Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
medrxiv; 2022.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2022.04.04.22273232

ABSTRACT

With the distribution of COVID-19 vaccinations across the globe and the limited access in many countries, quick determination of an individuals antibody status could be beneficial in allocating limited vaccine doses in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Antibody lateral flow tests (LFTs) have potential to address this need as a quick, point of care test, they also have a use case for identifying sero-negative individuals for novel therapeutics, and for epidemiology. Here we present a proof-of-concept evaluation of eight LFT brands using sera from 95 vaccinated individuals to determine sensitivity for detecting vaccination generated antibodies. All 95 (100%) participants tested positive for anti-spike antibodies by the chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) reference standard post-dose two of their SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech, n=60), AZD1222 (AstraZeneca, n=31), mRNA-1273 (Moderna, n=2) and Undeclared Vaccine Brand (n=2). Sensitivity increased from dose one to dose two in six out of eight LFTs with three tests achieving 100% sensitivity at dose two in detecting anti-spike antibodies. These tests are quick, low-cost point-of-care tools that can be used without prior training to establish antibody status and may prove valuable for allocating limited vaccine doses in LMICs to ensure those in at risk groups access the protection they need. Further investigation into their performance in vaccinated peoples is required before more widespread utilisation is considered.


Subject(s)
COVID-19
2.
medrxiv; 2021.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2021.12.06.21267356

ABSTRACT

ObjectivesTo compare self-taken and healthcare worker (HCW)-taken throat/nasal swabs to perform rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) for SARS-CoV-2, and how these compare to RT-PCR. We hypothesised that self-taken samples are non-inferior for use with RDTs and in clinical and research settings could have substantial individual and public health benefit. DesignA prospective diagnostic accuracy evaluation as part of the Facilitating Accelerated Clinical Evaluation of Novel Diagnostic Tests for COVID -19 (FALCON C-19), workstream C (undifferentiated community testing). SettingNHS Test and Trace drive-through community PCR testing site (Liverpool, UK). Participants Eligible participants 18 years or older with symptoms of COVID-19. 250 participants recruited; one withdrew before analysis. SamplingSelf-administered throat/nasal swab for the Covios(R) RDT, a trained HCW taken throat/nasal sample for PCR and HCW comparison throat/nasal swab for RDT. Main outcome measuresSensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) were calculated; comparisons between self-taken and HCW-taken samples used McNemars test. ResultsSeventy-five participants (75/249, 30.1%) were positive by RT-PCR. RDTs with self-taken swabs had a sensitivity of 90.5% (67/74, 95% CI: 83.9-97.2), compared to 78.4% (58/74, 95% CI: 69.0-87.8) for HCW-taken swabs (absolute difference 12.2%, 95% CI: 4.7-19.6, p=0.003). Specificity for self-taken swabs was 99.4% (173/174, 95% CI: 98.3-100.0), versus 98.9% (172/174, 95% CI: 97.3-100.0) for HCW-taken swabs (absolute difference 0.6%, 95% CI: 0.5-1.7, p=0.317). The PPV of self-taken RDTs (98.5%, 67/68, 95% CI: 95.7-100.0) and HCW-taken RDTs (96.7%, 58/60, 95% CI 92.1-100.0) were not significantly different (p=0.262). However, the NPV of self-taken swab RDTs was significantly higher (96.1%, 173/180, 95% CI: 93.2-98.9) than HCW-taken RDTs (91.5%, 172/188, 95% CI 87.5-95.5, p=0.003). ConclusionSelf-taken swabs for COVID-19 testing offer substantial individual benefits in terms of convenience, accuracy, and reduced risk of transmitting infection. Our results demonstrate that self-taken throat/nasal samples can be used by lay individuals as part of rapid testing programmes for symptomatic adults. Trial RegistrationIRAS ID:28422, clinical trial ID: NCT04408170 SummaryO_ST_ABSWhat is already known on this topic?C_ST_ABSO_LIRapid diagnostic tests (RDTs)for SARS-CoV-2 Ag are a cheaper point-of-care alternative to RT-PCR for diagnosing COVID-19 disease. C_LIO_LIThe accuracy of tests can vary dependent on sampling technique, test processing and reading of results. C_LI What this study adds?O_LISelf-taken throat-nasal swabs for RDTs can be used by symptomatic adults to give reliable results to diagnose SARS-CoV-2. C_LIO_LISelf-sampling can be implemented with little training and no assistance. C_LI


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Carcinoma
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL