Dataset Information

Evaluation of a rapid antigen test (Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag rapid test device) for SARS-CoV-2 detection in asymptomatic close contacts of COVID-19 patients.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

There is limited information on the performance of rapid antigen detection (RAD) tests to identify SARS-CoV-2-infected asymptomatic individuals. In this field study, we evaluated the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device (Abbott Diagnostics, Jena, Germany) for this purpose.

Methods

A total of 634 individuals (355 female; median age, 37 years; range, 9-87) were enrolled. Two nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from household (n = 338) and non-household contacts (n = 296) of COVID-19 cases. RAD testing was carried out at the point of care. The RT-PCR test used was the TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, MA, USA).

Results

Household contacts were tested at a median of 2 days (range, 1-7) after diagnosis of the index case, whereas non-household contacts (n = 296) were tested at a median of 6 days (range, 1-7) after exposure. In total, 79 individuals (12.4%) tested positive by RT-PCR, of whom 38 (48.1%) yielded positive RAD results. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the RAD test was 48.1% (95% CI 37.4-58.9) and 100% (95% CI 99.3-100), respectively. Sensitivity was higher in household (50.8%; 95% CI 38.9-62.5) than in non-household (35.7%; 95% CI 16.3-61.2%) contacts. Individuals testing positive by RAD test were more likely (p < 0.001) to become symptomatic than their negative counterparts.

Discussion

The Panbio test displays low sensitivity in asymptomatic close contacts of COVID-19 patients, particularly in non-household contacts. Nonetheless, establishing the optimal timing for upper respiratory tract collection in this group seems imperative to pinpoint test sensitivity.

SUBMITTER: Torres I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7833843 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveReverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction is a gold standard diagnostic tool for coronavirus disease-2019. Limited coverage and long turnaround times are linked to the poor response to the pandemic in developing countries like Ethiopia. To overcome the challenges, rapid antigen diagnostic kits are recommended if their diagnostic performance is at an acceptable level. We explored the performance of the Panbio™ coronavirus disease-2019 antigen rapid diagnostic test in diagnosing the coronavirus disease-2019 infection.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted on coronavirus disease-2019 suspected patients in Wollega University Referral Hospital, from 1 April to 30 May 2021. After obtaining consent/ assent, sociodemographic and pair of nasopharyngeal samples were collected from each and examined by Panbio antigen rapid diagnostic test and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. Data were entered and analysed using SPSS version 24. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and kappa values were calculated.ResultsA total of 148 coronavirus disease-2019 suspected individuals (54.1% male) participated in the study. Of all, 73 (49.3%) were positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test. The sensitivity and specificity of Panbio were found 81% (95% confidence interval: 71%-91%) and 98.7% (95% confidence interval: 96%-100%), respectively. From 75 negative and 73 positive samples by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, 1 (1.33%) and 14 (19.18%) were found false positive and negative by antigen rapid diagnostic test, respectively. Positive predictive value and negative predictive value of Panbio were 98.3% and 84.1%, respectively, and test agreement was substantial (kappa value = 0.80).ConclusionPanbio has fine performance in suspected patients. Further studies are needed to examine the accuracy of self-collecting and patient self-testing with healthcare workers, using antigen rapid diagnostic test against the reference standard.

Project description:Previous studies have showed clinical characteristics of patients with the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and the evidence of person-to-person transmission. Limited data are available for asymptomatic infections. This study aims to present the clinical characteristics of 24 cases with asymptomatic infection screened from close contacts and to show the transmission potential of asymptomatic COVID-19 virus carriers. Epidemiological investigations were conducted among all close contacts of COVID-19 patients (or suspected patients) in Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China, from Jan 28 to Feb 9, 2020, both in clinic and in community. Asymptomatic carriers were laboratory-confirmed positive for the COVID-19 virus by testing the nucleic acid of the pharyngeal swab samples. Their clinical records, laboratory assessments, and chest CT scans were reviewed. As a result, none of the 24 asymptomatic cases presented any obvious symptoms while nucleic acid screening. Five cases (20.8%) developed symptoms (fever, cough, fatigue, etc.) during hospitalization. Twelve (50.0%) cases showed typical CT images of ground-glass chest and 5 (20.8%) presented stripe shadowing in the lungs. The remaining 7 (29.2%) cases showed normal CT image and had no symptoms during hospitalization. These 7 cases were younger (median age: 14.0 years; P=0.012) than the rest. None of the 24 cases developed severe COVID-19 pneumonia or died. The median communicable period, defined as the interval from the first day of positive nucleic acid tests to the first day of continuous negative tests, was 9.5 days (up to 21 days among the 24 asymptomatic cases). Through epidemiological investigation, we observed a typical asymptomatic transmission to the cohabiting family members, which even caused severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Overall, the asymptomatic carriers identified from close contacts were prone to be mildly ill during hospitalization. However, the communicable period could be up to three weeks and the communicated patients could develop severe illness. These results highlighted the importance of close contact tracing and longitudinally surveillance via virus nucleic acid tests. Further isolation recommendation and continuous nucleic acid tests may also be recommended to the patients discharged.

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.