Dataset Information

Evaluation of the AMP SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test in a hospital setting.

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

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.