Dataset Information

Comparative evaluation of Panbio and SD Biosensor antigen rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 diagnosis.

ABSTRACT: The aim of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of two antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) to diagnose severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We evaluated Panbio and SD-Biosensor Ag-RDTs. We employed 186 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) negative samples to evaluate the specificity and 170 PCR positive samples to assess the sensitivity. We evaluated their sensitivity according to Cycle threshold (C _t ) values and days post onset of symptoms (d.p.o.). Tests were compared using the McNemar's test. Agreement was evaluated using the kappa score. Specificity was 100% for Panbio and 97.3% for SD-Biosensor. Sensitivity for samples with C _t ≤ 20 was 100% for both assays and for samples with C _t = 20-25 was 93.0% (Panbio) and 95.3% (SD-Biosensor) (p = 1.000). Sensitivity decreased for samples wit C _t = 25-30 (Panbio: 41.3%, SD-Biosensor: 52.2%, p = 0.125) and samples with C _t ≥ 30 (Panbio: 5.0%, SD-Biosensor: 17.5%, p = 0.063). Sensitivity within seven d.p.o. was 87.7% for Panbio and 90.4% for SD-Biosensor and notably decreased after seven d.p.o. Agreement with PCR was excellent for high viral load samples (C _t ≤ 25): Panbio, 98.9%, kappa = 0.974; SD-Biosensor, 97.4%, kappa = 0.940. Agreement between Ag-RDTs was excellent (94.9%, kappa = 0.882). Panbio and SD-Biosensor Ag-RDTs showed excellent agreement and diagnostic performance results for samples with high viral loads (C _t ≤ 25) or samples within seven d.p.o.

SUBMITTER: Perez-Garcia F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8242635 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative evaluation of Panbio and SD Biosensor antigen rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 diagnosis.

Pérez-García Felipe F Romanyk Juan J Moya Gutiérrez Helena H Labrador Ballestero Andrea A Pérez Ranz Inés I González Arroyo Javier J González Ventosa Victoria V Pérez-Tanoira Ramón R Domingo Cruz Concepción C Cuadros-González Juan J

Journal of medical virology 20210531 9

The aim of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of two antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) to diagnose severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We evaluated Panbio and SD-Biosensor Ag-RDTs. We employed 186 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) negative samples to evaluate the specificity and 170 PCR positive samples to assess the sensitivity. We evaluated their sensitivity according to Cycle threshold (C <sub>t</sub> ) values and days post onset of s ...[more]

PMID: 34002864

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

Dataset Information

Comparative evaluation of Panbio and SD Biosensor antigen rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 diagnosis.

Publications

Comparative evaluation of Panbio and SD Biosensor antigen rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 diagnosis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets