Dataset Information

On-field evaluation of a ultra-rapid fluorescence immunoassay as a frontline test for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Viral RNA amplification by real-time RT-PCR still represents the gold standard for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, but the development of rapid, reliable and easy-to-perform diagnostic methods is crucial for public health, because of the need of shortening the time of result-reporting with a cost-efficient approach.

Objectives

The aim of our research was to assess the performance of FREND™ COVID-19 Ag assay (NanoEntek, South Korea) as a ultra-rapid frontline test for SARS-CoV-2 identification, in comparison with RT-PCR and another COVID-19 antigen fluorescence immunoassay (FIA).

Study design

The qualitative FIA FREND™ test, designed to detect within 3 min the Nucleocapsid protein of SARS-CoV-2, was evaluated using nasopharyngeal swabs in Universal Transport Medium (UTM™, Copan Diagnostics Inc, US) from suspected COVID-19 cases who accessed the Emergency Room of the Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Liguria, Northwest Italy. Diagnostic accuracy was determined in comparison with SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and STANDARD F™ COVID-19 Ag FIA test (SD BIOSENSOR Inc., Republic of Korea).

Results

In November 2020, 110 nasopharyngeal samples were collected consecutively; 60 resulted RT-PCR positive. With respect to RT-PCR results, sensitivity and specificity of FREND™ COVID-19 Ag test were 93.3 % (95 % CI: 83.8-98.2) and 100 % (95 % CI: 92.9-100), respectively. FREND™and STANDARD F™ COVID-19 Ag FIA assays showed a concordance of 96.4 % (Cohen's k = 0.93, 95 % CI: 0.86-0.99).

Conclusions

FREND™ FIA test showed high sensitivity and specificity in nasopharyngeal swabs. The assay has the potential to become an important tool for an ultra-rapid identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly in situations with limited access to molecular diagnostics.

SUBMITTER: Orsi A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8161776 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The urgent need to scale up testing capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic has prompted the rapid development of point-of-care diagnostic tools such as lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA) for large-scale community-based rapid testing. However, studies of how the general public perform when using LFIA tests in different environmental settings are scarce. This user experience (UX) study of 264 participants in Northern Ireland aimed to gather a better understanding of how self-administered LFIA tests were performed by the general public at home. The UX performance was assessed via analysis of a post-test questionnaire including 30 polar questions and 11 7-point Likert scale questions, which covers the multidimensional aspects of UX in terms of ease of use, effectiveness, efficiency, accuracy and satisfaction. Results show that 96.6% of participants completed the test with an overall average UX score of 95.27% [95% confidence interval (CI) 92.71-97.83%], which suggests a good degree of user experience and effectiveness. Efficiency was assessed based on the use of physical resources and human support received, together with the mental effort of self-administering the test measured via NASA Task Load Index (TLX). The results for six TLX subscales show that the participants scored the test highest for mental demand and lowest for physical demand, but the average TLX score suggests that the general public have a relatively low level of mental workload when using LFIA self-testing at home. Five printed LFIA testing results (i.e. the 'simulated' results) were used as the ground truth to assess the participant's performance in interpreting the test results. The overall agreement (accuracy) was 80.63% [95% CI 75.21-86.05%] with a Kappa score 0.67 [95% CI 0.58-0.75] indicating substantial agreement. The users scored lower in confidence when interpreting test results that were weak positive cases (due to the relatively low signal intensity in the test-line) compared to strong positive cases. The end-users also found that the kit was easier to use than they expected (p < 0.001) and 231 of 264 (87.5%) reported that the test kit would meet their requirements if they needed an antibody testing kit. The overall findings provide an insight into the opportunities for improving the design of self-administered SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing kits for the general public and to inform protocols for future UX studies of LFIA rapid test kits.