Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
medrxiv; 2021.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2021.12.08.21267452

ABSTRACT

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 self-tests may lower the threshold of testing and produce a result quickly. This could support the early detection of infectious cases and reduce further community transmission. However, the diagnostic accuracy of (unsupervised) self-testing with rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) is mostly unknown. We therefore conducted a large-scale head-to-head comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of a self-performed SARS-CoV-2 saliva and nasal Ag-RDT, each compared to a molecular reference test, in the general population in the Netherlands. MethodsIn this cross-sectional study we consecutively included individuals aged 16 years and older presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing at three Dutch public health service test sites irrespective of their indication for testing, vaccination status, and symptomatology. Participants were sampled for molecular testing at the test site and received two self-tests (the Hangzhou AllTest saliva self-test and the SD Biosensor nasal self-test by Roche Diagnostics) to perform at home within a few hours without knowledge of their molecular test result. Information on presence and type of symptoms, user experiences, and results of both self-tests were collected via an online questionnaire. For each self-test, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were determined with molecular testing as reference standard. FindingsThe SARS-CoV-2 molecular reference test positivity rate was 6.5% in the 2,819 participants. Overall sensitivities with 95% confidence intervals were 46.7% (85/182; 39.3%-54.2%) for the saliva Ag-RDT, and 68.9% (124/180; 61.6%-75.6%) for the nasal Ag-RDT. With a viral load cut-off ([≥]5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL) as a proxy of infectiousness, sensitivities increased to 54.9% (78/142; 46.4%-63.3%) for the saliva Ag-RDT and 83.9% (120/143; 76.9%-89.5%) for the nasal Ag-RDT. For the nasal Ag-RDT, sensitivities were 78.5% [71.1%-84.8%] and 22.6% [9.6%-41.1%] in those with and without symptoms at the time of sampling, which increased to 90.4% (113/125; 83.8%-94.9%) and 38.9% (7/18; 17.3%-64.3%) after applying the viral load cut-off. In those with and without prior confirmed SARS-CoV-2, sensitivities were 36.8% [19/372; 16.3%-61.6%] and 72.7% [161/2437; 65.1%-79.4%] for the nasal Ag-RDT, which increased to 100% (7/7; 59.0%-100%) and 83.1% (113/126; 75.7%-89.0%) after applying the viral load cut-off. The diagnostic accuracy of the nasal Ag-RDT did not differ by COVID-19 vaccination status, sex, and age. Specificities were >99%, positive predictive values >70% and negative predictive values >95%, for the saliva Ag-RDT, and >99%, >90%, and >95% for the nasal Ag-RDT, respectively, in most analyses. Interpreting the results was considered (very) easy for both self-tests. InterpretationThe Hangzhou AllTest self-performed saliva Ag-RDT is not reliable for SARS-CoV-2 infection detection overall nor in the studied subgroups. The SD Biosensor self-performed nasal Ag-RDT had high sensitivity in individuals with symptoms and in those without a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. The overall accuracy in individuals with symptoms was comparable to that found in previous studies with professional sampling for this Ag-RDT. The extremely low sensitivity of the nasal Ag-RDT in asymptomatic individuals and in individuals who had had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection is an important finding and warrants further investigation. FundingDutch Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
2.
medrxiv; 2021.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2021.11.19.21266579

ABSTRACT

Objective To assess the diagnostic accuracy of three rapid antigen tests (Ag-RDTs) for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population. Design Cross-sectional study with follow-up using pseudonymised record linkage. Setting Three Dutch public health service COVID-19 test sites. Participants Consecutively included individuals aged 16 years and older presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing. Main outcome measures Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of BD-Veritortm System (Becton Dickinson), PanBio (Abbott), and SD-Biosensor (Roche Diagnostics), applying routinely used sampling methods (combined oropharyngeal and nasal [OP-N] or nasopharyngeal [NP] swab), with molecular testing as reference standard. For SDBiosensor, the diagnostic accuracy with OP-N sampling was also assessed. A viral load cutoff ([≥]5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL) served as a proxy of infectiousness. Results SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and overall sensitivities with 95% confidence intervals were 188/1441 (13.0%) and 129/188 (68.6% [61.5%-75.2%]) for BD-Veritor, 173/2056 (8.4%) and 119/173 (68.8% [61.3%-75.6%]) for PanBio, and 215/1769 (12.2%) and 160/215 (74.4% [68.0%-80.1%]) for SD-Biosensor with routine sampling, and 164/1689 (9.7%) and 123/164 (75.0% [67.7%-81.4%]) for SD-Biosensor with OP-N sampling. In those symptomatic or asymptomatic at sampling, sensitivities were 72.2%-83.4% and 54.0%-55.9%, respectively. With a viral load cut-off, sensitivities were 125/146 (85.6% [78.9%-90.9%]) for BD-Veritor, 108/121 (89.3% [82.3%-94.2%]) for PanBio, 160/182 (87.9% [82.3%-92.3%]) for SD-Biosensor with routine sampling, and 118/141 (83.7% [76.5%-89.4%]) with OP-N sampling. Specificities were >99%, and positive and negative predictive values >95%, for all tests in most analyses. 61.3% of false negative Ag-RDT participants returned for testing within 14 days (median of 3 days, interquartile range 3) of whom 90.3% tested positive. Conclusions The overall sensitivities of the three Ag-RDTs were 68.6%-75.0%, increasing to at least 85.6% after the viral load cut-off was applied. For SD-Biosensor, the diagnostic accuracy with OP-N and NP sampling was comparable. Over 55% of false negative Ag-RDT participants tested positive during follow-up.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Sialic Acid Storage Disease
3.
medrxiv; 2020.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2020.11.18.20234104

ABSTRACT

BackgroundRapid detection of infectious individuals is essential in stopping the further spread of SARS-CoV-2. Although rapid antigen test is not as sensitive as the gold standard RT-PCR, the time to result is decreased by day(s), strengthening the effectiveness of contact tracing. MethodsThe Roche/SD Biosensor lateral flow antigen rapid test was evaluated in a mild symptomatic population at a large drive through testing site. A second nasopharyngeal swab was directly tested with the rapid test on site and results were compared to RT-PCR and virus culture. Date of onset and symptoms were analysed using data from a clinical questionnaire. ResultsWe included 970 persons with complete data. Overall sensitivity and specificity were 84.9% (CI95% 79.1-89.4) and 99.5% (CI95% 98.7-99.8) which translated into a positive predictive value of 97.5% (CI95% 94.0-99.5) under the current regional PCR positivity of 19.2%. Sensitivity for people with high loads of viral RNA (ct <30, 2.17E+05 E gene copy/ml) and who presented within 7 days since symptom onset increased to 95.8% (CI95% 90.5-98.2). Band intensity and time to result correlated strongly with viral load thus strong positive bands could be read before the recommended time. Around 98% of all viable specimen with ct <30 were detected successfully indicating that the large majority of infectious people can be captured with this test. ConclusionAntigen rapid tests can detect mildly symptomatic cases in the early phase of disease thereby identifying the most infectious individuals. Using this assay can have a significant value in the speed and effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 outbreak management. SummaryO_LIPeople with early onset and high viral load were detected with 98.2% sensitivity. C_LIO_LI97% of individuals in which virus could be cultured were detected by the rapid test. C_LIO_LIThis test is suitable to detect mild symptomatic cases. C_LI

4.
medrxiv; 2020.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2020.10.13.20211524

ABSTRACT

We present an in-depth analysis of data from drive through testing stations using rapid antigen detection tests (RDTs), RT-PCR and virus culture, to assess the ability of RDTs to detect infectious cases. We show that the detection limits of five commercially available RDTs differ considerably, impacting the translation into the detection of infectious cases. We recommend careful fit-for-purpose testing before implementation of antigen RDTs in routine testing algorithms as part of the COVID-19 response.


Subject(s)
COVID-19
5.
medrxiv; 2020.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2020.04.23.20077156

ABSTRACT

The world is entering a new era of the COVID-19 pandemic in which there is an increasing call for reliable antibody testing. To support decision making on the deployment of serology for either population screening or diagnostics, we present a comprehensive comparison of serological COVID-19 assays. We show that the assay detecting total immunoglobulins against the receptor binding domain of SARS CoV-2, had optimal characteristics for antibody detection in different stages of disease.


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