scholarly journals Diagnostic Accuracy of the Panbio SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test Compared with Rt-Pcr Testing of Nasopharyngeal Samples in the Pediatric Population

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Villaverde ◽  
S. Domínguez-Rodríguez ◽  
G. Sabrido ◽  
C. Pérez-Jorge ◽  
M. Plata ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Pediatric Population ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Rt Pcr

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 Validation of the Panbio™ COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test (Abbott) to screen for SARS-CoV-2 infection in Sint Maarten: a diagnostic accuracy study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin King ◽  
Eva Lista-de Weever ◽  
Maria Henry ◽  
Radjin Steingrover ◽  
Chérina Fleming ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Close Contact ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
The Public ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
Accuracy Study ◽  
Antigen Tests ◽  
Dutch Caribbean

AbstractObjectivesControl of the pandemic has required countries to look for other forms of tests besides the gold standard real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Rapid antigen tests (RAT), though less sensitive than RT-PCR, offer the possibility of rapid, inexpensive and early detection of the most infectious COVID-19 cases. Only very few studies have assessed the performance of the Abbott Panbio COVID-19 RAT among asymptomatic people or in Latin America. This study set out to validate this test among people attending the public test street in Sint Maarten, Dutch Caribbean.MethodsPeople of all ages were recruited from the public COVID-19 test street regardless of COVID-19 symptoms. They received a nasopharyngeal swab for the Abbott Panbio COVID-19 RAT and the RT-PCR Qtower. Diagnostic accuracy of the RAT was compared to the RT-PCR among the overall study population and for subgroups with/without symptoms, with/without close contact and different Ct values.ResultsUsing a RT-PCR Ct cut-off value of <33, 119 out of 1,411 people (8.4%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Most were asymptomatic (59%). The overall sensitivity and specificity of the RAT was 84% (95% CI 76.2-90.1) and 99.9% (95% CI 99.6-100) respectively. The sensitivity reduced to 67.6% (95% CI: 49.5%, 82.6%) among people without symptoms, regardless of whether they were in close contact with a known COVID-19 case. Sensitivity reduced considerably with a Ct cut-off value of <35.ConclusionsThe Abbott Panbio RAT is a valid and cheaper alternative to RT-PCR when used on symptomatic individuals among the general population. However, among asymptomatic people it should not be used as a stand-alone test and negative results should be confirmed with RT-PCR.

scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of a SARS-CoV-2 rapid test and optimal time for seropositivity according to the onset of symptoms

2022 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Nespolo de David ◽  
Fernanda Hammes Varela ◽  
Ivaine Tais Sauthier Sartor ◽  
Márcia Polese-Bonatto ◽  
Ingrid Rodrigues Fernandes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Lateral Flow Immunoassay ◽  
Optimal Time ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Serological Tests ◽  
Over Time

Point-of-care serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 have been used for COVID-19 diagnosis. However, their accuracy over time regarding the onset of symptoms is not fully understood. We aimed to assess the accuracy of a point-of-care lateral flow immunoassay (LFI). Subjects, aged over 18 years, presenting clinical symptoms suggestive of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection were tested once by both nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal RT-PCR and LFI. The accuracy of LFI was assessed in periodic intervals of three days in relation to the onset of symptoms. The optimal cut-off point was defined as the number of days required to achieve the best sensitivity and specificity. This cut-off point was also used to compare LFI accuracy according to participants’ status: outpatient or hospitalized. In total, 959 patients were included, 379 (39.52%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR, and 272 (28.36%) tested positive with LFI. LFI best performance was achieved after 10 days of the onset of symptoms, with sensitivity and specificity of 84.9% (95%CI: 79.8-89.1) and 94.4% (95%CI: 91.0-96.8), respectively. Although the specificity was similar (94.6% vs. 88.9%, p = 0.051), the sensitivity was higher in hospitalized patients than in outpatients (91.7% vs. 82.1%, p = 0.032) after 10 days of the onset of symptoms. Best sensitivity of point-of-care LFI was found 10 days after the onset of symptoms which may limit its use in acute care. Specificity remained high regardless of the number of days since the onset of symptoms.

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 Anterior nasal versus nasal mid-turbinate sampling for a SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test: does localisation or professional collection matter?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olga Nikolai ◽  
Chiara Rohardt ◽  
Frank Tobian ◽  
Andrea Junge ◽  
Victor M. Corman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy Study ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Percent Agreement ◽  
Accuracy Study ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Antigen Testing

AbstractObjectivesThe aim of this diagnostic accuracy study was direct comparison of two different nasal sampling methods for an antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) that detects severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Furthermore, the accuracy and feasibility of self-sampling was evaluated.MethodsThis manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study, compared professional anterior nasal (AN) and nasal mid-turbinate (NMT) sampling for a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. A second group of participants collected a NMT sample themselves and underwent a professional nasopharyngeal swab for comparison. The reference standard was real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) using combined oro-/nasopharyngeal sampling. Individuals with high suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection were tested. Sensitivity, specificity, and percent agreement were calculated. Self-sampling was observed without intervention. Feasibility was evaluated by observer and participant questionnaires.ResultsAmong 132 symptomatic adults, both professional AN- and NMT-sampling yielded a sensitivity of 86.1% (31/36 RT-PCR positives detected; 95%CI: 71.3-93.9) and a specificity of 100.0% (95%CI: 95.7-100). The positive percent agreement (PPA) was 100% (95%CI: 89.0-100). Among 96 additional adults, self NMT- and professional NP-sampling yielded an identical sensitivity of 91.2% (31/34; 95%CI 77.0-97.0). Specificity was 98.4% (95%CI: 91.4-99.9) with NMT- and 100.0% (95%CI: 94.2-100) with NP-sampling. The PPA was 96.8% (95%CI: 83.8-99.8). Most participants (85.3%) considered self-sampling as easy to perform.ConclusionProfessional AN- and NMT-sampling are of equivalent accuracy for an Ag-RDT in ambulatory symptomatic adults. Participants were able to reliably perform the NMT-sampling themselves, following written and illustrated instructions. Nasal self-sampling will likely facilitate scaling of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing.

scholarly journals SARS-CoV-2 in peritoneal swabs from asymptomatic patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jasim AlAradi ◽  
Rawan A Rahman AlHarmi ◽  
Mariam AlKooheji ◽  
Sayed Ali Almahari ◽  
Mohamed Abdulla Isa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peritoneal Fluid ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Protective Measures ◽  
The Public ◽  
Asymptomatic Patients ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Viral Transfer

Abstract This is a case series of five patients with acute abdomen requiring surgery who tested positive for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and were asymptomatic, with the purpose of detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in peritoneal fluid. Nasopharyngeal swab was done as a prerequisite for admission or prior to admission as part of random testing. Two methods of viral testing were employed: Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (rapid test) and real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Either or both tests were done, with the former performed for patients requiring surgery immediately. Surgery was performed within 24–36 h from admission. Peritoneal fluid swabs were obtained for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR test. Swabs were immediately placed in viral transfer media and delivered to the public health laboratory in an ice bag. SARS-CoV-2 was not detected in peritoneal swabs. Due to the limited number of patients, further studies are required; yet, protective measures should still be taken by surgeons when dealing with COVID-19 cases.

Evaluation of rapid test Assure® Helicobacter pylori for diagnosis of H. pylori in pediatric population

2006 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 331-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Pelerito ◽  
Mónica Oleastro ◽  
Ana Isabel Lopes ◽  
Paulo Ramalho ◽  
José Cabral ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Helicobacter Pylori ◽  
Pediatric Population ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
H Pylori

scholarly journals Avian influenza and Newcastle disease virusindead chickens in markets in Dhaka, Bangladesh in 2011-2012

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-15
Author(s):  
LR Barman ◽  
RD Sarker ◽  
BC Das ◽  
EH Chowdhury ◽  
PM Das ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Virus ◽  
Avian Influenza ◽  
Newcastle Disease ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Type A ◽  
Antigen Test ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Test Kit ◽  
Live Bird

A virological survey for avian influenza (AI) and Newcastle disease (ND) was conducted in two selected live bird markets (LBMs), namely Kaptan Bazar and Karwan Bazar in Dhaka city, Bangladesh from August 2011 to July 2012. A total of 513 dead chickens were collected. An immune-chromatographic rapid antigen test for Type A influenza virus and both conventional and real time RT-PCR were used for the detection and characterization of AI and ND viruses. All carcasses were first screened by the rapid antigen test kit and 93 were positive for Type A influenza virus. RT-PCR on a representative number of rapid antigen test positive samples (n = 24) confirmed the presence of Type A influenza virus and mostly H5 influenza virus (22 out of 24 tested samples). Influenza rapid test negative samples (n = 420) were subjected to routine necropsy. Heat stress, suffocation and physical injury were the most common cause of mortality (163 cases), followed by ND, suspected to be the cause of 85 deaths. On molecular investigation of these 85 samples, the presence of ND virus was confirmed in 59 and AI virus in 6; 15 were negative for both ND and AI viruses and 5 were unsuitable for investigation. Among the 59 ND confirmed cases 18 also contained AI virus. In summary, out of 513 carcasses 117 (22.81%) contained AI virus and 59 (11.50%) contained ND virus. Eighteen (3.51%) carcasses contained both AI and ND viruses. The findings suggest that both AI and ND should be considered as major threats to the poultry industry.Bangl. vet. 2016. Vol. 33, No. 1, 8-15

scholarly journals High-throughput immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2, considerable differences in performance when comparing three methods

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oskar Ekelund ◽  
Kim Ekblom ◽  
Sofia Somajo ◽  
Johanna Pattison-Granberg ◽  
Karl Olsson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Throughput ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Performance Criteria ◽  
Clinical Use ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Regulatory Authorities ◽  
Flow Test ◽  
Lateral Flow Test ◽  
High Level ◽  
Positive Results

Background: The recently launched high-throughput assays for the detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 may change the managing strategies for the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed at investigating the performance of three high-throughput assays and one rapid lateral flow test relative to the recommended criteria defined by regulatory authorities. Methods: A total of 133 samples, including 100 pre-pandemic samples, 20 samples from SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive individuals, and 13 potentially cross-reactive samples were analysed with SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Abbott), Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (Roche), LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG (DiaSorin) and 2019-nCOV IgG/IgM Rapid Test (Dynamiker Biotechnology Co). Results: All assays performed with a high level of specificity; however, only Abbott reached 100% (95% CI 96.3-100). The pre-pandemic samples analysed with Roche, DiaSorin and Dynamiker Biotechnology resulted in two to three false-positive results per method (specificity 96.9-98.0%). Sensitivity differed more between the assays, Roche exhibiting the highest sensitivity (100%, CI 83.9-100). The corresponding figures for Abbott, DiaSorin and Dynamiker Biotechnology were 85.0%, 77.8% and 75.0%, respectively. Conclusions: The results of the evaluated SARS-CoV-2 assays vary considerably as well as their ability to fulfil the performance criteria proposed by regulatory authorities. Introduction into clinical use in low-prevalent settings, should therefore, be made with caution.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document