Dataset Information

Diagnostic accuracy and feasibility of patient self-testing with a SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Considering the possibility of nasal self-sampling and the ease of use in performing SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs), self-testing is a feasible option.

Objective

The goal of this study was a head-to-head comparison of diagnostic accuracy of patient self-testing with professional testing using a SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT.

Study design

We performed a manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study of nasal mid-turbinate self-sampling and self-testing with symptomatic adults using a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. Procedures were observed without intervention. For comparison, Ag-RDTs with nasopharyngeal sampling were professionally performed. Estimates of agreement, sensitivity, and specificity relative to RT-PCR on a combined oro-/nasopharyngeal sample were calculated. Feasibility was evaluated by observer and participant questionnaires.

Results

Among 146 symptomatic adults, 40 (27.4%) were RT-PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2. Sensitivity with self-testing was 82.5% (33/40; 95% CI 68.1-91.3), and 85.0% (34/40; 95% CI 70.9-92.9) with professional testing. At high viral load (≥7.0 log₁₀ SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/ml), sensitivity was 96.6% (28/29; 95% CI 82.8-99.8) for both self- and professional testing. Deviations in sampling and testing were observed in 25 out of the 40 PCR-positives. Most participants (80.9%) considered the Ag-RDT as easy to perform.

Conclusion

Laypersons suspected for SARS-CoV-2 infection were able to reliably perform the Ag-RDT and test themselves. Procedural errors might be reduced by refinement of the instructions for use or the product design/procedures. Self-testing allows more wide-spread and frequent testing. Paired with the appropriate information of the public about the benefits and risks, self-testing may have significant impact on the pandemic.

SUBMITTER: Lindner AK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8163726 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) offer new opportunities for the quick and laboratory-independent identification of infected individuals for control of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Despite the potential benefits, nasopharyngeal sample collection is frequently perceived as uncomfortable by patients and requires trained healthcare personnel with protective equipment. Therefore, anterior nasal self-sampling is increasingly recognized as a valuable alternative. Methods We performed a prospective, single-center, point of care validation of an Ag-RDT using a polypropylene absorbent collector for standardized self-collected anterior nasal swabs. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from combined oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal swabs served as a comparator. Primary endpoint was sensitivity of the standardized Ag-RDT in symptomatic patients with medium or high viral concentration (≥1 million RNA copies on RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2). Results Between 12 February and 22 March 2021, 388 participants were enrolled. After exclusion of 9 patients for which no PCR result could be obtained, the novel Ag-RDT was evaluated based on 379 participants, of whom 273 were symptomatic and 106 asymptomatic. In 61 samples from symptomatic patients with medium or high viral load (≥1 million RNA copies), the sensitivity of the standardized Ag-RDT was 96.7% (59/61; 95% confidence interval (CI): 88.7-99.6%) for the primary endpoint. In total, 62 positive Ag-RDT results were detected out of 70 RT-PCR positive individuals, yielding an overall sensitivity of 88.6% (95% CI: 78.7-94.9%). Specificity was 99.7% (95% CI: 98.2-100%) in 309 RT-PCR negative individuals. Conclusions Here, we present a validation of a novel Ag-RDT with a standardized sampling process for anterior nasal self-collection, which meets World Health Organisation (WHO) criteria of ≥80% sensitivity and ≥97% specificity. Although less sensitive than RT-PCR, this assay could be beneficial due to its rapid results, ease of use, and suitability for standardized self-testing.

Project description:ObjectivesTo review evaluations of the diagnostic accuracy of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) rapid antigen tests (RATs) approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for self-testing by ambulatory people in Australia; to compare these estimates with values reported by test manufacturers.Study designSystematic review of publications in any language that reported cross-sectional, case-control, or cohort studies in which the participants were ambulatory people in the community or health care workers in hospitals in whom severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was suspected, and the results of testing self-collected biological samples with a TGA-approved COVID-19 RAT were compared with those of reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2. Estimates of diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity) were checked and compared with manufacturer estimates published on the TGA website.Data sourcesPublications (to 1 September 2022) identified in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the World Health Organization COVID-19 research database. Information on manufacturer diagnostic accuracy evaluations was obtained from the TGA website.Data synthesisTwelve publications that reported a total of eighteen evaluations of eight RATs approved by the TGA for self-testing (manufacturers: All Test, Roche, Flowflex, MP Biomedicals, Clungene, Panbio, V-Chek, Whistling) were identified. Five studies were undertaken in the Netherlands, two each in Germany and the United States, and one each in Denmark, Belgium, and Canada; test sample collection was unsupervised in twelve studies, and supervised by health care workers or researchers in six. Estimated sensitivity with unsupervised sample collection ranged from 20.9% (MP Biomedicals) to 74.3% (Roche), and with supervised collection from 7.7% (V-Chek) to 84.4% (Panbio); the estimates were between 8.2 and 88 percentage points lower than the values reported by the manufacturers. Test specificity was high for all RATs (97.9-100%).ConclusionsThe risk of false negative results when using COVID-19 RATs for self-testing may be considerably higher than apparent in manufacturer reports on the TGA website, with implications for the reliability of these tests for ruling out infection.

Project description:BackgroundPCR testing is considered the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis but its results are earliest available hours to days after testing. Rapid antigen tests represent a diagnostic tool enabling testing at the point of care. Rapid antigen tests have mostly been validated by the manufacturer or in controlled laboratory settings only. External validation at the point of care, particularly in general practice where the test is frequently used, is needed. Furthermore, it is unclear how well point of care tests are accepted by the practice staff.MethodsIn this prospective multicenter validation study in primary care, general practitioners included adult individuals presenting with symptoms suggesting COVID-19. Each patient was tested by the general practitioner, first with a nasopharyngeal swab for the point of care test (Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test) and then with a second swab for PCR testing. Using the RT-PCR result as a reference, we calculated specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value, with their 95% confidence intervals. General practitioners and medical assistants completed a survey to assess feasibility and usefulness of the point of care tests.ResultsIn 40 practices in Würzburg, Germany, 1518 patients were recruited between 12/2020 and 06/2021. The point of care test achieved a sensitivity of 78.3% and a specificity of 99.5% compared to RT-PCR. With a prevalence of 9.5%, the positive predictive value was 93.9% and the negative predictive value was 97.8%. General practitioners rated the point of care test as a helpful tool to support diagnostics in patients with signs and symptoms suggestive for infection, particularly in situations where decision on further care is needed at short notice.ConclusionThe point of care test used in this study showed a sensitivity below the manufacturer's specification (Sensitivity 96.25%) in the practice but high values for specificity and high positive predictive value and negative predictive value. Although widely accepted in the practice, measures for further patient management require a sensitive interpretation of the point of care test results.

Project description:BackgroundMelioidosis, an infectious disease caused by Burkholderia pseudomallei, is endemic in many tropical developing countries and has a high mortality. Here we evaluated combinations of a lateral flow immunoassay (LFI) detecting B. pseudomallei capsular polysaccharide (CPS) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) detecting antibodies against hemolysin co-regulated protein (Hcp1) or O-polysaccharide (OPS) for diagnosing melioidosis.Methodology/principal findingsWe conducted a cohort-based case-control study. Both cases and controls were derived from a prospective observational study of patients presenting with community-acquired infections and sepsis in northeast Thailand (Ubon-sepsis). Cases included 192 patients with a clinical specimen culture positive for B. pseudomallei. Controls included 502 patients who were blood culture positive for Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli or Klebsiella pneumoniae or were polymerase chain reaction assay positive for malaria or dengue. Serum samples collected within 24 hours of admission were stored and tested using a CPS-LFI, Hcp1-ELISA and OPS-ELISA. When assessing diagnostic tests in combination, results were considered positive if either test was positive. We selected ELISA cut-offs corresponding to a specificity of 95%. Using a positive cut-off OD of 2.912 for Hcp1-ELISA, the combination of the CPS-LFI and Hcp1-ELISA had a sensitivity of 67.7% (130/192 case patients) and a specificity of 95.0% (477/502 control patients). The sensitivity of the combination (67.7%) was higher than that of the CPS-LFI alone (31.3%, p<0.001) and that of Hcp1-ELISA alone (53.6%, p<0.001). A similar phenomenon was also observed for the combination of CPS-LFI and OPS-ELISA. In case patients, positivity of the CPS-LFI was associated with a short duration of symptoms, high modified Sequential (sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, bacteraemia and mortality outcome, while positivity of Hcp1-ELISA was associated with a longer duration of symptoms, low modified SOFA score, non-bacteraemia and survival outcome.Conclusions/significanceA combination of antigen-antibody diagnostic tests increased the sensitivity of melioidosis diagnosis over individual tests while preserving high specificity. Point-of-care tests for melioidosis based on the use of combination assays should be further developed and evaluated.

Project description:To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the rapid influenza antigen detection test (RIADT) and determine which symptoms are relevant to results.Single-centre, cross-sectional study.Primary care centre, Tokyo, Japan.82 consecutive outpatients presenting with upper respiratory symptoms and fever ?37°C at any time from symptom onset, between December 2010 and April 2011.Results of history and physical examination including age, sex, temperature, time of test from symptom onset, vaccination record and current symptoms (sore throat, arthralgia and/or myalgia, headache, chills, cough and/or throat phlegm, nasal discharge) were recorded. The RIADT and a fully automated respiratory virus nucleic acid test (Verigene Respiratory Virus Plus; VRV), the latter being the gold standard, were performed. Patients were divided into four groups: false negative (FN), RIADT- and VRV+; true positive (TP), RIADT+ and VRV+; true negative (TN), RIADT- and VRV-; and false positive, RIADT+ and VRV-. Groups were compared regarding age, sex, temperature, time of test from symptom onset, vaccination record and symptoms.RIADT sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 72.9% (95% CI 61.5% to 84.2%), 91.3% (79.7% to 102.8%), 95.6% (89.5% to 101.6%) and 56.8% (40.8% to 72.7%), respectively. Time from symptom onset to test was shorter for the FN group than the TP group (p=0.009). No significant differences were detected for the other factors assessed. Results revealed higher temperatures for FN than TN patients (p=0.043), and more FN than TN patients had chills (p=0.058).The RIADT sensitivity was low, due to early administration of the test. In the epidemic season, the RIADT should not be used for suspected influenza until 12 h after symptom onset. A positive RIADT firmly supports the influenza diagnosis; a negative result does not confirm its absence. High fever and chills might indicate influenza, but additional tests are sometimes necessary.

Project description:BackgroundThe United States FDA approved an over-the-counter HIV self-test, to facilitate increased HIV testing and earlier linkage to care. We assessed the accuracy of self-testing by untrained participants compared to healthcare worker (HCW) testing, participants' ability to interpret sample results and user-acceptability of self-tests in Singapore.Methodology/principal findingsA cross-sectional study, involving 200 known HIV-positive patients and 794 unknown HIV status at-risk participants was conducted. Participants (all without prior self-test experience) performed self-testing guided solely by visual instructions, followed by HCW testing, both using the OraQuick ADVANCE Rapid HIV 1/2 Antibody Test, with both results interpreted by the HCW. To assess ability to interpret results, participants were provided 3 sample results (positive, negative, and invalid) to interpret. Of 192 participants who tested positive on HCW testing, self-testing was positive in 186 (96.9%), negative in 5 (2.6%), and invalid in 1 (0.5%). Of 794 participants who tested negative on HCW testing, self-testing was negative in 791 (99.6%), positive in 1 (0.1%), and invalid in 2 (0.3%). Excluding invalid tests, self-testing had sensitivity of 97.4% (95% CI 95.1% to 99.7%) and specificity of 99.9% (95% CI: 99.6% to 100%). When interpreting results, 96%, 93.1% and 95.2% correctly read the positive, negative and invalid respectively. There were no significant demographic predictors for false negative self-testing or wrongly interpreting positive or invalid sample results as negative. Eighty-seven percent would purchase the kit over-the-counter; 89% preferred to take HIV tests in private. 72.5% and 74.9% felt the need for pre- and post-test counseling respectively. Only 28% would pay at least USD15 for the test.Conclusions/significanceSelf-testing was associated with high specificity, and a small but significant number of false negatives. Incorrectly identifying model results as invalid was a major reason for incorrect result interpretation. Survey responses were supportive of making self-testing available.