Point-of-care evaluation of a rapid antigen test (CLINITESTⓇ Rapid COVID-19 Antigen Test) for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Torres I
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7879056 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPerformance of the SD Biosensor saliva antigen rapid test was evaluated at a large designated testing site in non-hospitalized patients, with or without symptoms.MethodAll eligible people over 18 years of age presenting for a booked appointment at the designated SARS-CoV-2 testing site were approached for inclusion and enrolled following verbal informed consent. One nasopharyngeal swab was taken to carry out the default antigen rapid test from which the results were reported back to the patient and one saliva sample was self-taken according to verbal instruction on site. This was used for the saliva antigen rapid test, the RT-PCR and for virus culture. Sensitivity of the saliva antigen rapid test was analyzed in two ways: i, compared to saliva RT-PCR; and ii, compared to virus culture of the saliva samples. Study participants were also asked to fill in a short questionnaire stating age, sex, date of symptom onset. Recommended time of ≥30mins since last meal, drink or cigarette if applicable was also recorded. The study was carried out in February-March 2021 for 4 weeks.ResultsWe could include 789 people with complete records and results. Compared to saliva RT-PCR, overall sensitivity and specificity of the saliva antigen rapid test was 66.1% and 99.6% which increased to 88.6% with Ct ≤30 cutoff. Analysis by days post onset did not result in higher sensitivities because the large majority of people were in the very early phase of disease ie <3 days post onset. When breaking down the data for symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, sensitivity ranged from 69.2% to 50% respectively, however the total number of RT-PCR positive asymptomatic participants was very low (n = 5). Importantly, almost all culture positive samples were detected by the rapid test.ConclusionOverall, the potential benefits of saliva antigen rapid test, could outweigh the lower sensitivity compared to nasopharyngeal antigen rapid test in a comprehensive testing strategy, especially for home/self-testing and in vulnerable populations like elderly, disabled or children where in intrusive testing is either not possible or causes unnecessary stress.
| S-EPMC8694432 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) is well suited for the diagnosis of clinically ill patients requiring treatment. Application for community testing of symptomatic individuals for disease control purposes however raises challenges. SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests might offer an alternative, but quality evidence on their performance is limited.MethodsWe conducted an evaluation of the test accuracy of the 'BD Veritor System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2' (VRD) compared to qRT-PCR on combined nose/throat swabs obtained from symptomatic individuals at Municipal Health Service (MHS) COVID-19 test centers in the Netherlands. In part one of the study, with the primary objective to evaluate test sensitivity and specificity, all adults presenting at one MHS test center were eligible for inclusion. In part two, with the objective to evaluate test sensitivity stratified by Ct (cycle threshold)-value and time since symptom onset, adults who had a positive qRT-PCR obtained at a MHS test center were eligible.FindingsIn part one (n = 352) SARS-CoV-2 prevalence was 4.8%, overall specificity 100% (95%CI: 98·9%-100%) and sensitivity 94·1% (95%CI: 71·1%-100%). In part two (n = 123) the sensitivity was 78·9% (95%CI: 70·6%-85·7%) overall, 89·4% (95% CI: 79·4%-95·6%) for specimen obtained within seven days after symptom onset and 93% (95% CI: 86%-97.1%) for specimen with a Ct-value below 30.InterpretationThe VRD is a promising diagnostic for COVID-19 testing of symptomatic community-dwelling individuals within seven days after symptom onset in context of disease control. Further research on practical applicability and the optimal position within the testing landscape is needed.
| S-EPMC8118553 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Molecular tests are the gold standard to diagnose severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection but are associated with a diagnostic delay, while antigen detection tests can generate results within 20 min even outside a laboratory. In order to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of the FAST COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test Kit (Ag-RDT), two respiratory swabs were collected simultaneously from 501 patients, with mild or no coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related symptoms, and analyzed with both the Reverse Transcriptase-quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-qPCR) and the FAST COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test. Results were then compared to determine clinical performance in a screening setting. We measured a precision of 97.41% (95% CI 92.42-99.15%) and a recall of 98.26% (95% CI 93.88-99.25%), with a specificity of 99.22% (95% CI 97.74-99.74%), a negative predictive value of 99.48% (95% CI 97.98-99.87%), and an overall accuracy of 99.00% (95% CI 97.69-99.68%). Concordance was described by a Kappa coefficient of 0.971 (95% CI 0.947-0.996). Considering short lead times, low cost, and opportunities for decentralized testing, the Ag-RDT test can enhance the efforts to control SARS-CoV-2 spread in several settings.
| S-EPMC8947527 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9305720 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the relative infectiousness of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infected persons compared with symptomatic individuals based on a scoping review of available literature.DesignRapid scoping review of peer-reviewed literature from 1 January to 5 December 2020 using the LitCovid database and the Cochrane library.SettingInternational studies on the infectiousness of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2.ParticipantsStudies were selected for inclusion if they defined asymptomatics as a separate cohort distinct from presymptomatics and if they provided a quantitative measure of the infectiousness of asymptomatics relative to symptomatics.Primary outcome measuresPCR result (PCR studies), the rate of infection (mathematical modelling studies) and secondary attack rate (contact tracing studies) - in each case from asymptomatic in comparison with symptomatic individuals.ResultsThere are only a limited number of published studies that report estimates of relative infectiousness of asymptomatic compared with symptomatic individuals. 12 studies were included after the screening process. Significant differences exist in the definition of infectiousness. PCR studies in general show no difference in shedding levels between symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals; however, the number of study subjects is generally limited. Two modelling studies estimate relative infectiousness to be 0.43 and 0.57, but both of these were more reflective of the infectiousness of undocumented rather than asymptomatic cases. The results from contact tracing studies include estimates of relative infectiousness of 0, but with insufficient evidence to conclude that it is significantly different from 1.ConclusionsThere is considerable heterogeneity in estimates of relative infectiousness highlighting the need for further investigation of this important parameter. It is not possible to provide any conclusive estimate of relative infectiousness, as the estimates from the reviewed studies varied between 0 and 1.
| S-EPMC8098293 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe performance of rapid antigen tests (Ag-RDTs) for screening asymptomatic and symptomatic persons for SARS-CoV-2 is not well established.ObjectiveTo evaluate the performance of Ag-RDTs for detection of SARS-CoV-2 among symptomatic and asymptomatic participants.DesignThis prospective cohort study enrolled participants between October 2021 and January 2022. Participants completed Ag-RDTs and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2 every 48 hours for 15 days.SettingParticipants were enrolled digitally throughout the mainland United States. They self-collected anterior nasal swabs for Ag-RDTs and RT-PCR testing. Nasal swabs for RT-PCR were shipped to a central laboratory, whereas Ag-RDTs were done at home.ParticipantsOf 7361 participants in the study, 5353 who were asymptomatic and negative for SARS-CoV-2 on study day 1 were eligible. In total, 154 participants had at least 1 positive RT-PCR result.MeasurementsThe sensitivity of Ag-RDTs was measured on the basis of testing once (same-day), twice (after 48 hours), and thrice (after a total of 96 hours). The analysis was repeated for different days past index PCR positivity (DPIPPs) to approximate real-world scenarios where testing initiation may not always coincide with DPIPP 0. Results were stratified by symptom status.ResultsAmong 154 participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, 97 were asymptomatic and 57 had symptoms at infection onset. Serial testing with Ag-RDTs twice 48 hours apart resulted in an aggregated sensitivity of 93.4% (95% CI, 90.4% to 95.9%) among symptomatic participants on DPIPPs 0 to 6. When singleton positive results were excluded, the aggregated sensitivity on DPIPPs 0 to 6 for 2-time serial testing among asymptomatic participants was lower at 62.7% (CI, 57.0% to 70.5%), but it improved to 79.0% (CI, 70.1% to 87.4%) with testing 3 times at 48-hour intervals.LimitationParticipants tested every 48 hours; therefore, these data cannot support conclusions about serial testing intervals shorter than 48 hours.ConclusionThe performance of Ag-RDTs was optimized when asymptomatic participants tested 3 times at 48-hour intervals and when symptomatic participants tested 2 times separated by 48 hours.Primary funding sourceNational Institutes of Health RADx Tech program.
| S-EPMC10321467 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeReal time reverse transcriptase PCR (rRT PCR) although gold standard test for the diagnosis of SARS CoV-2, carries disadvantages of a sophisticated set up, long time to results and centralized services. The rapid antigen tests (RAT) can be used as a primary screening tool with the advantages of rapid turnaround time and ease of use. The study was conducted to determine the performance of rapid antigen test (standard Q COVID 19 Ag) in comparison to rRT PCR in symptomatic patients and asymptomatic contacts and asymptomatic patients with no apparent contact history.MethodsNasopharyngeal swabs taken in duplicate from 1034 patients were collected over a 5 months period. These included 248 (23.98%) symptomatic, 386 (37.34%) asymptomatic contacts and 400 (38.68%) asymptomatic subjects who were routinely screened in pre-operative period, as a prerequisite for travel, or pregnant females. Both rRT PCR and RAT were performed as per manufacturers' instructions. Performance of test in different subgroups of patients was evaluated. Performance of RAT test on basis of duration of illness and Ct values was also analyzed.ResultsIn this study, 445 (43.04%) were rRT PCR positive, out of which 374 samples were RAT positive as well. 31 samples were RAT positive but PCR negative. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of the rapid antigen test was 84.04%, 94.74%, 92.35% and 88.71% respectively. The negative predictive value of the test in asymptomatic patients without any significant contact history was 97.07%.ConclusionsThis study recommends the use of the antigen test as a method of diagnosis for SARS CoV-2. However a negative result with RAT in suspected patients and their contacts should be viewed with caution. This study also finds the utility of using RAT test in the community settings as a screening test in schools, colleges and mass gatherings.
| S-EPMC9249411 | biostudies-literature
Project description:After three years of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the demand for developing field-deployable point-of-care (PoC) molecular diagnostic tests has increased. Although RT-qPCR is the molecular diagnostic gold standard and is accurate, it is not readily applied to point-of-care testing (POCT). Meanwhile, rapid diagnostic kits have the disadvantage of low sensitivity. Recently, rapid isothermal nucleic acid amplification technology has emerged as an alternative for rapid diagnosis. Here, we developed a rapid SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP)-lateral flow assay (LFA) kit. This kit includes a Chelex-100/boiling nucleic acid extraction device and a one-step amplification detection apparatus capable of performing the entire process, from RNA extraction to detection, and diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection within 40 min without contamination. The detection limits of the rapid SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP-LFA kit were 100 plaque-forming units (PFUs) mL-1 and 10-1 PFU mL-1 for RNA samples extracted using the Chelex-100/boiling nucleic acid extraction device and commercial AdvansureTM E3 system, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the rapid SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP-LFA kit were 97.8% and 100%, respectively. Our SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP-LFA kit exhibited high sensitivity and specificity within 40 min without requiring laboratory instruments, suggesting that the kit could be used as a rapid POC molecular diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2.
| S-EPMC10529522 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo determine the utility, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value of the laboratory based Covid-19 antigen detection test (Coris Bio- Concept, Gembloux, Belgium) for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in a tertiary care hospital among symptomatic and asymptomatic patients.MethodsThe nasopharyngeal swab samples were collected from the symptomatic patients and their contacts. The diagnostic accuracy of this antigen kit was determined in comparison to SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse transcriptase (RT-PCR).ResultsA total of 825 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included in the study; RT-PCR and antigen detection was performed simultaneously for 484 samples to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the test. The overall specificity and sensitivity was 99.32% and 71.96% respectively. Also, 3.7% of the asymptomatic patients who were negative by RAT were detected positive by RT-PCR.ConclusionThis rapid antigen test (RAT) was sensitive in the symptomatic patients presenting during the initial phase of the illness. Since, majority of the SARS-CoV-2 patients are asymptomatic and considering the huge population, the testing strategy formulated by Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) at the national level was cost effective. Thus, Ag-RDTs could play a pivotal role in early diagnosis, policy making and surveillance of the SARS-CoV-2.
| S-EPMC8289730 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The rapid detection of infections caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is necessary in the ongoing pandemic. Antigen-specific point-of-care tests (POCT) may be useful for this purpose. Here, such a POCT (SARS-CoV-2 NADAL® COVID-19 Ag) was compared to a laboratory-developed triplex real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) designed for the detection of viral nucleoprotein gene and two control targets. This RT-PCR served as a reference to investigate POCT sensitivity by re-testing upper respiratory tract (URT) samples (n = 124) exhibiting different SARS-CoV-2 loads in terms of RT-PCR threshold cycle (Ct) values. The optical intensities of the antigen bands were compared to the Ct values of the RT-PCR. The infectivity of various virus loads was estimated by inoculating Vero cells with URT samples (n = 64, Ct 17-34). POCT sensitivity varied from 100% (Ct < 25) to 73.1% (Ct ≤ 30); higher SARS-CoV-2 loads correlated with higher band intensities. All samples with a Ct > 30 were negative; among SARS-CoV-2 free samples (n = 10) no false-positives were detected. A head-to-head comparison with another POCT (Abbott, Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test) yielded similar results. Isolation of SARS-CoV-2 in cell-culture was successful up to a Ct value of 29. The POCT reliably detects high SARS-CoV-2 loads and rapidly identifies infectious individuals.
| S-EPMC7823488 | biostudies-literature