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

Database
Main subject
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
medrxiv; 2022.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2022.01.28.22269783

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Rapid antigen detection tests (RDT) are suitable for large-scale testing for SARS-CoV-2 among the population and recent studies have shown that self-testing with RDT in the general population is feasible and yields acceptable sensitivities with high specificity. We aimed to determine the accuracy of two different RDT, with two different sample collection methods for one of the RDT among healthcare workers (HCW). Secondary objectives were to determine the accuracy of RDT using a viral load cut-off as proxy of infectiousness and to identify predictors for a false negative RDT. Methods: Centers that participated were secondary care hospitals, academic teaching hospitals, and long-term care facilities. All HCW that met inclusion criteria were asked to perform a RDT self-test next to a regular SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT). Three study groups were created. Study group 1; Veritor System, Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, USA (BD-RDT) with combined oropharyngeal - mid-turbinate nasal sampling, group 2; BD-RDT with mid-turbinate nasal sampling only and group 3; SD Biosensor SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test, Roche, Basel, Switzerland (Roche-RDT) with combined oropharyngeal - mid-turbinate nasal sampling. RDT accuracy was calculated using NAAT as reference standard. For samples processed in the cobas(R) 6800/8800 platform (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland), established cycle threshold values (Ct-values) could be converted into viral loads. A viral load cut-off of [≥]5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E gene copies/ml was used as proxy of infectiousness. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors for a false negative RDT. Results: In total, 7,196 HCW were included. Calculated sensitivities were 61.5% (95%CI 56.6%-66.3%), 50.3% (95%CI 42.8%-57.7%) and 74.2% (95%CI 66.4%-80.9%) for study groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. After application of a viral load cut-off as a proxy for infectiousness for samples processed in the cobas(R) 6800/8800 platform sensitivities increased to 82.2% (95%CI 76.6-86.9%), 61.9% (95%CI 48.8%-73.9%) and 90.2% (95%CI 76.9%-97.3%) for group 1, group 2 and group 3, respectively. Multivariable regression analysis showed that use of Roche-RDT (p <0.01), combined oropharyngeal - mid-turbinate nasal sampling (p <0.05) and the presence of COVID-19 like symptoms at the time of testing (p <0.01) significantly reduced the likeliness of a false-negative RDT result. Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 RDT has proven able to identify infectious individuals, especially when upper respiratory specimen is collected through combined oropharyngeal - mid-turbinate sampling. Reliability of self-testing with RDT among HCW seems to depend on the type of RDT, the sampling method and the presence of COVID-19 like symptoms at the time of testing.


Subject(s)
COVID-19
2.
medrxiv; 2020.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2020.10.19.20215202

ABSTRACT

Objectives: This study was primarily conducted to evaluate clinical sensitivity and specificity of the SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test BD Veritor System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 (VRD) compared to real time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). Furthermore, the VRD sensitivity for different Ct-value groups (Ct <20; Ct 20-25, Ct 25-30 and Ct > 30) and different intervals since symptom onset (< 7 days; > 7 days) were examined. Design: Prospective performance evaluation study. Setting: Municipal Health Service (GGD) COVID-19 test centres in West-Brabant, the Netherlands Participants: In order to evaluate clinical specificity, 352 symptomatic adults (> 18 years) who presented at a participating GGD test centre for a COVID- 19 test between September 28 and October 7 2020 were included. In order to evaluate clinical sensitivity, 123 symptomatic adults (> 18 years) who were tested positive with qRT-PCR in a participating GGD test centre between September 26 and October 6 were included. Results: An overall clinical specificity of 100% (95%CI : 98.9%-100%) and sensitivity of 80.7% (95% CI: 73,2%-86,9%) was found for the VRD compared to qRT-PCR. Sensitivity was the highest for low Ct-value categories and for specimen obtained within the first days after disease onset. For specimen obtained within 7 days after onset of symptoms, the overall sensitivity was 91.0% (95%: CI 82,4%-96,3%) and 98,6% (95%: CI 92,3%-100%) for samples with qRT-PCR Ct-value beneath 30. Conclusion: The VRD is a promising diagnostic test for COVID-19 community screening for symptomatic individuals within 7 days after symptom onset in function of disease control. The clinical sensitivity was highest when viral load was high, which correlated with the duration of symptoms. Further research on practical applicability and the optimal position of the test within the current testing landscape is needed.


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