Diagnostic value of rapid antigen detection test for streptococcal pharyngitis in a pediatric population

Abstract Background Group A Streptococcus (GAS) and large colony-forming group C (GCS) and G (GGS) β-hemolytic streptococci are important causes of acute pharyngitis in children and adults. Rapid and accurate diagnosis of streptococcal pharyngitis can improve patient care and potentially reduce transmission. In this study, we evaluated the performance of the Lyra Direct Strep (LDS) assay for detection of GAS and GCS/GGS compared with traditional culture methods. Methods Pharyngeal samples obtained from 278 children presenting to the emergency department with initial negative GAS rapid antigen detection test (RADT) were used. All samples were cultured as part of routine care and tested in batches using the LDS assay. Results Of 278 pharyngeal samples with negative GAS RADT, 37 (13.3%) and 63 (22.7%) patients were positive for GAS by culture and LDS assay, respectively. Four (1.4%) patients were positive for GCS or GGS by culture or LDS assay. The LDS assay demonstrated sensitivity and specificity of 97.6% and 89.0%, respectively, compared with culture as the gold standard. Repeat culture and an alternate PCR showed that 85.7% (24 of 28) of discrepant samples agreed with findings of the LDS assay. Since implementation, the LDS assay shows a positivity rate of 21.0% (281 of 1340) compared with 11.7% (246 of 2110) by culture in the previous year. Conclusions We successfully implemented the LDS assay at our institution and have observed a significant increase in the positivity rate of GAS compared with culture. The LDS assay alone allowed for the elimination of β-streptococci screening by culture at our institution.

Download Full-text

2620. Respiratory Syncytial Virus Rapid Antigen Detection Test, Can It Be Trusted?

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofz360.2298 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽

pp. S912-S912

Author(s):

Nicole Titze ◽

Jasjit Singh ◽

Wendi Gornick

Keyword(s):

Respiratory Syncytial Virus ◽

Clinical Decision Making ◽

Fluorescent Antibody ◽

Antigen Detection ◽

Urgent Care ◽

Viral Fusion ◽

Rapid Antigen Detection Test ◽

Viral Fusion Protein ◽

Test Kit ◽

Syncytial Virus

Abstract Background Many emergency departments and urgent care settings use the commonly available Respiratory Syncytial Virus Rapid Antigen Detection Test (RSV RADT) to diagnose children with RSV. We noted discordant results between RADT and definitive testing. Our study looked at the positive predictive value (PPV) and the false discovery rate (FDR) of the RSV RADT at our facility. Methods We pro- and retrospectively reviewed all patients with positive RSV RAPD tests from July 1, 2017 through March 31, 2019. The test utilized was the QuickVue® RSV Test Kit (QUIDEL Corp, CA, USA), which detects the viral fusion protein present in RSV. Of the tests performed, we chose patients who had definitive testing with either a direct fluorescent antibody (DFA) or a polymerase chain reaction (PCR). We then calculated the PPV as well as the FDR of the RSV RADT during the total interval period, as well as off-season periods (April 1 through October 31) and in-season periods (November 1 through March 31). Results During the study period there were 1128 RSV RADT tests performed, of which 232 had definitive testing with either DFA or PCR (Figures 1 and 2). We found the overall PPV during the study period was 63.3%. During the off-season 30 positive RSV RADT received definitive testing, of which 6 were positive, which yields a PPV of only 20%. In season, 202 RSV RADT received additional testing with 141 positive for RSV. The PPV was 69.8%. The FDR correlated with 36.7% throughout the entire studied period, 80% during the off-season and 30.2% during in-season. As expected, the PPV was higher during times of higher prevalence (Figure 3). Conclusion Based on our results, utilization of the RSV RADT during time of low prevalence yields a high false detection rate and should therefore be discouraged. The use during times of high prevalence yields only modest results and is unlikely to aid in clinical decision-making. Our results differ from those published by the manufacturer (PPV 84%), and may reflect differences in sample collection in the acute care setting. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Download Full-text