main possible data/findings of any patient.

scholarly journals Implementing SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Testing in the Emergency Ward of a Swiss University Hospital: The INCREASE Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 798
Author(s):  
Giorgia Caruana ◽  
Antony Croxatto ◽  
Eleftheria Kampouri ◽  
Antonios Kritikos ◽  
Onya Opota ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Immunoglobulin A ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Lower Sensitivity ◽  
Clinical Settings ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Emergency Ward ◽  
Viral Loads ◽  
Asymptomatic Patients ◽  
Asymptomatic Subjects ◽  
Antigen Testing

Following the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) authorization of the rapid antigen test (RAT), we implemented the use of the RAT in the emergency ward of our university hospital for patients’ cohorting. RAT triaging in association with RT-PCR allowed us to promptly isolate positive patients and save resources. Among 532 patients, overall sensitivities were 48.3% for Exdia and 41.2% for Standard Q®, PanbioTM and BD Veritor™. All RATs exhibited specificity above 99%. Sensitivity increased to 74.6%, 66.2%, 66.2% and 64.8% for Exdia, Standard Q®, PanbioTM and BD Veritor™, respectively, for viral loads above 105 copies/mL, to 100%, 97.8%, 96.6% and 95.6% for viral loads above 106 copies/mL and 100% for viral loads above 107 copies/mL. Sensitivity was significantly higher for patients with symptoms onset within four days (74.3%, 69.2%, 69.2% and 64%, respectively) versus patients with the evolution of symptoms longer than four days (36.8%, 21.1%, 21.1% and 23.7%, respectively). Among COVID-19 asymptomatic patients, sensitivity was 33%. All Immunoglobulin-A-positive patients resulted negative for RAT. The RAT might represent a useful resource in selected clinical settings as a complementary tool in RT-PCR for rapid patient triaging, but the lower sensitivity, especially in late presenters and COVID-19 asymptomatic subjects, must be taken into account.

scholarly journals Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-based rapid diagnostic kits in Pakistan: formulation of COVID-19 national testing strategy

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Umar Saeed ◽  
Sara Rizwan Uppal ◽  
Zahra Zahid Piracha ◽  
Azhar Rasheed ◽  
Zubair Aftab ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gold Standard ◽  
Injection Drug Users ◽  
Drug Users ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Negative Results

AbstractRapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 during pandemic enables timely treatment and prevention of COVID-19. Evaluating the accuracy and reliability of rapid diagnostic testing kits is crucial for surveillance and diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections in general population, injection drug users, multi-transfused populations, healthcare workers, prisoners, barbers and other high risk populations. The aim of this study was to evaluate performance and effectiveness of nasopharyngeal swab (NSP) and saliva based rapid antigen detection testing kits in comparison with USFDA approved triple target gold standard real-time polymerase chain reaction. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 33,000 COVID-19 suspected patients. From RT-PCR positive patients, nasopharyngeal swab (NSP) and saliva samples were obtained for evaluation of rapid COVID-19 testing kits (RDT). 100/33,000 (0.3%) of specimens were RT-PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2. Among RT-PCR positive, 62% were males, 34% were females, and 4% were children. The NSP-RDT (Lepu Medical China) analysis revealed 53% reactivity among males, 58% reactivity among females, and 25% reactivity among children. However saliva based RDT (Lepu Medical China) analysis showed 21% reactivity among males and 23% among females, and no reactivity in children. False negative results were significantly more pronounced in saliva based RDT as compared to NSP-RDT. The sensitivity of these NSP-RDT and saliva based RDT were 52% and 21% respectively. The RDTs evaluated in this study showed limited sensitivities in comparison to gold standard RT-PCR, indicating that there is a dire need in Pakistan for development of suitable testing to improve accurate COVID-19 diagnosis in line with national demands.

scholarly journals Screening, Diagnostic and Prognostic Tests for COVID-19: A Comprehensive Review

Life ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 561
Author(s):  
Mariana Ulinici ◽  
Serghei Covantev ◽  
James Wingfield-Digby ◽  
Apostolos Beloukas ◽  
Alexander G. Mathioudakis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Point Of Care ◽  
Standard Test ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Molecular Testing ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Diagnostic Screening ◽  
Comprehensive Review ◽  
Prognostic Tests ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Antigen Testing

While molecular testing with real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) remains the gold-standard test for COVID-19 diagnosis and screening, more rapid or affordable molecular and antigen testing options have been developed. More affordable, point-of-care antigen testing, despite being less sensitive compared to molecular assays, might be preferable for wider screening initiatives. Simple laboratory, imaging and clinical parameters could facilitate prognostication and triage. This comprehensive review summarises current evidence on the diagnostic, screening and prognostic tests for COVID-19.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document