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) 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: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: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:BackgroundInternational travel poses the risk of importing SARS-CoV-2 infections and introducing new viral variants into the country of destination. Established measures include mandatory quarantine with the opportunity to abbreviate it with a negative rapid antigen test (RAT).MethodsA total of 1,488 returnees were tested for SARS-CoV-2 with both PCR and RAT no earlier than 5 days after arrival. We assessed the sensitivity and specificity of the RAT. Positive samples were evaluated for infectivity in vitro in a cell culture outgrowth assay. We tracked if participants who tested negative were reported positive within 2 weeks of the initial test.ResultsPotential infectiousness was determined based on symptom onset analysis, resulting in a sensitivity of the antigen test of 89% in terms of infectivity. The specificity was 100%. All positive outgrowth assays were preceded by a positive RAT, indicating that all participants with proven in vitro infectivity were correctly identified. None of the negative participants tested positive during the follow-up.ConclusionsRAT no earlier than the 5th day after arrival was a reliable method for detecting infectious travellers and can be recommended as an appropriate method for managing SARS-CoV-2 travel restrictions. Compliance to the regulations and a high standard of test quality must be ensured.
| S-EPMC8888351 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The antigen rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) is a useful diagnostic tool for the detection and management of COVID-19 spread. Global SARS-CoV-2 variant outbreaks have highlighted the need for a test capable of detecting SARS-CoV-2 variants with high sensitivity and a low limit of detection. This study aimed to develop and evaluate, both analytically and clinically, an antigen rapid diagnostic test (the KestrelTM COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test) for professional use. A lateral flow immunoassay-based diagnostic test kit was developed, and various aspects of its analytical performance were evaluated. This test kit was clinically evaluated by two independent laboratories and showed closely related results of 96.49% and 98.33% of sensitivity, 100% and 100% of specificity, and 99.01% and 99.44% of accuracy, respectively. A limit of detection was observed at values as low as 0.156 ng/mL for recombinant SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein. Moreover, the test kit successfully detected the recombinant SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (NP) of wild-type, Alpha-, Beta-, Gamma-, Delta-, Epsilon-, Kappa-, and Omicron-variants as positive results. Therefore, the KestrelTM COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test may have potential use for effective COVID-19 screening, surveillance, and infection control in a variety of global SARS-CoV-2 variant outbreaks.
| S-EPMC8871278 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) is a highly contagious infectious disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The development of rapid antigen tests has contributed to easing the burden on healthcare and lifting restrictions by detecting infected individuals to help prevent further transmission of the virus. We developed a state-of-art rapid antigen testing system, named DIAGNOVIR, based on immune-fluorescence analysis, which can process and give the results in a minute. In our study, we assessed the performance of the DIAGNOVIR and compared the results with those of the qRT-PCR test. Our results demonstrated that the sensitivity and specificity of the DIAGNOVIR were 94% and 99.2%, respectively, with a 100% sensitivity and 96.97% specificity, among asymptomatic patients. In addition, DIAGNOVIR can detect SARS‑CoV‑2 with 100% sensitivity up to 5 days after symptom onset. We observed that the DIAGNOVIR Rapid Antigen Test's limit of detection (LoD) was not significantly affected by the SARS‑CoV‑2 variants including Wuhan, alpha (B1.1.7), beta (B.1.351), delta (B.1.617.2) and omicron (B.1.1.529) variants, and LoD was calculated as 8 × 102, 6.81 × 101.5, 3.2 × 101.5, 1 × 103, and 1 × 103.5 TCID50/mL, respectively. Our results indicated that DIAGNOVIR can detect all SARS-CoV-2 variants in just seconds with higher sensitivity and specificity lower testing costs and decreased turnover time.
| S-EPMC10021059 | 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