Dataset Information

The Abbott PanBio WHO emergency use listed, rapid, antigen-detecting point-of-care diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2-Evaluation of the accuracy and ease-of-use.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Diagnostics are essential for controlling the pandemic. Identifying a reliable and fast diagnostic device is needed for effective testing. We assessed performance and ease-of-use of the Abbott PanBio antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT).

Methods

This prospective, multi-centre diagnostic accuracy study enrolled at two sites in Germany. Following routine testing with reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), a second study-exclusive swab was performed for Ag-RDT testing. Routine swabs were nasopharyngeal (NP) or combined NP/oropharyngeal (OP) whereas the study-exclusive swabs were NP. To evaluate performance, sensitivity and specificity were assessed overall and in predefined sub-analyses accordingly to cycle-threshold values, days after symptom onset, disease severity and study site. Additionally, an ease-of-use assessment (EoU) and System Usability Scale (SUS) were performed.

Results

1108 participants were enrolled between Sept 28 and Oct 30, 2020. Of these, 106 (9.6%) were PCR-positive. The Abbott PanBio detected 92/106 PCR-positive participants with a sensitivity of 86.8% (95% CI: 79.0% - 92.0%) and a specificity of 99.9% (95% CI: 99.4%-100%). The sub-analyses indicated that sensitivity was 95.8% in Ct-values <25 and within the first seven days from symptom onset. The test was characterized as easy to use (SUS: 86/100) and considered suitable for point-of-care settings.

Conclusion

The Abbott PanBio Ag-RDT performs well for SARS-CoV-2 testing in this large manufacturer independent study, confirming its WHO recommendation for Emergency Use in settings with limited resources.

SUBMITTER: Kruger LJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8158996 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAntigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 are important diagnostic tools. We assessed clinical performance and ease-of-use of seven Ag-RDTs in a prospective, manufacturer-independent, multi-centre cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study to inform global decision makers.MethodsUnvaccinated participants suspected of a first SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited at six sites (Germany, Brazil). Ag-RDTs were evaluated sequentially, with collection of paired swabs for routine reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing and Ag-RDT testing. Performance was compared to RT-PCR overall and in sub-group analyses (viral load, symptoms, symptoms duration). To understandusability a System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire and ease-of-use (EoU) assessment were performed.Findings7471 participants were included in the analysis. Sensitivities across Ag-RDTs ranged from 70·4%-90·1%, specificities were above 97·2% for all Ag-RDTs but one (93·1%).Ag-RDTs, Mologic, Bionote, Standard Q, showed diagnostic accuracy in line with WHO targets (> 80% sensitivity, > 97% specificity). All tests showed high sensitivity in the first three days after symptom onset (≥87·1%) and in individuals with viral loads≥ 6 log10SARS-CoV2 RNA copies/mL (≥ 88·7%). Usability varied, with Rapigen, Bionote and Standard Q reaching very good scores; 90, 88 and 84/100, respectively.InterpretationVariability in test performance is partially explained by variable viral loads in population evaluated over the course of the pandemic. All Ag-RDTs reach high sensitivity early in the disease and in individuals with high viral loads, supporting their role in identifying transmission relevant infections. For easy-to-use tests, performance shown will likely be maintained in routine implementation.FundingMinistry of Science, Research and Arts, State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany, internal funds from Heidelberg University Hospital, University Hospital Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, UK Department of International Development, WHO, Unitaid.

Project description:To prevent transmission in Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreaks, it is recommended to disinfect living things (hands and people) with 0.05% chlorine solution and non-living things (surfaces, personal protective equipment, dead bodies) with 0.5% chlorine solution. In the current West African EVD outbreak, these solutions (manufactured from calcium hypochlorite (HTH), sodium dichloroisocyanurate (NaDCC), and sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl)) have been widely used in both Ebola Treatment Unit and community settings. To ensure solution quality, testing is necessary, however test method appropriateness for these Ebola-relevant concentrations has not previously been evaluated. We identified fourteen commercially-available methods to test Ebola-relevant chlorine solution concentrations, including two titration methods, four DPD dilution methods, and six test strips. We assessed these methods by: 1) determining accuracy and precision by measuring in quintuplicate five different 0.05% and 0.5% chlorine solutions manufactured from NaDCC, HTH, and NaOCl; 2) conducting volunteer testing to assess ease-of-use; and, 3) determining costs. Accuracy was greatest in titration methods (reference-12.4% error compared to reference method), then DPD dilution methods (2.4-19% error), then test strips (5.2-48% error); precision followed this same trend. Two methods had an accuracy of <10% error across all five chlorine solutions with good precision: Hach digital titration for 0.05% and 0.5% solutions (recommended for contexts with trained personnel and financial resources), and Serim test strips for 0.05% solutions (recommended for contexts where rapid, inexpensive, and low-training burden testing is needed). Measurement error from test methods not including pH adjustment varied significantly across the five chlorine solutions, which had pH values 5-11. Volunteers found test strip easiest and titration hardest; costs per 100 tests were $14-37 for test strips and $33-609 for titration. Given the ease-of-use and cost benefits of test strips, we recommend further development of test strips robust to pH variation and appropriate for Ebola-relevant chlorine solution concentrations.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a common microvascular complication of diabetes mellitus and the leading cause of impaired vision in adults worldwide. Early detection and treatment for DR could improve patient outcomes. Traditional methods of detecting DR include the gold standard Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study seven standard fields fundus photography, ophthalmoscopy and slit-lamp biomicroscopy. These modalities can be expensive, difficult to access and require involvement of specialised healthcare professionals. With the development of mobile phone technology, there is a growing interest in their use for DR identification as this approach is potentially more affordable, accessible and easier to use. Smartphones can be employed in a variety of ways for ophthalmoscopy including the use of smartphone camera, various attachments and artificial intelligence for obtaining and grading of retinal images. The aim of this scoping review is to determine the diagnostic test accuracy of various smartphone ophthalmoscopy approaches for detecting DR in diabetic patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will perform an electronic search of MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library for literature published from 2000 onwards. Two reviewers will independently analyse studies for eligibility and assess study quality using the QUADAS-2 tool. Data for a 2?2 contingency table will be extracted. If possible, we will pool sensitivity and specificity data using the random-effects model and construct a summary receiver operating characteristic curve. In case of high heterogeneity, we will present the findings narratively. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be performed where appropriate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This scoping review aims to provide an overview of smartphone ophthalmoscopy in DR identification. It will present findings on the accuracy of smartphone ophthalmoscopy in detecting DR, identify gaps in the literature and provide recommendations for future research. This review does not require ethical approval as we will not collect primary data.