Dataset Information

Multi-site assessment of rapid, point-of-care antigen testing for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a low-prevalence setting: A validation and implementation study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In Australia, COVID-19 diagnosis relies on RT-PCR testing which is relatively costly and time-consuming. To date, few studies have assessed the performance and implementation of rapid antigen-based SARS-CoV-2 testing in a setting with a low prevalence of COVID-19 infections, such as Australia.

Methods

This study recruited participants presenting for COVID-19 testing at three Melbourne metropolitan hospitals during a period of low COVID-19 prevalence. The Abbott PanBio^TM COVID-19 Ag point-of-care test was performed alongside RT-PCR. In addition, participants with COVID-19 notified to the Victorian Government were invited to provide additional swabs to aid validation. Implementation challenges were also documented.

Findings

The specificity of the Abbott PanBio^TM COVID-19 Ag test was 99.96% (95% CI 99.73 - 100%). Sensitivity amongst participants with RT-PCR-confirmed infection was dependent upon the duration of symptoms reported, ranging from 77.3% (duration 1 to 33 days) to 100% in those within seven days of symptom onset. A range of implementation challenges were identified which may inform future COVID-19 testing strategies in a low prevalence setting.

Interpretation

Given the high specificity, antigen-based tests may be most useful in rapidly triaging public health and hospital resources while expediting confirmatory RT-PCR testing. Considering the limitations in test sensitivity and the potential for rapid transmission in susceptible populations, particularly in hospital settings, careful consideration is required for implementation of antigen testing in a low prevalence setting.

Funding

This work was funded by the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services. The funder was not involved in data analysis or manuscript preparation.

SUBMITTER: Muhi S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8076656 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWith Universal Health Coverage and Integrated People-centred Health Care, streamlined health-systems and respectful care are necessary. South Africa has made great strides in prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) but with the great burden of HIV, a minimum of birth and 10-week HIV-PCR testing are required for the estimated 360,000 HIV-exposed infants born annually which presents many challenges including delayed results and loss to follow-up. Point-of-care (POC) HIV testing of infants addresses these challenges well and facilitates initiation of HIV-infected infants rapidly after diagnosis for best clinical outcomes.MethodsObjectives were to determine accuracy, feasibility and acceptability of POC testing compared to standard-of-care (SOC) central-laboratory testing. HIV-exposed infants for birth PCR testing in hospital (n = 323) and follow-up at a primary health care clinic (n = 117) in Durban, South Africa were included. A baseline situational-analysis reviewed registers and phoned mothers of HIV-exposed infants prior to the intervention. An effectiveness-implementation study of the Alere™q HIV-1/2 Detect POC test (heel-prick specimen processed in 50 min) was compared with SOC with questionnaires to mothers and staff. Stata 14 was used for analysis.ResultsAt baseline 2% of birth HIV tests were missed; only 40% of mothers could be contacted; 17% did not receive birth test result; 19% did not have a 10-week test; 39% had not received the 10-week results. There were 5(1.5%) HIV-infected and 318(98.5%) HIV-negative infants detected in hospital with all clinic babies negative. All positive infants commenced ART before discharge. Ultimately POC and SOC had perfect concordance but for 10 SOC tests researchers actively tracked-down results or repeated tests. Turn around times for SOC tests were on average 8-days (IQR 6-10 days) and for POC testing was 0-days. The POC error-rate was 9,6% with all giving a result when repeated. The majority of mothers (92%) preferred POC testing with 7% having no preference. No staff preferred SOC testing with 79% preferring POC and 21% having no preference.ConclusionsPoint-of-care HIV testing for EID is accurate, feasible and acceptable, with benefits of early ART for all positive infants at birth facilities. We recommend that it be considered best practice for EID.Trial registrationISRCTN38911104 registered 9 January 2018 - retrospectively registered.

Project description:Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 antigens (Ag) that can be performed at point of care (POC) can supplement molecular testing and help mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic. Deployment of an Ag RDT requires an understanding of its operational and performance characteristics under real-world conditions and in relevant subpopulations. We evaluated the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag card in a high-throughput, drive-through, free community testing site in Massachusetts using anterior nasal (AN) swab reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) for clinical testing. Individuals presenting for molecular testing in two of seven lanes were offered the opportunity to also receive BinaxNOW testing. Dual AN swabs were collected from symptomatic and asymptomatic children (≤18 years of age) and adults. BinaxNOW testing was performed in a testing pod with temperature/humidity monitoring. One individual performed testing and official result reporting for each test, but most tests had a second independent reading to assess interoperator agreement. Positive BinaxNOW results were scored as faint, medium, or strong. Positive BinaxNOW results were reported to patients by phone, and they were instructed to isolate pending RT-PCR results. The paired RT-PCR result was the reference for sensitivity and specificity calculations. Of 2,482 participants, 1,380 adults and 928 children had paired RT-PCR/BinaxNOW results and complete symptom data. In this study, 974/1,380 (71%) adults and 829/928 (89%) children were asymptomatic. BinaxNOW had 96.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.0 to 99.3) sensitivity and 100% (95% CI, 98.6 to 100.0) specificity in adults within 7 days of symptoms and 84.6% (95% CI, 65.1 to 95.6) sensitivity and 100% (95% CI, 94.5 to 100.0) specificity in children within 7 days of symptoms. Sensitivity and specificity in asymptomatic adults were 70.2% (95% CI, 56.6 to 81.6) and 99.6% (95% CI, 98.9 to 99.9), respectively, and in asymptomatic children, they were 65.4% (95% CI, 55.6 to 74.4) and 99.0% (95% CI, 98.0 to 99.6), respectively. By cycle threshold (CT ) value cutoff, sensitivity in all subgroups combined (n = 292 RT-PCR-positive individuals) was 99.3% with CT values of ≤25, 95.8% with CT values of ≤30, and 81.2% with CT values of ≤35. Twelve false-positive BinaxNOW results (out of 2,308 tests) were observed; in all 12, the test bands were faint but otherwise normal and were noted by both readers. One invalid BinaxNOW result was identified. Interoperator agreement (positive versus negative BinaxNOW result) was 100% (n = 2,230/2,230 double reads). Each operator was able to process 20 RDTs per hour. In a separate set of 30 specimens (from individuals with symptoms ≤7 days) run at temperatures below the manufacturer's recommended range (46 to 58.5°F), sensitivity was 66.7% and specificity 95.2%. BinaxNOW had very high specificity in both adults and children and very high sensitivity in newly symptomatic adults. Overall, 95.8% sensitivity was observed with CT values of ≤30. These data support public health recommendations for use of the BinaxNOW test in adults with symptoms for ≤7 days without RT-PCR confirmation. Excellent interoperator agreement indicates that an individual can perform and read the BinaxNOW test alone. A skilled laboratorian can perform and read 20 tests per hour. Careful attention to temperature is critical.