Dataset Information

Diagnostic accuracy of Augurix COVID-19 IgG serology rapid test.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

To validate the diagnostic accuracy of the Augurix SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG rapid immunoassay diagnostic test (RDT) for COVID-19.

Methods

In this unmatched 1:1 case-control study, blood samples from 46 real-time RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 hospitalized cases and 45 healthy donors (negative controls) were studied. Diagnostic accuracy of the IgG RDT was assessed against both an in-house recombinant spike-expressing immunofluorescence assay (rIFA), as an established reference method (primary endpoint), and the Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (secondary endpoint).

Results

COVID-19 patients were more likely to be male (61% vs 20%; P = .0001) and older (median 66 vs 47 years old; P < .001) than controls. Whole blood IgG-RDT results showed 86% and 93% overall Kendall concordance with rIFA and IgG ELISA, respectively. IgG RDT performances were similar between plasma and whole blood. Overall, RDT sensitivity was 88% (95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 70-96), specificity 98% (95%CI: 90-100), PPV 97% (95%CI: 80-100) and NPV 94% (95%CI: 84-98). The IgG-RDT carried out from 0 to 6 days, 7 to 14 days and > 14 days after the SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test displayed 30%, 73% and 100% positivity rates in the COVID-19 group, respectively. When considering samples taken >14 days after RT-PCR diagnosis, NPV was 100% (95%CI:90-100), and PPV was 100% (95%CI:72-100).

Conclusions

The Augurix IgG-RDT done in whole blood displays a high diagnostic accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 IgG in high COVID-19 prevalence settings, where its use could be considered in the absence of routine diagnostic serology facilities.

SUBMITTER: Andrey DO

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7404380 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEgypt was among the first 10 countries in Africa that experienced COVID-19 cases. The sudden surge in the number of cases is overwhelming the capacity of the national healthcare system, particularly in developing countries. Central to the containment of the ongoing pandemic is the availability of rapid and accurate diagnostic tests that could pinpoint patients at early disease stages. In the current study, we aimed to (1) Evaluate the diagnostic performance of the rapid antigen test (RAT) "Standard™ Q COVID-19 Ag" against reverse transcriptase quantitative real-time PCR (RT-qPCR) in eighty-three swabs collected from COVID-19 suspected individuals showing various demographic features, clinical and radiological findings. (2) Test whether measuring laboratory parameters in participant's blood would enhance the predictive accuracy of RAT. (3) Identify the most important features that determine the results of both RAT and RT-qPCR.MethodsDiagnostic measurements (e.g. sensitivity, specificity, etc.) and receiver operating characteristic curve were used to assess the clinical performance of "Standard™ Q COVID-19 Ag". We used the support vector machine (SVM) model to investigate whether measuring laboratory indices would enhance the accuracy of RAT. Moreover, a random forest classification model was used to determine the most important determinants of the results of RAT and RT-qPCR for COVID-19 diagnosis.ResultsThe sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of RAT were 78.2, 64.2, and 75.9%, respectively. Samples with high viral load and those that were collected within one-week post-symptoms showed the highest sensitivity and accuracy. The SVM modeling showed that measuring laboratory indices did not enhance the predictive accuracy of RAT.Conclusion"Standard™ Q COVID-19 Ag" should not be used alone for COVID-19 diagnosis due to its low diagnostic performance relative to the RT-qPCR. RAT is best used at the early disease stage and in patients with high viral load.

Project description:Background Accurate and timely diagnosis is essential in limiting the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The reference standard, rRT-PCR, requires specialized laboratories, costly reagents, and a long turnaround time. Antigen RDTs provide a feasible alternative to rRT-PCR since they are quick, relatively inexpensive, and do not require a laboratory. The WHO requires that Ag RDTs have a sensitivity ≥80% and specificity ≥97%. Methods This evaluation was conducted at 11 health facilities in Kenya between March and July 2021. We enrolled persons of any age with respiratory symptoms and asymptomatic contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases. We collected demographic and clinical information and two nasopharyngeal specimens from each participant for Ag RDT testing and rRT-PCR. We calculated the diagnostic performance of the Panbio™ Ag RDT against the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) rRT-PCR test. Results We evaluated the Ag RDT in 2,245 individuals where 551 (24.5%, 95% CI: 22.8–26.3%) tested positive by rRT-PCR. Overall sensitivity of the Ag RDT was 46.6% (95% CI: 42.4–50.9%), specificity 98.5% (95% CI: 97.8–99.0%), PPV 90.8% (95% CI: 86.8–93.9%) and NPV 85.0% (95% CI: 83.4–86.6%). Among symptomatic individuals, sensitivity was 60.6% (95% CI: 54.3–66.7%) and specificity was 98.1% (95% CI: 96.7–99.0%). Among asymptomatic individuals, sensitivity was 34.7% (95% CI 29.3–40.4%) and specificity was 98.7% (95% CI: 97.8–99.3%). In persons with onset of symptoms <5 days (594/876, 67.8%), sensitivity was 67.1% (95% CI: 59.2–74.3%), and 53.3% (95% CI: 40.0–66.3%) among those with onset of symptoms >7 days (157/876, 17.9%). The highest sensitivity was 87.0% (95% CI: 80.9–91.8%) in symptomatic individuals with cycle threshold (Ct) values ≤30. Conclusion The overall sensitivity and NPV of the Panbio™ Ag RDT were much lower than expected. The specificity of the Ag RDT was high and satisfactory; therefore, a positive result may not require confirmation by rRT-PCR. The kit may be useful as a rapid screening tool only for symptomatic patients in high-risk settings with limited access to rRT-PCR. A negative result should be interpreted based on clinical and epidemiological information and may require retesting by rRT-PCR.