scholarly journals An assessment of a rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen test in Bangladesh

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zannat Kawser ◽  
Mohabbat Hossain ◽  
Sara Suliman ◽  
Shahin Lockman ◽  
Jesse Gitaka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
False Positive ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Field Evaluation ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Large Field ◽  
Antigen Test ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Rapid Antigen Detection Test ◽  
Antigen Tests ◽  
Asymptomatic Individuals

Early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection is crucial to prevent the spread of the virus. In this study, we evaluated the performance of a commercial rapid antigen detection test, BD Veritor, and compared this (and another rapid test, Standard Q) against a gold-standard of nasopharyngeal (NP) swab tested by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in prospectively recruited adults in Dhaka, Bangladesh. We compared the sensitivity and specificity of the two rapid antigen tests against RT-PCR results in 130 symptomatic and 130 asymptomatic adults. In addition, we evaluated the suitability and ease-of-use of the BD Veritor test in a subsample of study participants (n=42) and implementers (n=5). The sensitivity of the BD Veritor rapid antigen 66 test was 70% in symptomatic (95% confidence interval [CI]: 51-85%) and 87% (95% CI: 69-96%) in asymptomatic individuals with positive SARSCoV-2 RT-PCR, for overall sensitivity of 78% (95% CI: 66-88%). The sensitivity of the Standard Q rapid antigen test was 63% (95% CI: 44-69 80%) in symptomatic and 73% (95% CI: 54-87%) in asymptomatic individuals. One false positive in BD Veritor test (specificity 99.5) and no false positive in Standard Q tests were observed (specificity 100%). The BD Veritor rapid antigen test was 78% sensitive when compared with RT-PCR irrespective of the cycle threshold (Ct) levels in this evaluation in Bangladesh. The implementation evaluation data showed good acceptability in the field settings. This warrants large field evaluation as well as use of the rapid antigen test for quick assessment of SARS-CoV-2 for containment of epidemics in the country.

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.

scholarly journals At-home self-testing of teachers with a SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test to reduce potential transmissions in schools

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Hoehl ◽  
Barbara Schenk ◽  
Olga Rudych ◽  
Stephan Göttig ◽  
Ivo Foppa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
False Positive ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Study Participant ◽  
Lower Sensitivity ◽  
Antigen Test ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Antigen Tests ◽  
Positive Results ◽  
At Home

AbstractBackgroundRapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 became available recently, offering an opportunity to vastly increase testing capacities. Antigen tests offer lower sensitivity than the gold standard, RT-PCR, but rapid sample-to-answer time. High-frequency testing with an antigen test may offset the lower sensitivity, and testing can be done with at-home collection of samples, offering potential benefit in screening efforts. In this study, we set out to evaluate the practical application of self-performed high-frequency antigen test in a school setting.MethodA total of 711 teachers from 86 schools were enrolled in a seven-week study. After instruction, participants tested themselves every 48 hours at home with a rapid antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 (target: nucleocapsid protein) in a self-collected anterior nasal swab. Positive results in the antigen test were confirmed via RT-PCR from the same sample that had been determined to be positive by the study participant. A questionnaire was given to all participants to evaluate whether the test failed to detect infection.Findings10 836 tests from 602 teachers were recorded and analyzed. A total of five confirmed cases of viral shedding of SARS-CoV-2 was detected by use of the antigen test. One study participant with a SARS-CoV-2 infection was presymptomatic and four were mildly symptomatic at the time of the antigen test. Sixteen false positive antigen tests (0.15% of all tests) were reported, predominantly when the local incidence in the general population was low. In four cases, the study participant reported that a PCR had detected a SARS-CoV-2 infection, but the antigen test was negative, indicating a false negative result.InterpretationHigh-frequency, self-performed rapid antigen tests can detect individuals with a SARS-CoV-2 infection, and therefore potentially reduce transmissions. Testing may be most beneficial when applied during high local incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections and when mild or atypical symptoms are present. To avoid a high rate of false positive results, a test with optimized specificity should be used.FundingThe study was commissioned and funded by the Hessian Ministry of Education and the Hessian Ministry of Integration and Social Affairs.

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 Comparative Sensitivity of Rapid Antigen Tests for the Delta Variant (B.1.617.2) of SARS-CoV-2

Viruses ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 2183
Author(s):  
Yuko Sakai-Tagawa ◽  
Seiya Yamayoshi ◽  
Peter J. Halfmann ◽  
Yoshihiro Kawaoka
Keyword(s):  
Rapid Detection ◽  
Influenza A ◽  
Infectious Virus ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Rapid Diagnosis ◽  
Antigen Test ◽  
Detection Level ◽  
Test Kit ◽  
Low Levels ◽  
Antigen Tests

Rapid antigen tests (RATs) for COVID-19 based on lateral flow immunoassays are useful for rapid diagnosis in a variety of settings. Although many kinds of RATs are available, their respective sensitivity has not been compared. Here, we examined the sensitivity of 27 RATs available in Japan for the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant. All of the RATs tested detected the delta variant albeit with different sensitivities. Nine RATs (ESPLINE SARS-CoV-2, ALSONIC COVID-19 Ag, COVID-19 and Influenza A+B Antigen Combo Rapid Test, ImmunoArrow SARS-CoV-2, Fuji Dri-chem immuno AG cartridge COVID-19 Ag, 2019-nCoV Ag rapid detection kit, Saliva SARS-CoV-2(2019-nCoV) Antigen Test Kit, and Rabliss SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection kit COVID19 AG) showed superior sensitivity to the isolated delta variant. Although actual clinical specimens were not examined, the detection level of most of the RATs was 7500 pfu, indicating that individuals whose test samples contained less virus than that would be considered negative. Therefore, it is important to bear in mind that RATs may miss individuals shedding low levels of infectious virus.

scholarly journals Performance of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test compared with real-time RT-PCR in asymptomatic individuals

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mónica Peña ◽  
Manuel Ampuero ◽  
Carlos Garcés ◽  
Aldo Gaggero ◽  
Patricia García ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Real Time ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Pivotal Role ◽  
Contact Tracing ◽  
Antigen Test ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Asymptomatic Carriers ◽  
Asymptomatic Individuals ◽  
Pcr Diagnostics

AbstractScreening, testing and contact tracing plays a pivotal role in the control of COVID-19 pandemic. To carry out this strategy it is necessary to increase the testing capacity. Here, we compared a SARS CoV-2 rapid antigen test (RAT) and RT-PCR in 842 asymptomatic individuals from Tarapacá, Chile. We report a sensibility of 69.86%, a specificity of 99.61%, PPV of 94.44% and NPP of 97.22% with Ct values (Ct > 27) that were significantly higher among individuals with false-negative RAT. These results support the fact that RAT might have a significant impact in the identification of asymptomatic carriers in areas that lack well-equipped laboratories to perform SARS-CoV-2 real -time RT-PCR diagnostics or the results take more than 24-48 hours, as well as zones with high traffic of individuals, such as border/customs, airports, interregional bus, train stations or in any mass testing campaign requiring rapid results.

scholarly journals Validation of rapid antibody (IgG-IgM) test kit for SARS COV-2 infection in Qatar

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesha Mundodan ◽  
Samina Hasnain ◽  
Hayat Khogali ◽  
Soha Shawqi Al Bayat ◽  
Dina Ali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Predictive Value ◽  
Local Population ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Antibody Test ◽  
Molecular Testing ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Test Kit ◽  
Asymptomatic Individuals ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Rapid Antibody

Background: In response to the growing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the shortage of laboratory based molecular testing capacity and reagents, multiple diagnostic test manufacturers have developed rapid and easy to use devices to facilitate testing outside laboratory settings. These kits are either based on detection of proteins from SARS-CoV-2 virus or detection of antigen or human antibodies generated in response to the infection. However, it is important to understand their performance characteristics and they must be validated in the local population setting.Design and Methods: The objective is to assess the validity of the rapid test for IgG and IgM immunoglobulins compared to the current gold standard reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. A total of 16951 asymptomatic individuals were tested by the Ministry of Public Health track-and-trace team using both rapid immunodiagnostic test and RT-PCR as part of screening across various random settings with potential risk of community interaction prior to gradual lifting of restrictions in Qatar.  Rapid test was considered to be posiive if both IgG and IgM are positive, while only IgG/IgM positive was considered as rapid test negative. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated.Results: The sensitivity of rapid test kit was found to be 0.9%, whereas the specificity was found to be 97.8%. the PPV was found to be 0.3% whereas the NPV was found to be 99.4%.Conclusion: Based on the outcome and results of the study, it appears that the sensitivity and PPV of the rapid antibody test are low. As such, this test is not recommended for use to assist in taking clinic-based decisions or decisions related to quarantine/isolation.

scholarly journals ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION CHARACTERISTICS OF RAPID POINT OF CARE SARS-CoV-2 ANTIGEN TESTING IN KENYA

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse Gitaka ◽  
Eva Muthamia ◽  
Samuel Mbugua ◽  
Mary Mungai ◽  
Gama Bandawe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Test Performance ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Turnaround Time ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Antigen Test ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Predictive Values

Abstract Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a need for rapid identification of infectious cases. Testing barriers have prohibited adequate screening for SARS COV2, resulting in significant delays in treatment provision and commencement of outbreak control measures. This study aimed to generate evidence on the performance and implementation characteristics of the BD Veritor rapid antigen test as compared to the gold standard test for diagnosis of SARS COV2 in Kenya. Methods: This was a field test performance evaluation in symptomatic and asymptomatic adults undergoing testing for SARS COV2. Recruited participants were classified as SARS-CoV2-positive based on the locally implemented gold standard reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test performed on nasopharyngeal swabs. 272 antigen tests were performed with simultaneous gold standard testing, allowing us to estimate sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for the BD Veritor rapid antigen test platform. Implementation characteristics were assessed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research for feasibility, acceptability, turn-around time, and ease-of-use metrics. Results and Discussion: We enrolled 97 PCR negative symptomatic and 128 PCR negative asymptomatic, and 28 PCR positive symptomatic and 19 PCR positive asymptomatic participants. Compared to the gold standard, the sensitivity of the BD Veritor antigen test was 94% (95% confidence interval [CI] 86.6 to 100.0) while the specificity was 98% (95% confidence interval [CI] 96 to 100). The sensitivity of BD Veritor antigen test was higher among symptomatic (100%) compared to asymptomatic (84%) participants, although this difference was not statistically significant. There was also a lack of association between cycle threshold value and sensitivity of BD Veritor test. The BD Veritor test had quick turnaround time and minimal resource requirements, and laboratory personnel conducting testing felt that it was easier to use than the gold standard RT-PCR. Conclusion: The BD Veritor rapid antigen test exhibited excellent sensitivity and specificity when used to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection among both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals in varied population settings in Kenya. It was feasible to implement and easy to use, with rapid turnaround time.

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 performance of a novel digital immunoassay (RapidTesta SARS-CoV-2): a prospective observational study with 1,127 nasopharyngeal samples

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiromichi Suzuki ◽  
Yusaku Akashi ◽  
Atsuo Ueda ◽  
Yoshihiko Kiyasu ◽  
Yuto Takeuchi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Prospective Observational Study ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Antigen Test ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Asymptomatic Patients ◽  
Pcr Method ◽  
Antigen Tests ◽  
Positive Line ◽  
Test Cassette

Introduction: Digital immunoassays are generally regarded as superior tests for the detection of infectious disease pathogens, but there have been insufficient data concerning SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays. Methods: We prospectively evaluated a novel digital immunoassay (RapidTesta SARS-CoV-2). Two nasopharyngeal samples were simultaneously collected for antigen tests and RT-PCR. Real-time RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2, using a method developed by the National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Japan, served as the reference RT-PCR method. Results: During the study period, 1,127 nasopharyngeal samples (symptomatic patients: 802, asymptomatic patients: 325) were evaluated. For digital immunoassay antigen tests, the sensitivity was 78.3% (95% CI: 67.3%-87.1%) and the specificity was 97.6% (95% CI: 96.5%-98.5%). When technicians visually analyzed the antigen test results, the sensitivity was 71.6% (95% CI: 59.9%-81.5%) and the specificity was 99.2% (95% CI: 98.5%-99.7%). Among symptomatic patients, the sensitivity was 89.4% (95% CI; 76.9%-96.5%) with digital immunoassay antigen tests, and 85.1% (95% CI; 71.7%-93.8%) with visually analyzed the antigen test, respectively. Conclusions: The findings indicated that RapidTesta SARS-CoV-2 analysis with the DIA device had sufficient analytical performance for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal samples. When positive DIA results are recorded without a visually recognizable red line at the positive line location on the test cassette, additional RT-PCR evaluation should be performed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document