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

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.

Download Full-text

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

10.1101/2021.02.09.21251274 ◽

2021 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

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.

Download Full-text

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

Journal of Surgical Case Reports ◽

10.1093/jscr/rjab116 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Evaluation of the Advanta Dx SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Assay, a High-Throughput Extraction-Free Diagnostic Test for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Saliva: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study

Diagnostics ◽

10.3390/diagnostics11101766 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (10) ◽

pp. 1766

Author(s):

Sofia Balaska ◽

Dimitrios Pilalas ◽

Anna Takardaki ◽

Paraskevoula Koutra ◽

Eleftheria Parasidou ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Diagnostic Accuracy ◽

Healthcare Workers ◽

Reference Method ◽

Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽

Molecular Testing ◽

Rt Pcr ◽

Convenience Sample ◽

Accuracy Study ◽

Diagnostic Samples ◽

Saliva Test

Nasopharyngeal swab specimen (NPS) molecular testing is considered the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 detection. However, saliva is an attractive, noninvasive specimen alternative. The aim of the study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of Advanta Dx SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR saliva-based assay against paired NPS tested with either NeumoDxTM SARS-CoV-2 assay or Abbott Real Time SARS-CoV-2 assay as the reference method. We prospectively evaluated the method in two settings: a diagnostic outpatient and a healthcare worker screening convenience sample, collected in November–December 2020. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 27.7% (61/220) of diagnostic samples and in 5% (10/200) of screening samples. Overall, saliva test in diagnostic samples had a sensitivity of 88.5% (77.8–95.3%) and specificity of 98.1% (94.6–99.6%); in screening samples, the sensitivity was 90% (55.5–99.7%) and specificity 100% (98.1–100%). Our data suggests that the Fluidigm Advanta Dx RT-PCR saliva-based assay may be a reliable diagnostic tool for COVID-19 diagnosis in symptomatic individuals and screening asymptomatic healthcare workers.

Download Full-text

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

10.1101/2020.10.26.20219600 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 11

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.

Download Full-text

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

10.1101/2020.12.03.20243725 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Andreas K. Lindner ◽

Olga Nikolai ◽

Chiara Rohardt ◽

Susen Burock ◽

Claudia Hülso ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Healthcare Professionals ◽

Rapid Test ◽

High Viral Load ◽

Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽

Rt Pcr ◽

Test Procedures ◽

Testing Strategies ◽

Percent Agreement ◽

Accuracy Study ◽

Antigen Testing

AbstractBackgroundNasopharyngeal (NP) swab samples for antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) require qualified healthcare professionals and are frequently perceived as uncomfortable by patients.MethodsWe performed a manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study, comparing professional-collected anterior nasal (AN) to nasopharyngeal swab, using the test kits of a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT (STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test, SD Biosensor), which is also being distributed by Roche. Individuals with high suspicion for COVID-19 infection were tested. The reference standard was RT-PCR using a combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swab sample. Percent positive and negative agreement, as well as sensitivity and specificity were calculated.ResultsAmong the 179 participants, 41 (22.9%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. The positive percent agreement of the two different sampling techniques for the Ag-RDT was 93.5% (CI 79.3-98.2). The negative percent agreement was 95.9% (CI 91.4-98.1). The Ag-RDT with AN-sampling showed a sensitivity of 80.5% (33/41 PCR positives detected; CI 66.0-89.8) and specificity of 98.6% (CI 94.9-99.6) compared to RT-PCR. The sensitivity with NP-sampling was 73.2% (30/41 PCR positives detected; CI 58.1-84.3) and specificity was 99.3% (CI 96.0-100). In patients with high viral load (>7.0 log10 RNA SARS-CoV2/swab), the sensitivity of the Ag-RDT with AN-sampling was 100% and 94.7% with NP-sampling.ConclusionThis study demonstrates that sensitivity of a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT using a professional AN-sampling kit is at least equal to that of the NP-sampling kit, although confidence intervals overlap. Of note, differences in the IFUs of the test procedures could have contributed to different sensitivities. AN-sampling can be performed with less training, reduces patient discomfort, and it enables scaling of antigen testing strategies. Additional studies of patient self-sampling should be considered to further facilitate the scaling-up of Ag-RDT testing.

Download Full-text

Evaluation of performance of two SARS-CoV-2 Rapid whole-blood finger-stick IgM-IgG Combined Antibody Tests

10.1101/2020.05.27.20112888 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Thierry Prazuck ◽

Mathilda Colin ◽

Susanna Giachè ◽

Camélia Gubavu ◽

Aymeric Seve ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Whole Blood ◽

Real Life ◽

Rapid Test ◽

Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽

Rt Pcr ◽

Life Study ◽

Negative Results ◽

Specificity And Sensitivity ◽

Capillary Blood Sample ◽

Finger Stick

AbstractBackgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 virus is responsible for the infectious respiratory disease called COVID-19 (COronaVIrus Disease). In response to the growing COVID-19 pandemic, Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs) have been developed to detect specific antibodies, IgG and IgM, to SARS-CoV-2 virus in human whole blood. We conducted a real-life study to evaluate the performance of two RDTs, COVID-PRESTO® and COVID-DUO®, compared to the gold standard, RT-PCR.MethodsRT-PCR testing of SARS-Cov-2 was performed from nasopharyngeal swab specimens collected in adult patients visiting the infectious disease department at the hospital (Orléans, France). Fingertip whole blood samples taken at different time points after onset of the disease were tested with RDTs. The specificity and sensitivity of the rapid test kits compared to test of reference (RT-PCR) were calculated.ResultsAmong 381 patients with symptoms of COVID-19 who went to the hospital for a diagnostic, 143 patients were RT-PCR negative. Results of test with RDTs were all negative for these patients, indicating a specificity of 100% for both RDTs.In the RT-PCR positive subgroup (n=238), 133 patients were tested with COVID-PRESTO® and 129 patients were tested with COVID-DUO® (24 patients tested with both). The further the onset of symptoms was from the date of collection, the greater the sensitivity. The sensitivity of COVID-PRESTO® test ranged from 10.00% for patients having experienced their 1st symptoms from 0 to 5 days ago to 100% in patients where symptoms had occurred more than 15 days before the date of tests. For COVID-DUO® test, the sensitivity ranged from 35.71% [0-5 days] to 100% (> 15 days).ConclusionCOVID-PRESTO® and DUO® RDTs turned out to be very specific (none false positive) and to be sensitive enough after 15 days from onset of symptom. These easy to use IgG/IgM combined test kits are the first ones allowing a screening with capillary blood sample, by typing from a finger prick. These rapid tests are particularly interesting for screening in low resource settings.

Download Full-text

Delayed RT-PCR Time-To-Positivity in an adult with SARS-CoV-2 Infection

The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries ◽

10.3855/jidc.14766 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 15 (07) ◽

pp. 913-917

Author(s):

Nur Chandra Bunawan ◽

Md Ikhsan Mokoagow ◽

Aryan Yohanes Djojo ◽

Natalia Wistriany ◽

Hardijatmo Muljo Nugroho ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Close Contact ◽

Treatment Plan ◽

False Negative ◽

Rapid Test ◽

Antibody Test ◽

Tertiary Hospital ◽

Rt Pcr ◽

Radiographic Findings ◽

Negative Results ◽

False Negative Results

Early diagnosis is among the crucial measures to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection. To date, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the gold standard for COVID-19 testing, but various factors can affect its performance leading to false negative results. Hereby we present a patient with a high clinical suspicion for COVID-19 and had multiple negative RT-PCR results over 5 days. A 22-year-old woman presented with fever, dry cough, nausea, myalgia, headache, and mild dyspnea. Eleven days before, she was in close contact with her father who had tested positive for COVID-19. RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs were performed on day 8, 9, and 12 of illness which all came back negative even after she started having a worsening dyspnea and showing an increased lung opacity from radiographic findings on day 11 of illness. Interestingly, her rapid antibody test (VivaDiag™ COVID-19 IgM/IgG rapid test by VivaChek Biotech (HangZhou,China) was positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 Ig M and Ig G. Due to the worsening condition, she was referred to a tertiary hospital where her RT PCR result was positive on day 13 of illness. After 28 days from her first symptom, she was discharged from the hospital with improved symptoms and chest X-ray. As conclusions, in patients with high suspicion of COVID-19, repeat swab tests are mandatory if previous tests were negative. The diagnosis and treatment plan of COVID-19 should not solely be based on RT-PCR, but also consider the patient’s history, symptoms, laboratory result, and radiographic findings.

Download Full-text

Scoring System for the Diagnosis of COVID-19

The Open Public Health Journal ◽

10.2174/1874944502013010413 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 13 (1) ◽

pp. 413-414 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

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.

Download Full-text

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

Virology Journal ◽

10.1186/s12985-021-01505-3 ◽

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.

Download Full-text