scholarly journals Clinical evaluation of rapid point of care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes G.M. Koeleman ◽  
Henk Brand ◽  
Stijn J. de Man ◽  
David Ong
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Rapid Identification ◽  
Antigen Test ◽  
Large Variability ◽  
Clinical Sensitivity ◽  
Nursing Home Patients ◽  
Upper Respiratory ◽  
Antigen Tests ◽  
Respiratory Specimens

Abstract Purpose: The RT-qPCR in respiratory specimens is the gold standard for diagnosing acute COVID-19 infections. However, this test takes considerable time before test results become available, thereby delaying diagnosed COVID-19 patients to be treated and isolated immediately. Rapid antigen tests could overcome this problem and therefore a large number of COVID-19 rapid antigen tests have been developed. Methods: In this study clinical performances of five rapid antigen tests were compared to RT-qPCR in upper respiratory specimens from 80 patients. In addition, the rapid antigen test with the best test characteristics (Romed) was evaluated in a large prospective collection of randomly selected upper respiratory specimens from 900 different COVID-19 suspected patients (300 emergency room patients, 300 nursing home patients and 300 health care workers) in the period from October 24 to November 15, 2020. Results: Overall specificity was almost 100% and sensitivity ranged from 55.0% to 80.0%. The clinical specificity of the Romed test was 99.8% (95% CI 98.9-100). Overall clinical sensitivity in the study population was 73.3% (95% CI 67.9-78.2), whereas sensitivity in the different groups varied from 65.3% to 86.7%. Sensitivity was highest in patients with short-term symptoms. In a population with a COVID-19 prevalence of 1% the negative predictive value in all patients was 99.7%. Conclusion: There is a large variability in diagnostic performance between rapid antigen tests. The Romed rapid antigen test showed a good clinical performance in patients with high viral loads, which makes this antigen test suitable for rapid identification of COVID-19 infected patients.

scholarly journals Clinical evaluation of rapid point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes G. M. Koeleman ◽  
Henk Brand ◽  
Stijn J. de Man ◽  
David S. Y. Ong
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Workers ◽  
Antigen Test ◽  
Duration Of Symptoms ◽  
Large Variability ◽  
Clinical Sensitivity ◽  
Care Workers ◽  
Upper Respiratory ◽  
Antigen Tests ◽  
Respiratory Specimens

AbstractThe RT-qPCR in respiratory specimens is the gold standard for diagnosing acute COVID-19 infections. However, this test takes considerable time before test results become available, thereby delaying patients from being diagnosed, treated, and isolated immediately. Rapid antigen tests could overcome this problem. In the first study, clinical performances of five rapid antigen tests were compared to RT-qPCR in upper respiratory specimens from 40 patients with positive and 40 with negative RTq-PCR results. In the second study, the rapid antigen test with one of the best test characteristics (Romed) was evaluated in a large prospective collection of upper respiratory specimens from 900 different COVID-19-suspected patients (300 emergency room patients, 300 nursing home patients, and 300 health care workers). Test specificities ranged from 87.5 to 100.0%, and test sensitivities from 55.0 to 80.0%. The clinical specificity of the Romed test was 99.8% (95% CI 98.9–100). Overall clinical sensitivity in the study population was 73.3% (95% CI 67.9–78.2), whereas sensitivity in the different patient groups varied from 65.3 to 86.7%. Sensitivity was 83.0 to 86.7% in patients with short duration of symptoms. In a population with a COVID-19 prevalence of 1%, the negative predictive value in all patients was 99.7%. There is a large variability in diagnostic performance between rapid antigen tests. The Romed rapid antigen test showed a good clinical performance in patients with high viral loads (RT-qPCR cycle threshold ≤30), which makes this antigen test suitable for rapid identification of COVID-19-infected health care workers and patients.

scholarly journals Evaluation of two rapid antigen tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 in a hospital setting

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Osterman ◽  
Hanna-Mari Baldauf ◽  
Marwa Eletreby ◽  
Jochen M. Wettengel ◽  
Suliman Q. Afridi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Point Of Care ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Hospital Setting ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Large Set ◽  
Antigen Test ◽  
University Hospitals ◽  
Clinical Sensitivity ◽  
Antigen Tests ◽  
The Impact

AbstractSuccessful containment strategies for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic will depend on reliable diagnostic assays. Point-of-care antigen tests (POCT) may provide an alternative to time-consuming PCR tests to rapidly screen for acute infections on site. Here, we evaluated two SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests: the STANDARD™ F COVID-19 Ag FIA (FIA) and the SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (RAT). For diagnostic assessment, we used a large set of PCR-positive and PCR-negative respiratory swabs from asymptomatic and symptomatic patients and health care workers in the setting of two University Hospitals in Munich, Germany, i.e. emergency rooms, patient care units or employee test centers. For FIA, overall clinical sensitivity and specificity were 45.4% (n = 381) and 97.8% (n = 360), respectively, and for RAT, 50.3% (n = 445) and 97.7% (n = 386), respectively. For primary diagnosis of asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals, diagnostic sensitivities were 60.9% (FIA) (n = 189) and 64.5% (RAT) (n = 256). This questions these tests’ utility for the reliable detection of acute SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals, in particular in high-risk settings. We support the proposal that convincing high-quality outcome data on the impact of false-negative and false-positive antigen test results need to be obtained in a POCT setting. Moreover, the efficacy of alternative testing strategies to complement PCR assays must be evaluated by independent laboratories, prior to widespread implementation in national and international test strategies.

scholarly journals Performance characteristics of the Abbott BinaxNOW SARS-CoV-2 antigen test in comparison to real-time RT-PCR and viral culture in community testing sites during November 2020

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivia Almendares ◽  
Jessica L. Prince-Guerra ◽  
Leisha D. Nolen ◽  
Jayleen K.L. Gunn ◽  
Ariella P. Dale ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Real Time ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Exposure Period ◽  
Rapid Identification ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Antigen Test ◽  
Viral Culture ◽  
Pima County ◽  
Antigen Tests

Point-of-care antigen tests are an important tool for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Antigen tests are less sensitive than real-time reverse-transcriptase PCR (rRT-PCR). Data on the performance of the BinaxNOW antigen test compared to rRT-PCR and viral culture by symptom and known exposure status, timing during disease or exposure period and demographic variables are limited. During November 3 rd -17 th , 2020, we collected paired upper respiratory swab specimens to test for SARS-CoV-2 by rRT-PCR and Abbott BinaxNOW (BinaxNOW) antigen test at two community testing sites in Pima County, Arizona. We administered a questionnaire to capture symptoms, known exposure status and previous SARS-CoV-2 test results. Specimens positive by either test were analyzed by viral culture. Previously we showed overall BinaxNOW sensitivity was 52.5%. Here we showed BinaxNOW sensitivity increased to 65.7% among currently symptomatic individuals reporting a known exposure. BinaxNOW sensitivity was lower among participants with a known exposure and previously symptomatic (32.4%) or never symptomatic (47.1%) within 14 days of testing. Sensitivity was 71.1% in participants within a week of symptom onset. In participants with a known exposure, sensitivity was highest 8-10 days post-exposure (75%). The positive predictive value for recovery of virus in cell culture was 56.7% for BinaxNOW-positive and 35.4% for rRT-PCR-positive specimens. Result reporting time was 2.5 hours for BinaxNOW and 26 hours for rRT-PCR. Point-of-care antigen tests have a shorter turn-around time compared to laboratory-based nucleic acid amplification tests, which allows for more rapid identification of infected individuals. Antigen test sensitivity limitations are important to consider when developing a testing program.

Clinical assessment of the Roche SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test

Diagnosis ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gian Luca Salvagno ◽  
Gianluca Gianfilippi ◽  
Damiano Bragantini ◽  
Brandon M. Henry ◽  
Giuseppe Lippi
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Assessment ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
High Viral Load ◽  
Rapid Screening ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
Molecular Testing ◽  
Antigen Test ◽  
Community Screening ◽  
Final Study

Abstract Objectives Novel point-of-care antigen assays present a promising opportunity for rapid screening of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. The purpose of this study was the clinical assessment of the new Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test. Methods The clinical performance of Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test was evaluated vs. a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) laboratory-based assay (Seegene AllplexTM2019-nCoV) in nasopharyngeal swabs collected from a series of consecutive patients referred for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics to the Pederzoli Hospital (Peschiera del Garda, Verona, Italy) over a 2-week period. Results The final study population consisted of 321 consecutive patients (mean age, 46 years and IQR, 32–56 years; 181 women, 56.4%), with 149/321 (46.4%) positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA via the Seegene AllplexTM2019-nCoV Assay, and 109/321 (34.0%) positive with Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test, respectively. The overall accuracy of Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test compared to molecular testing was 86.9%, with 72.5% sensitivity and 99.4% specificity. Progressive decline in performance was observed as cycle threshold (Ct) values of different SARS-CoV-2 gene targets increased. The sensitivity was found to range between 97–100% in clinical samples with Ct values <25, between 50–81% in those with Ct values between 25 and <30, but low as 12–18% in samples with Ct values between 30 and <37. Conclusions The clinical performance of Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test is excellent in nasopharyngeal swabs with Ct values <25, which makes it a reliable screening test in patients with high viral load. However, mass community screening would require the use of more sensitive techniques.

Correlation of COVID-19 antigen test and CBNAAT results at a single tertiary care hospital in North India: an experience

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 2427
Author(s):  
Surbhi Gupta ◽  
Anju Shukla ◽  
Poonam Singh ◽  
Areena H. Siddiqui
Keyword(s):  
Tertiary Care Hospital ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Uttar Pradesh ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
North India ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Antigen Test ◽  
Discordant Group ◽  
Antigen Tests

Background: Nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) is considered gold standard in the molecular diagnosis of CoV-2 infection but since it is costly, labor intensive and needs technical expertise, rapid chromatographic immunoassay for the qualitative detection of specific antigens to SARS CoV-2 have been devised. Objectives of this study was to compare the results of Antigen test and NAAT for CoV-2 infection carried out during the months of July and August 2020 by single tertiary care hospital in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh and to determine the utility of rapid antigen test in the SARS CoV-2 diagnosis.Methods: All the patients who came to our hospital seeking admission during July 2020 and August 2020 were included in the study. A total of 1000 patients were included in this study.Results: Out of a total 1000 cases which were included in the study, 769 cases (76.9%) were found to be SARS CoV-2 negative by both antigen and CBNAAT, 100 cases (10.0%) were SARS CoV-2 positive by both antigen and CBNAAT tests. But in 131 cases (13.1%), antigen was not able to pick up the disease. It was also found that the Cycle Threshold (Ct) value for the discordant group was higher (Mean E= 28, Mean N2=33) when compared to the group where antigen was positive.Conclusions: The present study establishes the role of rapid antigen tests in contributing to the quick, point of care diagnosis of SARS CoV-2. These assays are safe, simple, and fast and can be used in local clinics and hospitals. These tests are very important for real-time patient management and infection control decision.

scholarly journals The Effect of Sample Site, Illness Duration, and the Presence of Pneumonia on the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 by Real-time Reverse Transcription PCR

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Sutjipto ◽  
Pei Hua Lee ◽  
Jun Yang Tay ◽  
Shehara M Mendis ◽  
Mohammad Yazid Abdad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Real Time ◽  
Reverse Transcription ◽  
Sampling Site ◽  
Upper Respiratory Tract ◽  
Clinical Sensitivity ◽  
Illness Onset ◽  
Reverse Transcription Pcr ◽  
Upper Respiratory ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Respiratory Specimens

Abstract Background The performance of real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) for SARS-CoV-2 varies with sampling site(s), illness stage, and infection site. Methods Unilateral nasopharyngeal, nasal midturbinate, throat swabs, and saliva were simultaneously sampled for SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR from suspected or confirmed cases of COVID-19. True positives were defined as patients with at least 1 SARS-CoV-2 detected by rRT-PCR from any site on the evaluation day or at any time point thereafter, until discharge. Diagnostic performance was assessed and extrapolated for site combinations. Results We evaluated 105 patients; 73 had active SARS-CoV-2 infection. Overall, nasopharyngeal specimens had the highest clinical sensitivity at 85%, followed by throat, 80%, midturbinate, 62%, and saliva, 38%–52%. Clinical sensitivity for nasopharyngeal, throat, midturbinate, and saliva was 95%, 88%, 72%, and 44%–56%, respectively, if taken ≤7 days from onset of illness, and 70%, 67%, 47%, 28%–44% if &gt;7 days of illness. Comparing patients with upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) vs pneumonia, clinical sensitivity for nasopharyngeal, throat, midturbinate, and saliva was 92% vs 70%, 88% vs 61%, 70% vs 44%, 43%–54% vs 26%–45%, respectively. A combination of nasopharyngeal plus throat or midturbinate plus throat specimen afforded overall clinical sensitivities of 89%–92%; this rose to 96% for persons with URTI and 98% for persons ≤7 days from illness onset. Conclusions Nasopharyngeal specimens, followed by throat specimens, offer the highest clinical sensitivity for COVID-19 diagnosis in early illness. Clinical sensitivity improves and is similar when either midturbinate or nasopharyngeal specimens are combined with throat specimens. Upper respiratory specimens perform poorly if taken after the first week of illness or if there is pneumonia.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test for bronchoalveolar lavage

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tung Phan ◽  
Ashley Mays ◽  
Melissa McCullough ◽  
Alan Wells
Keyword(s):  
Bronchoalveolar Lavage ◽  
Limit Of Detection ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Qualitative Detection ◽  
Upper Respiratory ◽  
Prompt Diagnosis ◽  
Respiratory Specimens ◽  
Rapid Laboratory

Accurate and rapid laboratory tests are essential for the prompt diagnosis of COVID-19, which is important to patients and infection control. The Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test is a real-time RT-PCR intended for the qualitative detection of nucleic acid from SARS-CoV-2 in upper respiratory specimens. In this study, we assessed the analytical and clinical performance characteristics of this rapid test for SARS-CoV-2 in 60 bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) specimens. BAL is a specimen type that is not authorized under EUA for the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test. The limit of detection of the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test was 500 copies/ml. The overall agreement of the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test was 100%. The Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test is sensitive and specific to aid in diagnosis of COVID-19 using bronchoalveolar lavage.

scholarly journals Real-World Clinical Performance of the Abbott Panbio with Nasopharyngeal, Throat and Saliva Swabs Among Symptomatic Individuals with COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Stokes ◽  
Byron Berenger ◽  
Danielle Portnoy ◽  
Brittney Scott ◽  
Jonas Szelewicki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Symptom Onset ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Community Setting ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Community Assessment ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
United States Food ◽  
States Food ◽  
Antigen Tests

BACKGROUND Point of Care Testing (POCT) SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests, such as the Abbott Panbio, have great potential to help combat the COVID-19 pandemic. The Panbio is United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic individuals within the first 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset(s). METHODS Symptomatic adults recently diagnosed with COVID-19 in the community were recruited into the study. Paired nasopharyngeal (NP), throat, and saliva swabs were collected, with one paired swab tested immediately with the Panbio, and the other transported in universal transport media and tested using reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Positive percent agreement (PPA) was calculated. Subsequently, individuals within 7 days of symptom onset who presented to community assessment centres for SARS-CoV-2 testing had Panbio testing completed and paired with RT-PCR results from parallel NP or throat swabs. RESULTS 145 individuals were included in the study. Collection of throat and saliva was stopped early due to poor performance (throat PPA 57.7%, n=61, and saliva PPA 2.6%, n=41). NP swab PPA was 87.7% [n=145, 95% confidence interval 81.0% - 92.7%]. There were 1,641 symptomatic individuals tested by Panbio in community assessment centres, with 268/1641 (16.3%) positive for SARS-CoV-2. There were 37 false negatives, corresponding to a PPA of 86.2% [81.5% - 90.1%]. CONCLUSIONS The Panbio test reliably detects most cases of SARS-CoV-2 from adults in the POCT community setting presenting within 7 days of symptom onset using nasopharyngeal swabs. Throat and saliva swabs are not reliable specimens for the Panbio.

scholarly journals Characteristics of children and antigen test performance at a SARS-CoV-2 community testing site

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Ford ◽  
Melissa J. Whaley ◽  
Melisa M. Shah ◽  
Phillip P. Salvatore ◽  
Hannah E. Segaloff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Test Performance ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Lower Sensitivity ◽  
Antigen Test ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Culture Methods ◽  
Viral Culture ◽  
Asymptomatic Children ◽  
Testing Site ◽  
Antigen Tests

Background: Performance characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests among children are limited despite the need for point-of-care testing in school and childcare settings. We describe children seeking SARS-CoV-2 testing at a community site and compare antigen test performance to real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and viral culture. Methods: Two anterior nasal specimens were self-collected for BinaxNOW antigen and RT-PCR testing, along with demographics, symptoms, and exposure information from individuals ≥5 years at a community testing site. Viral culture was attempted on residual antigen or RT-PCR positive specimens. Demographic and clinical characteristics, and the performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests, were compared among children (<18 years) and adults. Results: About one in ten included specimens were from children (225/2110); 16.4% (37/225) were RT-PCR positive. Cycle threshold values were similar among RT-PCR positive specimens from children and adults (22.5 vs 21.3, p=0.46) and among specimens from symptomatic and asymptomatic children (22.5 vs 23.2, p=0.39). Sensitivity of antigen test compared to RT-PCR was 73.0% (27/37) among specimens from children and 80.8% (240/297) among specimens from adults; among specimens from children, specificity was 100% (188/188), positive and negative predictive value were 100% (27/27) and 94.9% (188/198) respectively. Virus was isolated from 51.4% (19/37) of RT-PCR positive pediatric specimens; all 19 had positive antigen test results. Conclusions : With lower sensitivity relative to RT-PCR, antigen tests may not diagnose all positive COVID-19 cases; however, antigen testing identified children with live SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document