Evaluation of the AMP SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test in a hospital setting.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
Quick and inexpensive SARS-CoV-2 screening and frontline testing are in growing demand. Our study aimed to evaluate the performance of the immunochromatographic AMP rapid antigen test (AMP RAT) compared to the gold-standard real-time reverse transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) in a hospital cohort.Methods
A total of 392 patients, who presented consecutively with COVID-19 symptoms in our emergency department, were included in this retrospective study. Two swabs were collected per patient: a nasopharyngeal for the RAT and a combined naso- and oropharyngeal for the rRT-PCR. A positive rRT-PCR (defined as cycle threshold (Ct) < 40) was found in 94 (24%) patients.Results
In our cohort with a median patient age of 70, overall sensitivity and specificity of the AMP RAT was 69.2% (58.8-78.3, 95% CI) and 99.7% (98.1-100.0, 95% CI), respectively. In patients with a Ct value < 25 and < 30, higher sensitivities of 100.0% (89.4-100.0, 95% CI) and 91.8% (81.9-97.3%, 95% CI) were observed.Conclusions
The AMP RAT showed a high sensitivity in patients with a Ct value < 25 and < 30 and might be helpful for frontline testing whenever rRT-PCR is not readily available.
SUBMITTER: Leixner G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8168346 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in deceased patients is key when considering appropriate safety measures to prevent infection during postmortem examinations. A prospective cohort study comparing a rapid antigen test with quantitative reverse transcription PCR showed the rapid test's usability as a tool to guide autopsy practice.
| S-EPMC8153888 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRapid antigen tests hold much promise for use in the school environment. However, the performance of these tests in non-clinical settings and among one of the main target populations in schools-asymptomatic children-is unclear. To address this gap, we examined the positive and negative concordance between the BinaxNOW™ rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay and an RT-PCR test among children at a community-based Covid-19 testing site.MethodsWe conducted rapid antigen (BinaxNOW™) and oral fluid RT-PCR (Curative Labs) tests on children presenting at a walk-up testing site in Los Angeles County from November 25, 2020 to December 9, 2020. Positive concordance was determined as the fraction of RT-PCR positive participants that were also antigen positive. Negative concordance was determined as the fraction of RT-PCR negative participants that were also antigen negative. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine the association between positive or negative concordance and participant age, race-ethnicity, sex at birth, symptoms and Ct values.Results226 children tested positive on RT-PCR; 127 children or 56.2% (95% CI: 49.5% to 62.8%) of these also tested positive on the rapid antigen test. Positive concordance was higher among symptomatic children (64.4%; 95% CI: 53.4% to 74.4%) compared to asymptomatic children (51.1%; 95% CI: 42.5% to 59.7%). Positive concordance was negatively associated with Ct values and was 93.8% (95% CI: 69.8% to 99.8%) for children with Ct values less than or equal to 25. 548 children tested negative on RT-PCR; 539 or 98.4% (95% CI: 96.9% to 99.2%) of these also tested negative on the rapid antigen test. Negative concordance was higher among asymptomatic children.ConclusionsRapid antigen testing can successfully identify most COVID infections in children with viral load levels likely to be infectious. Serial rapid testing may help compensate for limited sensitivity in early infection.
| S-EPMC8021178 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe gold standard for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection is real-time reverse transcription PCR (rRT-PCR), which is expensive, has a long turnaround time and requires special equipment and trained personnel. Nasopharyngeal swabs are uncomfortable, not suitable for certain patient groups and do not allow self-testing. Convenient, well-tolerated rapid antigen tests (RATs) for SARS-CoV-2 detection are called for.Gap statementMore real-life performance data on anterior nasal RATs are required.AimWe set out to evaluate the anterior nasal AMP RAT in comparison with rRT-PCR in a hospital cohort.MethodologyThe study included 175 patients, either hospitalized in a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ward or screened in a preadmittance outpatient clinic. Two swabs were collected per patient: an anterior nasal one for the RAT and a combined naso-/oropharyngeal one for the rRT-PCR. Sixty-five patients (37%) were rRT-PCR-positive [cycle threshold (C t) <40].ResultsThe anterior nasal AMP RAT showed an overall sensitivity and specificity of 29.2 % (18.6-41.8, 95 % CI) and 100.0 % (96.7-100.0, 95 % CI) respectively. In patients with a C t value <25, <30 and <33, higher sensitivities were observed. Time since symptom onset was significantly higher in patients with a false-negative RAT (P=0.02).ConclusionThe anterior nasal AMP RAT showed low sensitivities in this cohort, especially in patients with a longer time since symptom onset. Further knowledge concerning the viral load and antigen expression over time and in different swabbing locations is needed to outline the usage time frame for SARS-CoV-2 RAT.
| S-EPMC9394671 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can spread from symptomatic patients with COVID-19, but also from asymptomatic individuals. Therefore, robust surveillance and timely interventions are essential for the control of virus spread within the community. In this regard the frequency of testing and speed of reporting, but not the test sensitivity alone, play a crucial role.ObjectivesIn order to reduce the costs and meet the expanding demands in real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2, complementary assays, such as rapid antigen tests, have been developed. Rigorous analysis under varying conditions is required to assess the clinical performance of these tests and to ensure reproducible results.ResultsWe evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of a recently licensed rapid antigen test using 137 clinical samples in two institutions. Test sensitivity was between 88.2-89.6 % when applied to samples with viral loads typically seen in infectious patients. Of 32 rRT-PCR positive samples, 19 demonstrated infectivity in cell culture, and 84 % of these samples were reactive with the antigen test. Seven full-genome sequenced SARS-CoV-2 isolates and SARS-CoV-1 were detected with this antigen test, with no cross-reactivity against other common respiratory viruses.ConclusionsNumerous antigen tests are available for SARS-CoV-2 testing and their performance to detect infectious individuals may vary. Head-to-head comparison along with cell culture testing for infectivity may prove useful to identify better performing antigen tests. The antigen test analyzed in this study is easy-to-use, inexpensive, and scalable. It can be helpful in monitoring infection trends and thus has potential to reduce transmission.
| S-EPMC7832367 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently finally determined in laboratory settings by real-time reverse-transcription polymerase-chain-reaction (rt-PCR). However, simple testing with immediately available results are crucial to gain control over COVID-19. The aim was to evaluate such a point-of-care antigen rapid test (AG-rt) device in its performance compared to laboratory-based rt-PCR testing in COVID-19 suspected, symptomatic patients.MethodsFor this prospective study, two specimens each of 541 symptomatic female (54.7%) and male (45.3%) patients aged between 18 and 95 years tested at five emergency departments (ED, n = 296) and four primary healthcare centres (PHC, n = 245), were compared, using AG-rt (positive/negative/invalid) and rt-PCR (positive/negative and cycle threshold, Ct) to diagnose SARS-CoV-2. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and likelihood ratios (LR+/-) of the AG-rt were assessed.ResultsDifferences between ED and PHC were detected regarding gender, age, symptoms, disease prevalence, and diagnostic performance. Overall, 174 (32.2%) were tested positive on AG-rt and 213 (39.4%) on rt-PCR. AG correctly classified 91.7% of all rt-PCR positive cases with a sensitivity of 80.3%, specificity of 99.1%, PPV of 98.3, NPV of 88.6%, LR(+) of 87.8, and LR(-) of 0.20. The highest sensitivities and specificities of AG-rt were detected in PHC (sensitivity: 84.4%, specificity: 100.0%), when using Ct of 30 as cut-off (sensitivity: 92.5%, specificity: 97.8%), and when symptom onset was within the first three days (sensitivity: 82.9%, specificity: 99.6%).ConclusionsThe highest sensitivity was detected with a high viral load. Our findings suggest that AG-rt are comparable to rt-PCR to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 suspected symptomatic patients presenting both at emergency departments and primary health care centres.
| S-EPMC8629250 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To control the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemics, it is necessary to have easy-to-use, reliable diagnostic tests available. The nasopharyngeal sampling method being often uncomfortable, nasal sampling could prove to be a viable alternative to the reference sampling method. We performed a multicentre, prospective validation study of the COVID-VIRO® test, using a nasal swab sampling method, in a point-of-care setting. In addition, we performed a multicentre, prospective, and usability study to validate the use of the rapid antigen nasal diagnostic test by laypersons. In March 2021, 239 asymptomatic and symptomatic patients were included in the validation study. Compared with reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction on nasopharyngeal samples, the sensitivity and specificity of the COVID-VIRO® Antigen test combined with a nasal sampling method were evaluated as 96.88% and 100%, respectively. A total of 101 individuals were included in the usability study. Among these, 99% of the participants rated the instructions material as good, 98% of the subjects executed the test procedure well, and 98% of the participants were able to correctly interpret the test results. This study validates the relevance of COVID-VIRO® as a diagnostic tool from nasal specimens as well as its usability in the general population. COVID-VIRO® diagnostic performances and ease of use make it suitable for widespread utilization.
| S-EPMC8426870 | 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:Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of COVID-19 disease. RT-qPCR has been the primary method of diagnosis; however, the required infrastructure is lacking in many developing countries and the virus has remained a global challenge. More inexpensive and immediate test methods are required to facilitate local, regional, and national management strategies to re-open world economies. Here we have developed a SARS-CoV-2 antigen test in an inexpensive lateral flow format to generate a chromatographic result identifying the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 antigen, and thus an active infection, within a patient anterior nares swab sample. Our 15-min test requires no equipment or laboratory infrastructure to administer with a limit of detection of 2.0 × 102 TCID50/mL and 87.5% sensitivity, 100% specificity when tested against 40 known positive and 40 known negative patient samples established by a validated RT-qPCR test.
| S-EPMC8626481 | biostudies-literature
Project description:COVID-19 diagnostics was quickly ramped up worldwide early 2020 based on the detection of viral RNA. However, based on the scientific knowledge for pre-existing coronaviruses, it was expected that the SARS-CoV-2 RNA will be detected from symptomatic and at significant rates also from asymptomatic individuals due to persistence of non-infectious RNA. To increase the efficacy of diagnostics, surveillance, screening and pandemic control, rapid methods, such as antigen tests, are needed for decentralized testing and to assess infectiousness. A novel automated mariPOC SARS-CoV-2 test was developed for the detection of conserved structural viral nucleocapsid proteins. The test utilizes sophisticated optical laser technology for two-photon excitation and individual detection of immunoassay solid-phase particles. We validated the new method against qRT-PCR. Sensitivity of the test was 100.0% (13/13) directly from nasopharyngeal swab specimens and 84.4% (38/45) from swab specimens in undefined transport mediums. Specificity of the test was 100.0% (201/201). The test's limit of detection was 2.7 TCID50/test. It showed no cross-reactions. Our study shows that the new test can detect infectious individuals already in 20 min with clinical sensitivity close to qRT-PCR. The mariPOC is a versatile platform for syndromic testing and for high capacity infection control screening of infectious individuals.
| S-EPMC8514458 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The objective of this study was to develop a scalable approach for direct comparison of the analytical sensitivities of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antigen point-of-care tests (AgPOCTs) to rapidly identify poor-performing products. We present a methodology for quick assessment of the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 AgPOCTs suitable for quality evaluation of many different products. We established reference samples with high, medium, and low SARS-CoV-2 viral loads along with a SARS-CoV-2 negative control sample. Test samples were used to semi-quantitatively assess the analytical sensitivities of 32 different commercial AgPOCTs in a head-to-head comparison. Among 32 SARS-CoV-2 AgPOCTs tested, we observe sensitivity differences across a broad range of viral loads (9.8 × 108 to 1.8 × 105 SARS-CoV-2 genome copies per ml). 23 AgPOCTs detected the Ct25 test sample (1.6 × 106 copies/ml), while only five tests detected the Ct28 test sample (1.8 × 105 copies/ml). In the low-range of analytical sensitivity, we found three saliva spit tests only delivering positive results for the Ct21 sample (2.7 × 107 copies/ml). Comparison with published data supports our AgPOCT ranking. Importantly, we identified an AgPOCT widely offered, which did not reliably recognize the sample with the highest viral load (Ct16 test sample with 9.8 × 108 copies/ml) leading to serious doubts about its usefulness in SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. The results show that the rapid sensitivity assessment procedure presented here provides useful estimations on the analytical sensitivities of 32 AgPOCTs and identified a widely-spread AgPOCT with concerningly low sensitivity.
| S-EPMC8994089 | biostudies-literature