Virus variant-specific clinical performance of a SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test with focus on Omicron variants of concern.

OBJECTIVES: Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) play an important role in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. They are easier, quicker, and less expensive than the 'reference standard' RT-PCR and therefore widely in use. Reliable clinical data with respect to Ag-RDT performance in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants of concern (VOCs) are limited. Consequently, the objective of this study was to determine the impact different VOCs-especially Omicron-have on the clinical performance of an Ag-RDT. METHODS: We compared the clinical performance of the Sofia SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT to RT-PCR in a real-world, single-centre study in a clinical point-of-care setting in patients admitted to a large hospital via the emergency department from 2 November 2020 to 4 September 2022. RESULTS: Among 38 434 Ag-RDT/RT-PCR tandems taken, 1528 yielded a SARS-CoV-2 positive RT-PCR test result, with a prevalence of 4.0% (95% CI, 3.8-4.2). Overall sensitivity of the Ag-RDT was 63.7% (95% CI, 61.3-66.1) and overall specificity was 99.6% (95% CI, 99.5-99.6). Ag-RDT sensitivity was dependent on viral load (VL), because the sensitivity increased to 93.2% (95% CI, 91.5-94.6) in samples with a VL > 106 SARS-CoV-2 copies/mL. Furthermore, the Ag-RDT was more sensitive in men, and older patients. Variant-dependent sensitivity assessment showed that the sensitivity was significantly lower in Omicron-VOC (64.1%; 95% CI, 60.5-67.6) compared with SARS-CoV-2 wild-type samples (70.0%; 95% CI, 59,8-78,6) (binomial test; p value < 0.001). Analysing the limits of detection showed a 27 times higher 95% limit of detection for the Omicron-VOC BA.5 compared with the SARS-CoV-2 wild-type. DISCUSSION: Ag-RDT sensitivity for detection of patients with lower VLs and with Omicron-VOC is reduced, limiting the effectiveness of Ag-RDTs. However, Ag-RDTs are still an unreplaceable tool for widely available, quick, and inexpensive point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics.

Performance of the Sofia SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test as frontline test in a university hospital, Germany.

The rapid and reliable detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is of high importance for individual patient care and hospital infection prevention. We aimed to evaluate the performance of the Sofia SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) in comparison to real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). We conducted a prospective, monocentric cross-sectional study in an emergency department of a German university hospital from November 2020 to March 2021. We tested all samples using both Sofia SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT and real-time RT-PCR. A total of 7877 patients were included. Overall sensitivity of the Ag-RDT was 62.9% and specificity was 99.4%. Sensitivity varied across study months, whereas specificity remained high. Sensitivity increased to 94.2% in samples with a cycle threshold (Ct)-value ≤25. The Sofia Ag-RDT proved to be a rapid tool to detect samples with high viral loads (Ct-value ≤25) and might thus help to identify infectious patients.

Clinimetric properties and suitability of selected quality indicators for assessing antibiotic use in hospitalized adults: a multicentre point prevalence study in 24 hospitals in Germany.

OBJECTIVES: The capability to measure and monitor the quality of antibiotic prescribing is an important component of antibiotic stewardship (ABS) programmes. Several catalogues of consensus-based structure and process-of-care quality indicators (QIs) have been proposed, but only a few studies have tested and validated ABS QIs in practice tests. This multicentre study determined the clinimetric properties and suitability of a set of 33 process QIs for ABS that had earlier been developed and in part recommended in a German-Austrian hospital ABS practice guideline. METHODS: Two point prevalence surveys were conducted in a convenience sample of 24 acute care hospitals throughout Germany, and data of all screened adult inpatients with prescription of a systemic antibiotic at a given day (n=4310) were included in the study. For each QI, the following clinimetric properties were assessed: applicability, feasibility, performance, case mix stability and interobserver reliability. RESULTS: Eighteen QIs were considered sufficiently feasible, applicable and reliable, and had adequate room for improvement. The finally selected QIs primarily cover antibiotic therapy of common infections (bloodstream infection, pneumonia and urinary tract infection), while two of the QIs each address surgical prophylaxis and general aspects of antibiotic administration. CONCLUSIONS: Practice tests may be important to test the suitability of consensus process-of-care QIs in the field of hospital ABS. The 18 selected QIs considered suitable enough for hospital ABS in this study should be regarded as priority QIs useful for internal quality control and assurance. More research and additional practice tests may be needed to confirm their suitability for external quality assessment schemes.

Validation of adapted daily dose definitions for hospital antibacterial drug use evaluation: a multicentre study.

Background: The WHO/ATC (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical) index DDD (WHO-DDD) is commonly used for drug consumption measurement. Discrepancies between WHO-DDD and actual prescribed daily doses (PDD) in hospitals have prompted alternative dose definitions adapted to doses recommended in hospital practice guidelines [recommended daily doses (RDD)]. Methods: In order to validate RDD we performed modified point prevalence surveys in 24 acute care hospitals and recorded 20620 PDD of antibiotics given to 4226 adult patients on the day of the survey and the 6 preceding days. We calculated RDD and WHO-DDD and compared them with PDD. Results: The rate of RDD corresponding to PDD was higher than the corresponding rate for WHO-DDD (pooled data, 55% versus 30%) and the differences were similar across the hospital sample, but varied according to drug/drug class, route of administration, indication and renal function. RDD underestimated actual consumption by 14% overall, while WHO-DDD overestimated total antibacterial consumption by 28% (pooled data; median values RDD -10% versus WHO-DDD +32%). The deviations of estimated from actual drug use volumes were largest for ß-lactams (RDD -11% versus WHO-DDD +49%), in particular for penicillins (-11% versus +64%), if WHO-DDD were used. Conclusions: Hospital antibiotic consumption surveillance systems using current WHO-DDD should address the uneven discrepancies between actual prescribing and consumption estimates according to drug class that may lead to misclassification in benchmark analyses. We recommend using validated RDD as a supplementary measure to the WHO-DDD for detailed analyses.