Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 26
Filter
1.
Infection ; 2022 Apr 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1783014

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to develop a scalable approach for direct comparison of the analytical sensitivities of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antigen point-of-care tests (AgPOCTs) to rapidly identify poor-performing products. METHODS: We present a methodology for quick assessment of the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 AgPOCTs suitable for quality evaluation of many different products. We established reference samples with high, medium, and low SARS-CoV-2 viral loads along with a SARS-CoV-2 negative control sample. Test samples were used to semi-quantitatively assess the analytical sensitivities of 32 different commercial AgPOCTs in a head-to-head comparison. RESULTS: Among 32 SARS-CoV-2 AgPOCTs tested, we observe sensitivity differences across a broad range of viral loads (9.8 × 108 to 1.8 × 105 SARS-CoV-2 genome copies per ml). 23 AgPOCTs detected the Ct25 test sample (1.6 × 106 copies/ml), while only five tests detected the Ct28 test sample (1.8 × 105 copies/ml). In the low-range of analytical sensitivity, we found three saliva spit tests only delivering positive results for the Ct21 sample (2.7 × 107 copies/ml). Comparison with published data supports our AgPOCT ranking. Importantly, we identified an AgPOCT widely offered, which did not reliably recognize the sample with the highest viral load (Ct16 test sample with 9.8 × 108 copies/ml) leading to serious doubts about its usefulness in SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. CONCLUSION: The results show that the rapid sensitivity assessment procedure presented here provides useful estimations on the analytical sensitivities of 32 AgPOCTs and identified a widely-spread AgPOCT with concerningly low sensitivity.

5.
Health Econ Rev ; 12(1): 15, 2022 Feb 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1690875

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) have been implemented in hospitals and nursing homes to screen for infectious individuals without symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infections and to prevent entry into these high-risk settings. Despite their benefits for screening, the cost of large-scale implementation is largely understudied. Our study presents evidence on their implementation costs in high-risk settings. This study aimed to estimate the economic costs of implementing Ag-RDT-based screening for SARS-CoV-2 in two tertiary care hospitals (University Hospital Heidelberg - UKHD, and Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin) and one nursing home in Germany. METHODS: We adopted a health system perspective and followed the three sequential steps to costing: identification of resources, measurement of resource consumption, and valuation of costs. Data on resource consumption were collected between October 2020 and April 2021 through various techniques and data sources. The cost estimation considered all costs along the screening algorithm including PCR confirmation tests for positive cases. We estimated the costs for the two implementation modalities observed: staff dedicated exclusively to screening and staff not dedicated exclusively to screening. Furthermore, cost estimations were performed under both observed capacity use and hypothetical capacity use assumptions (60, 80 and 100%). RESULTS: Our study indicates that the average cost per Ag-RDT is highly dependent on the capacity use and implementation mode. Staff time and test kits are the two main cost drivers of implementing the large-scale screening programs for SARS-CoV-2 using Ag-RDTs. For hospitals, the average cost per test in UKHD was €30.12 (capacity observed); €14.56 (non-dedicated mode); €19.47, €16.37, €14.53 at 60, 80, 100% capacity respectively (dedicated mode); and at Charité €13.10 (non-dedicated mode). For the nursing home the estimated average cost per test was €15.03 (non-dedicated mode). CONCLUSIONS: The information on the estimated costs by mode of implementation and capacity use may support the planning of Ag-RDT-based covid-19 screening programs suitable for each institution. Further research is needed to cost this screening strategy for COVID-19 in other high-risk, high-income settings to reach generalizability.

7.
EBioMedicine ; 75: 103774, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1587927

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 are important diagnostic tools. We assessed clinical performance and ease-of-use of seven Ag-RDTs in a prospective, manufacturer-independent, multi-centre cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study to inform global decision makers. METHODS: Unvaccinated participants suspected of a first SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited at six sites (Germany, Brazil). Ag-RDTs were evaluated sequentially, with collection of paired swabs for routine reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing and Ag-RDT testing. Performance was compared to RT-PCR overall and in sub-group analyses (viral load, symptoms, symptoms duration). To understandusability a System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire and ease-of-use (EoU) assessment were performed. FINDINGS: 7471 participants were included in the analysis. Sensitivities across Ag-RDTs ranged from 70·4%-90·1%, specificities were above 97·2% for all Ag-RDTs but one (93·1%).Ag-RDTs, Mologic, Bionote, Standard Q, showed diagnostic accuracy in line with WHO targets (> 80% sensitivity, > 97% specificity). All tests showed high sensitivity in the first three days after symptom onset (≥87·1%) and in individuals with viral loads≥ 6 log10SARS-CoV2 RNA copies/mL (≥ 88·7%). Usability varied, with Rapigen, Bionote and Standard Q reaching very good scores; 90, 88 and 84/100, respectively. INTERPRETATION: Variability in test performance is partially explained by variable viral loads in population evaluated over the course of the pandemic. All Ag-RDTs reach high sensitivity early in the disease and in individuals with high viral loads, supporting their role in identifying transmission relevant infections. For easy-to-use tests, performance shown will likely be maintained in routine implementation. FUNDING: Ministry of Science, Research and Arts, State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany, internal funds from Heidelberg University Hospital, University Hospital Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, UK Department of International Development, WHO, Unitaid.


Subject(s)
Antigens, Viral/immunology , COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19 , Point-of-Care Systems , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/immunology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Sensitivity and Specificity
8.
BMJ Paediatr Open ; 5(1): e001262, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1484038

ABSTRACT

Background: Over the course of the pandemic, many countries have repeatedly closed schools and shifted schoolchildren to remote learning. However, evidence for negative mental and physiological health consequences of such measures for schoolchildren is increasing, highlighting the need for evidence-based recommendations on how to safely reopen schools. This study aims to assess implementation experiences, acceptability and feasibility of opt-in, at-home SARS-CoV-2 screening using rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) to facilitate safe face-to-face teaching during a pandemic. Methods: We present data from a prospective study implementing an RDT-based screening programme at a primary school in southwest Germany. In addition to quantitative data collected to assess screening diagnostic yield (number of participants, tests handed out to participants, positive RDT results reported), we conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with participating pupils, parents and school stakeholders to elicit implementation experiences and screening perceptions. Results: The screening intervention was highly accepted and appreciated among participants; no screening-associated positive RDT was reported over the duration of the study. Self-testing at home before coming to school was feasible, but more positive consequences of screening participation (eg, easing of mask mandates) besides a personal feeling of safety would have been appreciated across respondent groups. Participants preferred home-based RDTs over some other measures, particularly mask mandates. Despite the RDTs being licensed as self-tests in Germany, additional training can help avoid mistakes, and ensuring intervention ownership and improving pre-implementation communication can facilitate buy-in. Conclusions: Antigen-RDT-based SARS-CoV-2 screening programmes relying on self-testing at home are a feasible and acceptable supplement to the public health toolbox to facilitate a safe return to face-to-face teaching at schools. Trial registration number: DRKS00024845.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Child , Germany , Humans , Prospective Studies , Schools
9.
Med Microbiol Immunol ; 210(4): 181-186, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1384439

ABSTRACT

In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended two SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow antigen-detecting rapid diagnostics tests (Ag-RDTs), both initially with nasopharyngeal (NP) sample collection. Independent head-to-head studies are necessary for SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT nasal sampling to demonstrate comparability of performance with nasopharyngeal (NP) sampling. We conducted a head-to-head comparison study of a supervised, self-collected nasal mid-turbinate (NMT) swab and a professional-collected NP swab, using the Panbio™ Ag-RDT (distributed by Abbott). We calculated positive and negative percent agreement between the sampling methods as well as sensitivity and specificity for both sampling techniques compared to the reference standard reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). A SARS-CoV-2 infection could be diagnosed by RT-PCR in 45 of 290 participants (15.5%). Comparing the NMT and NP sampling the positive percent agreement of the Ag-RDT was 88.1% (37/42 PCR positives detected; CI 75.0-94.8%). The negative percent agreement was 98.8% (245/248; CI 96.5-99.6%). The overall sensitivity of Panbio with NMT sampling was 84.4% (38/45; CI 71.2-92.3%) and 88.9% (40/45; CI 76.5-95.5%) with NP sampling. Specificity was 99.2% (243/245; CI 97.1-99.8%) for both, NP and NMT sampling. The sensitivity of the Panbio test in participants with high viral load (> 7 log10 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/mL) was 96.3% (CI 81.7-99.8%) for both, NMT and NP sampling. For the Panbio supervised NMT self-sampling yields comparable results to NP sampling. This suggests that nasal self-sampling could be used for to enable scaled-up population testing.Clinical Trial DRKS00021220.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Specimen Handling/methods , Adult , Antigens, Viral , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nasopharynx/virology , RNA, Viral , Sensitivity and Specificity , Viral Load , World Health Organization
10.
PLoS One ; 16(5): e0247918, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1388903

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Diagnostics are essential for controlling the pandemic. Identifying a reliable and fast diagnostic device is needed for effective testing. We assessed performance and ease-of-use of the Abbott PanBio antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT). METHODS: This prospective, multi-centre diagnostic accuracy study enrolled at two sites in Germany. Following routine testing with reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), a second study-exclusive swab was performed for Ag-RDT testing. Routine swabs were nasopharyngeal (NP) or combined NP/oropharyngeal (OP) whereas the study-exclusive swabs were NP. To evaluate performance, sensitivity and specificity were assessed overall and in predefined sub-analyses accordingly to cycle-threshold values, days after symptom onset, disease severity and study site. Additionally, an ease-of-use assessment (EoU) and System Usability Scale (SUS) were performed. RESULTS: 1108 participants were enrolled between Sept 28 and Oct 30, 2020. Of these, 106 (9.6%) were PCR-positive. The Abbott PanBio detected 92/106 PCR-positive participants with a sensitivity of 86.8% (95% CI: 79.0% - 92.0%) and a specificity of 99.9% (95% CI: 99.4%-100%). The sub-analyses indicated that sensitivity was 95.8% in Ct-values <25 and within the first seven days from symptom onset. The test was characterized as easy to use (SUS: 86/100) and considered suitable for point-of-care settings. CONCLUSION: The Abbott PanBio Ag-RDT performs well for SARS-CoV-2 testing in this large manufacturer independent study, confirming its WHO recommendation for Emergency Use in settings with limited resources.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19 , Point-of-Care Testing , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , Female , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Sensitivity and Specificity , World Health Organization
11.
Trials ; 21(1): 828, 2020 Oct 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1388814

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Primary objectives • To assess the time from randomisation until an improvement within 84 days defined as two points on a seven point ordinal scale or live discharge from the hospital in high-risk patients (group 1 to group 4) with SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring hospital admission by infusion of plasma from subjects after convalescence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or standard of care. Secondary objectives • To assess overall survival, and the overall survival rate at 28 56 and 84 days. • To assess SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance and load as well as antibody titres. • To assess the percentage of patients that required mechanical ventilation. • To assess time from randomisation until discharge. TRIAL DESIGN: Randomised, open-label, multicenter phase II trial, designed to assess the clinical outcome of SARS-CoV-2 disease in high-risk patients (group 1 to group 4) following treatment with anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma or standard of care. PARTICIPANTS: High-risk patients >18 years of age hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection in 10-15 university medical centres will be included. High-risk is defined as SARS-CoV-2 positive infection with Oxygen saturation at ≤ 94% at ambient air with additional risk features as categorised in 4 groups: • Group 1, pre-existing or concurrent hematological malignancy and/or active cancer therapy (incl. chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery) within the last 24 months or less. • Group 2, chronic immunosuppression not meeting the criteria of group 1. • Group 3, age ≥ 50 - 75 years meeting neither the criteria of group 1 nor group 2 and at least one of these criteria: Lymphopenia < 0.8 x G/l and/or D-dimer > 1µg/mL. • Group 4, age ≥ 75 years meeting neither the criteria of group 1 nor group 2. Observation time for all patients is expected to be at least 3 months after entry into the study. Patients receive convalescent plasma for two days (day 1 and day 2) or standard of care. For patients in the standard arm, cross over is allowed from day 10 in case of not improving or worsening clinical condition. Nose/throat swabs for determination of viral load are collected at day 0 and day 1 (before first CP administration) and subsequently at day 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 28 or until discharge. Serum for SARS-Cov-2 diagnostic is collected at baseline and subsequently at day 3, 7, 14 and once during the follow-up period (between day 35 and day 84). There is a regular follow-up of 3 months. All discharged patients are followed by regular phone calls. All visits, time points and study assessments are summarized in the Trial Schedule (see full protocol Table 1). All participating trial sites will be supplied with study specific visit worksheets that list all assessments and procedures to be completed at each visit. All findings including clinical and laboratory data are documented by the investigator or an authorized member of the study team in the patient's medical record and in the electronic case report forms (eCRFs). INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: This trial will analyze the effects of convalescent plasma from recovered subjects with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in high-risk patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients at high risk for a poor outcome due to underlying disease, age or condition as listed above are eligible for enrollment. In addition, eligible patients have a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and O2 saturation ≤ 94% while breathing ambient air. Patients are randomised to receive (experimental arm) or not receive (standard arm) convalescent plasma in two bags (238 - 337 ml plasma each) from different donors (day 1, day 2). A cross over from the standard arm into the experimental arm is possible after day 10 in case of not improving or worsening clinical condition. MAIN OUTCOMES: Primary endpoints: The main purpose of the study is to assess the time from randomisation until an improvement within 84 days defined as two points on a seven-point ordinal scale or live discharge from the hospital in high-risk patients (group 1 to group 4) with SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring hospital admission by infusion of plasma from subjects after convalescence of a SARS-CoV-2 infection or standard of care. Secondary endpoints: • Overall survival, defined as the time from randomisation until death from any cause 28-day, 56-day and 84-day overall survival rates. • SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance and load as well as antibody titres. • Requirement mechanical ventilation at any time during hospital stay (yes/no). • Time until discharge from randomisation. • Viral load, changes in antibody titers and cytokine profiles are analysed in an exploratory manner using paired non-parametric tests (before - after treatment). RANDOMISATION: Upon confirmation of eligibility (patients must meet all inclusion criteria and must not meet exclusion criteria described in section 5.3 and 5.4 of the full protocol), the clinical site must contact a centralized internet randomization system ( https://randomizer.at/ ). Patients are randomized using block randomisation to one of the two arms, experimental arm or standard arm, in a 1:1 ratio considering a stratification according to the 4 risk groups (see Participants). BLINDING (MASKING): The study is open-label, no blinding will be performed. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): A total number of 174 patients is required for the entire trial, n=87 per group. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version 1.2 dated 09/07/2020. A recruitment period of approximately 9 months and an overall study duration of approximately 12 months is anticipated. Recruitment of patients starts in the third quarter of 2020. The study duration of an individual patient is planned to be 3 months. After finishing all study-relevant procedures, therapy, and follow-up period, the patient is followed in terms of routine care and treated if necessary. Total trial duration: 18 months Duration of the clinical phase: 12 months First patient first visit (FPFV): 3rd Quarter 2020 Last patient first visit (LPFV): 2nd Quarter 2021 Last patient last visit (LPLV): 3rd Quarter 2021 Trial Report completed: 4th Quarter 2021 TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT Number: 2020-001632-10, https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-001632-10/DE , registered on 04/04/2020. FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2). The eCRF is attached (Additional file 3).


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections , Pandemics , Plasma/immunology , Pneumonia, Viral , Aged , Betacoronavirus/immunology , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic , Convalescence , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Female , Humans , Immunization, Passive/methods , Male , Middle Aged , Monitoring, Physiologic/methods , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Risk Adjustment , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index
12.
Infect Dis (Lond) ; 53(12): 947-952, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1373618

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Most SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests require nasopharyngeal sampling, which is frequently perceived as uncomfortable and requires healthcare professionals, thus limiting scale-up. Nasal sampling could enable self-sampling and increase acceptability. The term nasal sampling is often not used uniformly and sampling protocols differ. METHODS: This manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study, compared professional anterior nasal and nasal mid-turbinate sampling for a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test. The second group of participants collected a nasal mid-turbinate 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. RESULTS: Among 132 symptomatic adults, both professional anterior nasal and nasal mid-turbinate 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 was 100% (95%CI: 89.0-100). Among 96 additional adults, self nasal mid-turbinate and professional nasopharyngeal 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 nasal mid-turbinate and 100.0% (95%CI: 94.2-100) with nasopharyngeal sampling. The positive percent agreement was 96.8% (95%CI: 83.8-99.8). Most participants (85.3%) considered self-sampling as easy to perform. CONCLUSION: Professional anterior nasal and nasal mid-turbinate sampling are of equivalent accuracy for an antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test in ambulatory symptomatic adults. Participants were able to reliably perform nasal mid-turbinate sampling themselves, following written and illustrated instructions. Nasal self-sampling will facilitate scaling of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Humans , Prospective Studies , Sensitivity and Specificity , Turbinates
13.
Infection ; 50(2): 395-406, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1353740

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Rapid antigen-detecting tests (Ag-RDTs) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can transform pandemic control. Thus far, sensitivity (≤ 85%) of lateral-flow assays has limited scale-up. Conceivably, microfluidic immunofluorescence Ag-RDTs could increase sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection. METHODS: This multi-centre diagnostic accuracy study investigated performance of the microfluidic immunofluorescence LumiraDx™ assay, enrolling symptomatic and asymptomatic participants with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants collected a supervised nasal mid-turbinate (NMT) self-swab for Ag-RDT testing, in addition to a professionally collected nasopharyngeal (NP) swab for routine testing with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Results were compared to calculate sensitivity and specificity. Sub-analyses investigated the results by viral load, symptom presence and duration. An analytical study assessed exclusivity and limit-of-detection (LOD). In addition, we evaluated ease-of-use. RESULTS: The study was conducted between November 2nd 2020 and 4th of December 2020. 761 participants were enrolled, with 486 participants reporting symptoms on testing day. 120 out of 146 RT-PCR positive cases were detected positive by LumiraDx™, resulting in a sensitivity of 82.2% (95% CI 75.2-87.5%). Specificity was 99.3% (CI 98.3-99.7%). Sensitivity was increased in individuals with viral load ≥ 7 log10 SARS-CoV2 RNA copies/ml (93.8%; CI 86.2-97.3%). Testing against common respiratory commensals and pathogens showed no cross-reactivity and LOD was estimated to be 2-56 PFU/mL. The ease-of-use-assessment was favourable for lower throughput settings. CONCLUSION: The LumiraDx™ assay showed excellent analytical sensitivity, exclusivity and clinical specificity with good clinical sensitivity using supervised NMT self-sampling. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND REGISTRATION DATE: DRKS00021220 and 01.04.2020.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnosis , Humans , Pandemics , Point-of-Care Systems , RNA, Viral , Sensitivity and Specificity
14.
PLoS Med ; 18(8): e1003735, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1354750

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being integrated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix, bioRvix, and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 up until 30 April 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses, and rated study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 assessment tool. From a total of 14,254 articles, we included 133 analytical and clinical studies resulting in 214 clinical accuracy datasets with 112,323 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 71.2% (95% CI 68.2% to 74.0%) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6% to 99.1%), respectively. Sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.1% to 79.2%) if analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers' instructions. LumiraDx showed the highest sensitivity, with 88.2% (95% CI 59.0% to 97.5%). Of instrument-free Ag-RDTs, Standard Q nasal performed best, with 80.2% sensitivity (95% CI 70.3% to 87.4%). Across all Ag-RDTs, sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, i.e., <20 (96.5%, 95% CI 92.6% to 98.4%) and <25 (95.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 97.8%), in comparison to those with Ct ≥ 25 (50.7%, 95% CI 35.6% to 65.8%) and ≥30 (20.9%, 95% CI 12.5% to 32.8%). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (83.8%, 95% CI 76.3% to 89.2%) compared to testing after 1 week (61.5%, 95% CI 52.2% to 70.0%). The best Ag-RDT sensitivity was found with anterior nasal sampling (75.5%, 95% CI 70.4% to 79.9%), in comparison to other sample types (e.g., nasopharyngeal, 71.6%, 95% CI 68.1% to 74.9%), although CIs were overlapping. Concerns of bias were raised across all datasets, and financial support from the manufacturer was reported in 24.1% of datasets. Our analysis was limited by the included studies' heterogeneity in design and reporting. CONCLUSIONS: In this study we found that Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2-infected persons within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load. Thus, they can have high utility for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease, making them a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization in conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , Age Factors , Antigens, Viral/analysis , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/etiology , COVID-19 Serological Testing/standards , Carrier State/diagnosis , Carrier State/virology , Humans , Nasopharynx/virology , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic , Reference Standards , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Viral Load
15.
PLoS One ; 16(7): e0255513, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1334778

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Most data on COVID-19 was collected in hospitalized cases. Much less is known about the spectrum of disease in entire populations. In this study, we examine a representative cohort of primarily symptomatic cases in an administrative district in Southern Germany. METHODS: We contacted all confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in the administrative district. Consenting participants answered a retrospective survey either via a telephone, electronically or via mail. Clinical and sociodemographic features were compared between hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients. Additionally, we assessed potential risk factors for hospitalization and time to hospitalization in a series of regression models. RESULTS: We included 897 participants in our study, 69% out of 1,305 total cases in the district with a mean age of 47 years (range 2-97), 51% of which were female and 47% had a pre-existing illness. The percentage of asymptomatic, mild, moderate (leading to hospital admission) and critical illness (requiring mechanical ventilation) was 54 patients (6%), 713 (79%), 97 (11%) and 16 (2%), respectively. Seventeen patients (2%) died. The most prevalent symptoms were fatigue (65%), cough (62%) and dysgeusia (60%). The risk factors for hospitalization included older age (OR 1.05 per year increase; 95% CI 1.04-1.07) preexisting lung conditions (OR 3.09; 95% CI 1.62-5.88). Female sex was a protective factor (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.33-0.77). CONCLUSION: This representative analysis of primarily symptomatic COVID-19 cases confirms age, male sex and preexisting lung conditions but not cardiovascular disease as risk factors for severe illness. Almost 80% of infection take a mild course, whereas 13% of patients suffer moderate to severe illness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00022926. URL: https://www.drks.de/drks_web/setLocale_EN.do.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hospitalization , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/pathology , COVID-19/therapy , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Severity of Illness Index , Sex Factors
16.
PLoS One ; 16(7): e0255154, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1331999

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has been reported in over 40million people globally with variable clinical outcomes. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed demographic, laboratory and clinical indicators as predictors for severe courses of COVID-19. METHODS: This systematic review was registered at PROSPERO under CRD42020177154. We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, MedRvix and bioRvix) for publications from December 2019 to May 31st 2020. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate pooled odds ratios and differences of medians between (1) patients admitted to ICU versus non-ICU patients and (2) patients who died versus those who survived. We adapted an existing Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool for outcome studies. RESULTS: Of 6,702 unique citations, we included 88 articles with 69,762 patients. There was concern for bias across all articles included. Age was strongly associated with mortality with a difference of medians (DoM) of 13.15 years (95% confidence interval (CI) 11.37 to 14.94) between those who died and those who survived. We found a clinically relevant difference between non-survivors and survivors for C-reactive protein (CRP; DoM 69.10 mg/L, CI 50.43 to 87.77), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH; DoM 189.49 U/L, CI 155.00 to 223.98), cardiac troponin I (cTnI; DoM 21.88 pg/mL, CI 9.78 to 33.99) and D-Dimer (DoM 1.29mg/L, CI 0.9 to 1.69). Furthermore, cerebrovascular disease was the co-morbidity most strongly associated with mortality (Odds Ratio 3.45, CI 2.42 to 4.91) and ICU admission (Odds Ratio 5.88, CI 2.35 to 14.73). DISCUSSION: This comprehensive meta-analysis found age, cerebrovascular disease, CRP, LDH and cTnI to be the most important risk-factors that predict severe COVID-19 outcomes and will inform clinical scores to support early decision-making.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/pathology , C-Reactive Protein/metabolism , COVID-19/metabolism , Cerebrovascular Disorders/metabolism , Cerebrovascular Disorders/virology , Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products/metabolism , Humans , L-Lactate Dehydrogenase/metabolism , Troponin I/metabolism
17.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 27(11): 1700.e1-1700.e3, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1330708

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to assess the performance of antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS CoV-2 when implemented for large-scale universal screening of asymptomatic individuals. METHODS: This study was a pragmatic implementation study for universal Ag-RDT-based screening at a tertiary care hospital in Germany where patients presenting for elective procedures and selected personnel without symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 were screened with an Ag-RDT since October 2020. Test performance was calculated on an individual patient level. RESULTS: In total, 49 542 RDTs were performed in 27 421 asymptomatic individuals over a duration of 5 and a half months. Out of 222 positive results, 196 underwent in-house confirmatory testing with PCR, out of which 170 were confirmed positive, indicating a positive predictive value of 86.7% (95% CI 81.2-91.1%). Negative Ag-RDTs were not routinely tested with PCR, but a total of 94 cases of false negative Ag-RDTs were detected due to PCR tests being performed within the following 5 days with a median cycle threshold value of 33 (IQR 29-35). DISCUSSION: This study provides evidence that Ag-RDTs can have a high diagnostic yield for transmission relevant infections with limited false positives when utilized at the point of care on asymptomatic patients and thus can be a suitable public health test for universal screening.


Subject(s)
Antigens, Viral/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , Mass Screening/methods , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing/methods , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , Germany , Humans , Predictive Value of Tests , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Sensitivity and Specificity , Tertiary Healthcare
18.
J Clin Virol ; 141: 104874, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1253159

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Considering the possibility of nasal self-sampling and the ease of use in performing SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs), self-testing is a feasible option. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was a head-to-head comparison of diagnostic accuracy of patient self-testing with professional testing using a SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study of nasal mid-turbinate self-sampling and self-testing with symptomatic adults using a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. Procedures were observed without intervention. For comparison, Ag-RDTs with nasopharyngeal sampling were professionally performed. Estimates of agreement, sensitivity, and specificity relative to RT-PCR on a combined oro-/nasopharyngeal sample were calculated. Feasibility was evaluated by observer and participant questionnaires. RESULTS: Among 146 symptomatic adults, 40 (27.4%) were RT-PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2. Sensitivity with self-testing was 82.5% (33/40; 95% CI 68.1-91.3), and 85.0% (34/40; 95% CI 70.9-92.9) with professional testing. At high viral load (≥7.0 log10 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/ml), sensitivity was 96.6% (28/29; 95% CI 82.8-99.8) for both self- and professional testing. Deviations in sampling and testing were observed in 25 out of the 40 PCR-positives. Most participants (80.9%) considered the Ag-RDT as easy to perform. CONCLUSION: Laypersons suspected for SARS-CoV-2 infection were able to reliably perform the Ag-RDT and test themselves. Procedural errors might be reduced by refinement of the instructions for use or the product design/procedures. Self-testing allows more wide-spread and frequent testing. Paired with the appropriate information of the public about the benefits and risks, self-testing may have significant impact on the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Antigens, Viral , Feasibility Studies , Humans , Prospective Studies , RNA, Viral , Self-Testing , Sensitivity and Specificity
19.
Med Microbiol Immunol ; 210(4): 181-186, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1240003

ABSTRACT

In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended two SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow antigen-detecting rapid diagnostics tests (Ag-RDTs), both initially with nasopharyngeal (NP) sample collection. Independent head-to-head studies are necessary for SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT nasal sampling to demonstrate comparability of performance with nasopharyngeal (NP) sampling. We conducted a head-to-head comparison study of a supervised, self-collected nasal mid-turbinate (NMT) swab and a professional-collected NP swab, using the Panbio™ Ag-RDT (distributed by Abbott). We calculated positive and negative percent agreement between the sampling methods as well as sensitivity and specificity for both sampling techniques compared to the reference standard reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). A SARS-CoV-2 infection could be diagnosed by RT-PCR in 45 of 290 participants (15.5%). Comparing the NMT and NP sampling the positive percent agreement of the Ag-RDT was 88.1% (37/42 PCR positives detected; CI 75.0-94.8%). The negative percent agreement was 98.8% (245/248; CI 96.5-99.6%). The overall sensitivity of Panbio with NMT sampling was 84.4% (38/45; CI 71.2-92.3%) and 88.9% (40/45; CI 76.5-95.5%) with NP sampling. Specificity was 99.2% (243/245; CI 97.1-99.8%) for both, NP and NMT sampling. The sensitivity of the Panbio test in participants with high viral load (> 7 log10 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/mL) was 96.3% (CI 81.7-99.8%) for both, NMT and NP sampling. For the Panbio supervised NMT self-sampling yields comparable results to NP sampling. This suggests that nasal self-sampling could be used for to enable scaled-up population testing.Clinical Trial DRKS00021220.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Specimen Handling/methods , Adult , Antigens, Viral , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nasopharynx/virology , RNA, Viral , Sensitivity and Specificity , Viral Load , World Health Organization
20.
J Clin Virol ; 139: 104847, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1201793

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The vast majority of COVID-19 patients experience a mild disease. However, a minority suffers from critical disease with substantial morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVES: To identify individuals at risk of critical COVID-19, the relevance of a seroreactivity against seasonal human coronaviruses was analyzed. METHODS: We conducted a multi-center non-interventional study comprising 296 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections from four tertiary care referral centers in Germany and France. The ICU group comprised more males, whereas the outpatient group contained a higher percentage of females. For each patient, the serum or plasma sample obtained closest after symptom onset was examined by immunoblot regarding IgG antibodies against the nucleocapsid protein (NP) of HCoV 229E, NL63, OC43 and HKU1. RESULTS: Median age was 60 years (range 18-96). Patients with critical disease (n=106) had significantly lower levels of anti-HCoV OC43 nucleocapsid protein (NP)-specific antibodies compared to other COVID-19 inpatients (p=0.007). In multivariate analysis (adjusted for age, sex and BMI), OC43 negative inpatients had an increased risk of critical disease (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 2.68 [95% CI 1.09 - 7.05]), higher than the risk by increased age or BMI, and lower than the risk by male sex. A risk stratification based on sex and OC43 serostatus was derived from this analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that prior infections with seasonal human coronaviruses can protect against a severe course of COVID-19. Therefore, anti-OC43 antibodies should be measured for COVID-19 inpatients and considered as part of the risk assessment for each patient. Hence, we expect individuals tested negative for anti-OC43 antibodies to particularly benefit from vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, especially with other risk factors prevailing.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/diagnosis , Coronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteins/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/etiology , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Male , Middle Aged , Phosphoproteins/immunology , Risk Factors , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL