Comparative evaluation of Panbio and SD Biosensor antigen rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 diagnosis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Perez-Garcia F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8242635 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesAntigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) have been developed as reliable tools to control the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The objective of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of two Ag-RDTs.MethodsWe evaluated CerTest SARS-CoV-2 Ag One Step Card Test and Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device Ag-RDTs. We included 320 nasopharyngeal samples: 150 PCR negative samples to assess the specificity and 170 PCR positive samples to evaluate the sensitivity. We also evaluated their sensitivity according to cycle threshold (Ct) values and the time from the onset of symptoms. Tests were compared using the McNemar's test and agreement was evaluated using the kappa score (k).ResultsBoth Ag-RDTs showed a specificity of 100 %. Overall sensitivity was 53.5 % for CerTest and 60.0 % for Panbio. For samples with Ct≤ 25, sensitivity was 94.0 % for CerTest and 96.4 % for Panbio (p = 0.500). Regarding samples with Ct>25, sensitivity was 14.0 % for CerTest and 24.4 % for Panbio (p = 0.004). Sensitivity for samples within the first 5 days after the onset of symptoms were 84.8 % for CerTest and 91.3 % for Panbio (p = 0.250) and notably decreased for samples taken after the fifth day. Both Ag-RDTs showed an excellent agreement between them (agreement = 96.7 %, k = 0.920). Agreement with PCR was also excellent for high viral load samples (Ct<25) for CerTest (98.0 %, k = 0.954) and Panbio (98.8 %, k = 0.973).ConclusionsCerTest SARS-CoV-2 and Panbio COVID-19 Ag showed excellent performance and agreement results for samples with high viral loads (Ct ≤ 25) or samples taken within the first 5 days after the onset of symptoms.
| S-EPMC7897407 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAntigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 offer new opportunities for testing in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) are the reference sample type, but oropharyngeal swabs (OPS) may be a more acceptable sample type in some patients.MethodsWe conducted a prospective study in a single screening center to assess the diagnostic performance of the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (Abbott) on OPS compared with reverse-transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) using NPS during the second pandemic wave in Switzerland.Results402 outpatients were enrolled in a COVID-19 screening center, of whom 168 (41.8%) had a positive RT-qPCR test. The oropharyngeal Ag-RDT clinical sensitivity compared to nasopharyngeal RT-qPCR was 81% (95%CI: 74.2-86.6). Two false positives were noted out of the 234 RT-qPCR negative individuals, which resulted in a clinical specificity of 99.1% (95%CI: 96.9-99.9) for the Ag-RDT. For cycle threshold values ≤ 26.7 (≥ 1E6 SARS-CoV-2 genomes copies/mL, a presumed cut-off for infectious virus), 96.3% sensitivity (95%CI: 90.7-99.0%) was obtained with the Ag-RDT using OPS.InterpretationBased on our findings, the diagnostic performance of the Panbio™ Covid-19 RDT with OPS samples, if taken by a trained person and high requirements regarding quality of the specimen, meet the criteria required by the WHO for Ag-RDTs (sensitivity ≥80% and specificity ≥97%) in a high incidence setting in symptomatic individuals.
| S-EPMC8224876 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTwo malaria rapid diagnostic tests were evaluated in a travel clinic setting: the SD FK50 Malaria Ag Plasmodium falciparum test (a two-band test) and the SD FK60 Malaria Ag P. falciparum/Pan test (a three-band test).MethodsA panel of stored whole blood samples (n = 452 and n = 614 for FK50 and FK60, respectively) from returned travellers was used. The reference method was microscopy with PCR in case of discordant results.ResultsFor both tests, overall sensitivity for the detection of P. falciparum was 93.5%, reaching 97.6% and 100% at parasite densities above 100 and 1,000/microl respectively. Overall sensitivities for Plasmodium vivax, Plasmodium ovale and Plasmodium malariae for the FK60 test were 87.5%, 76.3% and 45.2%, but they reached 92.6% and 90.5% for P. vivax and P. ovale at parasite densities above 500/microl. Specificities were above 95% for all species and both tests when corrected by PCR, with visible histidine-rich protein-2 lines for P. malariae (n = 3) and P. vivax and P. ovale (1 sample each). Line intensities were reproducible and correlated to parasite densities. The FK60 tests provided clues to estimate parasite densities for P. falciparum below or above 1,000/microl.ConclusionBoth the FK50 and FK60 performed well for the diagnosis of P. falciparum in the present setting, and the FK60 for the diagnosis of P. vivax and P. ovale at parasite densities > 500/microl. The potential use of the FK60 as a semi-quantitative estimation of parasite density needs to be further explored.
| S-EPMC2688521 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) has targeted a reduction in viral hepatitis-related mortality by 65% and incidence by 90% by 2030, necessitating enhanced hepatitis B treatment and prevention programmes in low- and middle-income countries. Hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) status is used in the assessment of eligibility for antiviral treatment and for prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT). Accordingly, the WHO has classified HBeAg rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) as essential medical devices.MethodsWe assessed the performance characteristics of three commercially available HBeAg RDTs (SD Bioline, Alere, South Africa; Creative Diagnostics, USA; and Biopanda Reagents, UK) in two hepatitis B surface antigen-positive cohorts in Blantyre, Malawi: participants of a community study (n = 100) and hospitalised patients with cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 94). Two investigators, blinded to the reference test result, independently assessed each assay. We used an enzyme-linked immunoassay (Monolisa HBeAg, Bio-Rad, France) as a reference test and quantified HBeAg concentration using dilutions of the WHO HBeAg standard. We related the findings to HBV DNA levels, and evaluated treatment eligibility using the TREAT-B score.ResultsAmong 194 HBsAg positive patients, median age was 37 years, 42% were femaleand 26% were HIV co-infected. HBeAg prevalence was 47/194 (24%). The three RDTs showed diagnostic sensitivity of 28% (95% CI 16-43), 53% (38-68) and 72% (57-84) and specificity of 96-100% for detection of HBeAg. Overall inter-rater agreement κ statistic was high at 0.9-1.0. Sensitivity for identifying patients at the threshold where antiviral treatment is recommended for PMTCT, with HBV DNA > 200,000 IU/ml (39/194; 20%), was 22, 49 and 54% respectively. Using the RDTs in place of the reference HBeAg assay resulted in 3/43 (9%), 5/43 (12%) and 8/43 (19%) of patients meeting the TREAT-B treatment criteria being misclassified as ineligible for treatment. A relationship between HBeAg concentration and HBeAg detection by RDT was observed. A minimum HBeAg concentration of 2.2-3.1 log10IU/ml was required to yield a reactive RDT.ConclusionsCommercially available HBeAg RDTs lack sufficient sensitivity to accurately classify hepatitis B patients in Malawi. This has implications for hepatitis B public health programs in sub-Saharan Africa. Alternative diagnostic assays are recommended.
| S-EPMC8157469 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsAmong 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.ConclusionThe 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
Project description:Yellow fever is endemic in Ghana and outbreaks occur periodically. The prodromal signs due to Yellow Fever Virus (YFV) infection are non-specific, making clinical signs unreliable as the sole criteria for diagnosis. Accurate laboratory confirmation of suspected yellow fever cases is therefore vital in surveillance programs. Reporting of ELISA IgM testing results by laboratories can delay due to late arrival of samples from the collection sites as well as limited availability of ELISA kits. In this study, the diagnostic performance characteristics of a rapid immunochromatographic Standard Q Yellow Fever IgM test kit (SD Biosensor) was evaluated for the rapid diagnosis of Yellow Fever infection in Ghana. A panel of 275 sera, comprising 81 confirmed YFV positives and 194 negatives were re-tested in this study using the Standard Q Yellow Fever IgM test kit. Using the CDC/WHO Yellow Fever IgM capture ELISA as a benchmark, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the Standard Q Yellow Fever test kit were 96.3%, 97.9% and 97.5%, respectively. The false positivity rate was 5.1% and there was no cross-reactivity when the Standard Q Yellow Fever test kit was tested against dengue, malaria and hepatitis B and C positive samples. In addition, inter-reader variability and invalid rate were both zero. The results indicate that the diagnostic performance of the Standard Q Yellow Fever IgM test kit on serum or plasma is comparable to the serum IgM detection by ELISA and can be used as a point of care rapid diagnostic test kit for YFV infection in endemic areas.
| S-EPMC8741057 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDiagnosis of leptospirosis by the microscopic agglutination test (MAT) or by culture is confined to specialized laboratories. Although ELISA techniques are more common, they still require laboratory facilities. Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs) can be used for easy point-of-care diagnosis. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the RDTs LeptoTek Dri Dot, LeptoTek Lateral Flow, and Leptocheck-WB, prospectively.MethodologyDuring 2001 to 2012, one or two of the RDTs at the same time have been applied prior to routine diagnostics (MAT, ELISA and culture) on serum specimens from participants sent in for leptospirosis diagnosis. The case definition was based on MAT, ELISA and culture results. Participants not fulfilling the case definition were considered not to have leptospirosis. The diagnostic accuracy was determined based on the 1(st) submitted sample and paired samples, either in an overall analysis or stratified according to days post onset of illness.ResultsThe overall sensitivity and specificity for the LeptoTek Dri Dot was 75% respectively 96%, for the LeptoTek Lateral Flow 78% respectively 95%, and for the Leptocheck-WB 78% respectively 98%. Based on the 1(st) submitted sample the sensitivity was low (51% for LeptoTek Dri Dot, 69% for LeptoTek Lateral Flow, and 55% for Leptocheck-WB), but substantially increased when the results of paired samples were combined, although accompanied by a lower specificity (82% respectively 91% for LeptoTek Dri Dot, 86% respectively 84% for LeptoTek Lateral Flow, and 80% respectively 93% for Leptocheck-WB).ConclusionsAll three tests present antibody tests contributing to the diagnosis of leptospirosis, thus supporting clinical suspicion and contributing to awareness. Since the overall sensitivity of the tested RDTs did not exceed 80%, one should be cautious to rely only on an RDT result, and confirmation by reference tests is strongly recommended.
| S-EPMC3708816 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPerformance of the SD Biosensor saliva antigen rapid test was evaluated at a large designated testing site in non-hospitalized patients, with or without symptoms.MethodAll eligible people over 18 years of age presenting for a booked appointment at the designated SARS-CoV-2 testing site were approached for inclusion and enrolled following verbal informed consent. One nasopharyngeal swab was taken to carry out the default antigen rapid test from which the results were reported back to the patient and one saliva sample was self-taken according to verbal instruction on site. This was used for the saliva antigen rapid test, the RT-PCR and for virus culture. Sensitivity of the saliva antigen rapid test was analyzed in two ways: i, compared to saliva RT-PCR; and ii, compared to virus culture of the saliva samples. Study participants were also asked to fill in a short questionnaire stating age, sex, date of symptom onset. Recommended time of ≥30mins since last meal, drink or cigarette if applicable was also recorded. The study was carried out in February-March 2021 for 4 weeks.ResultsWe could include 789 people with complete records and results. Compared to saliva RT-PCR, overall sensitivity and specificity of the saliva antigen rapid test was 66.1% and 99.6% which increased to 88.6% with Ct ≤30 cutoff. Analysis by days post onset did not result in higher sensitivities because the large majority of people were in the very early phase of disease ie <3 days post onset. When breaking down the data for symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, sensitivity ranged from 69.2% to 50% respectively, however the total number of RT-PCR positive asymptomatic participants was very low (n = 5). Importantly, almost all culture positive samples were detected by the rapid test.ConclusionOverall, the potential benefits of saliva antigen rapid test, could outweigh the lower sensitivity compared to nasopharyngeal antigen rapid test in a comprehensive testing strategy, especially for home/self-testing and in vulnerable populations like elderly, disabled or children where in intrusive testing is either not possible or causes unnecessary stress.
| S-EPMC8694432 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo our knowledge no previous study has assessed the performance of a rapid antigen diagnostic immunoassay (RAD) conducted at the point of care (POC). We evaluated the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device for diagnosis of coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) in symptomatic patients (n = 412) attending primary healthcare centres.MethodsRAD was performed immediately after sampling following the manufacturer's instructions (reading at 15 min). RT-PCRs were carried out within 24 h of specimen collection. Samples displaying discordant results were processed for culture in Vero E6 cells. Presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in cell cultures was confirmed by RT-PCR.ResultsOut of 412 patients, 43 (10.4%) tested positive by RT-PCR and RAD, and 358 (86.9%) tested negative by both methods; discordant results (RT-PCR+/RAD-) were obtained in 11 patients (2.7%). Overall specificity and sensitivity of rapid antigen detection (RAD) was 100% (95%CI 98.7-100%) and 79.6% (95%CI 67.0-88.8%), respectively, taking RT-PCR as the reference. Overall RAD negative predictive value for an estimated prevalence of 5% and 10% was 99% (95%CI 97.4-99.6%) and 97.9% (95%CI 95.9-98.9), respectively. SARS-CoV-2 could not be cultured from specimens yielding RT-PCR+/RAD- results (n = 11).ConclusionThe Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device performed well as a POC test for early diagnosis of COVID-19 in primary healthcare centres. More crucially, the data suggested that patients with RT-PCR-proven COVID-19 testing negative by RAD are unlikely to be infectious.
| S-EPMC7662075 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The standard RT-PCR assay for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is laborious and time-consuming, limiting testing availability. Rapid antigen-detection tests are faster and less expensive; however, the reliability of these tests must be validated before they can be used widely. The objective of this study was to determine the performance of the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device (PanbioRT) (Abbott) in detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in nasopharyngeal swab specimens. This prospective multicentre study was carried out in ten Spanish university hospitals and included individuals with clinical symptoms or epidemiological criteria of COVID-19. Only individuals with ≤7 days from the onset of symptoms or from exposure to a confirmed case of COVID-19 were included. Two nasopharyngeal samples were taken to perform the PanbioRT as a point-of-care test and a diagnostic RT-PCR test. Among the 958 patients studied, 325 (90.5%) had true-positive results. The overall sensitivity and specificity for the PanbioRT were 90.5% (95%CI 87.5-93.6) and 98.8% (95%CI 98-99.7), respectively. Sensitivity in participants who had a threshold cycle (CT) < 25 for the RT-PCR test was 99.5% (95%CI 98.4-100), and in participants with ≤5 days of the clinical course it was 91.8% (95%CI 88.8-94.8). Agreement between techniques was 95.7% (κ score 0.90; 95%CI 0.88-0.93). The PanbioRT performs well clinically, with even more reliable results for patients with a shorter clinical course of the disease or a higher viral load. The results must be interpreted based on the local epidemiological context.
| S-EPMC7884234 | biostudies-literature