Dataset Information

Diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen tests in asymptomatic and presymptomatic close contacts of individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection: cross sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the diagnostic test accuracy of two rapid antigen tests in asymptomatic and presymptomatic close contacts of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection on day 5 after exposure.

Design

Prospective cross sectional study.

Setting

Four public health service covid-19 test sites in the Netherlands.

Participants

4274 consecutively included close contacts (identified through test-and-trace programme or contact tracing app) aged 16 years or older and asymptomatic for covid-19 when requesting a test.

Main outcome measures

Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of Veritor System (Beckton Dickinson) and Biosensor (Roche Diagnostics) rapid antigen tests, with reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing as reference standard. The viral load cut-off above which 95% of people with a positive RT-PCR test result were virus culture positive was used as a proxy of infectiousness.

Results

Of 2678 participants tested with Veritor, 233 (8.7%) had a RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection of whom 149 were also detected by the rapid antigen test (sensitivity 63.9%, 95% confidence interval 57.4% to 70.1%). Of 1596 participants tested with Biosensor, 132 (8.3%) had a RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection of whom 83 were detected by the rapid antigen test (sensitivity 62.9%, 54.0% to 71.1%). In those who were still asymptomatic at the time of sampling, sensitivity was 58.7% (51.1% to 66.0%) for Veritor (n=2317) and 59.4% (49.2% to 69.1%) for Biosensor (n=1414), and in those who developed symptoms were 84.2% (68.7% to 94.0%; n=219) for Veritor and 73.3% (54.1% to 87.7%; n=158) for Biosensor. When a viral load cut-off was applied for infectiouness (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E gene copies/mL), the overall sensitivity was 90.1% (84.2% to 94.4%) for Veritor and 86.8% (78.1% to 93.0%) for Biosensor, and 88.1% (80.5% to 93.5%) for Veritor and 85.1% (74.3% to 92.6%) for Biosensor, among those who remained asymptomatic throughout. Specificities were >99%, and positive and negative predictive values were >90% and >95%, for both rapid antigen tests in all analyses.

Conclusions

The sensitivities of both rapid antigen tests in asymptomatic and presymptomatic close contacts tested on day 5 onwards after close contact with an index case were more than 60%, increasing to more than 85% after a viral load cut-off was applied as a proxy for infectiousness.

SUBMITTER: Schuit E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8314145 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundReal-time PCR is recommended to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, PCR availability is restricted in most countries. Rapid diagnostic tests are considered acceptable alternatives, but data are lacking on their performance. We assessed the performance of four antibody-based rapid diagnostic tests and one antigen-based rapid diagnostic test for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community in Cameroon.MethodsIn this clinical, prospective, diagnostic accuracy study, we enrolled individuals aged at least 21 years who were either symptomatic and suspected of having COVID-19 or asymptomatic and presented for screening. We tested peripheral blood for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using the Innovita (Biological Technology; Beijing, China), Wondfo (Guangzhou Wondfo Biotech; Guangzhou, China), SD Biosensor (SD Biosensor; Gyeonggi-do, South Korea), and Runkun tests (Runkun Pharmaceutical; Hunan, China), and nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 antigen using the SD Biosensor test. Antigen rapid diagnostic tests were compared with Abbott PCR testing (Abbott; Abbott Park, IL, USA), and antibody rapid diagnostic tests were compared with Biomerieux immunoassays (Biomerieux; Marcy l'Etoile, France). We retrospectively tested two diagnostic algorithms that incorporated rapid diagnostic tests for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients using simulation modelling.Findings1195 participants were enrolled in the study. 347 (29%) tested SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive, 223 (19%) rapid diagnostic test antigen-positive, and 478 (40%) rapid diagnostic test antibody-positive. Antigen-based rapid diagnostic test sensitivity was 80·0% (95% CI 71·0-88·0) in the first 7 days after symptom onset, but antibody-based rapid diagnostic tests had only 26·8% sensitivity (18·3-36·8). Antibody rapid diagnostic test sensitivity increased to 76·4% (70·1-82·0) 14 days after symptom onset. Among asymptomatic participants, the sensitivity of antigen-based and antibody-based rapid diagnostic tests were 37·0% (27·0-48·0) and 50·7% (42·2-59·1), respectively. Cohen's κ showed substantial agreement between Wondfo antibody rapid diagnostic test and gold-standard ELISA (κ=0·76; sensitivity 0·98) and between Biosensor and ELISA (κ=0·60; sensitivity 0·94). Innovita (κ=0·47; sensitivity 0·93) and Runkun (κ=0·43; sensitivity 0·76) showed moderate agreement. An antigen-based retrospective algorithm applied to symptomatic patients showed 94·0% sensitivity and 91·0% specificity in the first 7 days after symptom onset. For asymptomatic participants, the algorithm showed a sensitivity of 34% (95% CI 23·0-44·0) and a specificity of 92·0% (88·0-96·0).InterpretationRapid diagnostic tests had good overall sensitivity for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. Rapid diagnostic tests could be incorporated into efficient testing algorithms as an alternative to PCR to decrease diagnostic delays and onward viral transmission.FundingMédecins Sans Frontières WACA and Médecins Sans Frontières OCG.TranslationsFor the French and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Project description:BackgroundIn low resource settings, Salmonella serovars frequently cause bloodstream infections. This study investigated the diagnostic performance of immunochromatographic rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), which detect Salmonella antigens, when applied to stored grown blood culture broth.Material/methodsThe SD Bioline One Step Salmonella Typhi Ag Rapid Detection Kit (Standard Diagnostics, Republic of Korea), marketed for the detection of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi (Salmonella Typhi) in stool and the Salmonella Ag Rapid Test (Creative Diagnostics, USA), marketed for the detection of all Salmonella serotypes in stool, were selected for evaluation based on a pre-test evaluation of six RDT products. The limits of detection (LOD) for culture suspensions were established and the selected RDT products were assessed on 19 freshly grown spiked blood culture broth samples and 413 stored clinical blood culture broth samples, collected in Cambodia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.ResultsThe LOD of both products was established as 107-108 CFU/ml. When applied to clinical blood culture broth samples, the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the SD Bioline RDT were respectively 100% and 79.7% for the detection of Salmonella Typhi; 94.4% (65/69) of false-positive results were caused by Salmonella Enteritidis. When considering the combined detection of Salmonella Typhi and Enteritidis (both group D Salmonella), sensitivity and specificity were 97.9% and 98.5% respectively. For Creative Diagnostics, diagnostic sensitivity was 78.3% and specificity 91.0% for all Salmonella serotypes combined; 88.3% (53/60) of false negative results were caused by Salmonella Paratyphi A.ConclusionsWhen applied to grown blood culture broths, the SD Bioline RDT had a good sensitivity and specificity for the detection of Salmonella Typhi and Salmonella Enteritidis. The Creative Diagnostics product had a moderate sensitivity and acceptable specificity for the detection of all Salmonella serovars combined and needs further optimization. A RDT that reliably detects Salmonella Paratyphi A is needed.

Project description:Previous studies have showed clinical characteristics of patients with the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and the evidence of person-to-person transmission. Limited data are available for asymptomatic infections. This study aims to present the clinical characteristics of 24 cases with asymptomatic infection screened from close contacts and to show the transmission potential of asymptomatic COVID-19 virus carriers. Epidemiological investigations were conducted among all close contacts of COVID-19 patients (or suspected patients) in Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China, from Jan 28 to Feb 9, 2020, both in clinic and in community. Asymptomatic carriers were laboratory-confirmed positive for the COVID-19 virus by testing the nucleic acid of the pharyngeal swab samples. Their clinical records, laboratory assessments, and chest CT scans were reviewed. As a result, none of the 24 asymptomatic cases presented any obvious symptoms while nucleic acid screening. Five cases (20.8%) developed symptoms (fever, cough, fatigue, etc.) during hospitalization. Twelve (50.0%) cases showed typical CT images of ground-glass chest and 5 (20.8%) presented stripe shadowing in the lungs. The remaining 7 (29.2%) cases showed normal CT image and had no symptoms during hospitalization. These 7 cases were younger (median age: 14.0 years; P=0.012) than the rest. None of the 24 cases developed severe COVID-19 pneumonia or died. The median communicable period, defined as the interval from the first day of positive nucleic acid tests to the first day of continuous negative tests, was 9.5 days (up to 21 days among the 24 asymptomatic cases). Through epidemiological investigation, we observed a typical asymptomatic transmission to the cohabiting family members, which even caused severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Overall, the asymptomatic carriers identified from close contacts were prone to be mildly ill during hospitalization. However, the communicable period could be up to three weeks and the communicated patients could develop severe illness. These results highlighted the importance of close contact tracing and longitudinally surveillance via virus nucleic acid tests. Further isolation recommendation and continuous nucleic acid tests may also be recommended to the patients discharged.

Project description:IntroductionRapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) were evaluated, in this paper, for their utility as a reliable test, using resource-constrained studies. In most studies, NS1 antigen and immunoglobulin M (IgM)-based immunochromatographic tests (ICTs) were considered for acute phase detection. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of NS1, IgM, and NS1/IgM-based ICTs to detect acute dengue virus (DENV) infection in dengue-endemic regions.MethodsStudies were electronically identified using the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL Plus. Keywords including dengue, rapid diagnostic test, immunochromatography, sensitivity, specificity, and diagnosis were applied across databases. In total, 15 studies were included. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the QUADAS-2 tool. All statistical analyses were conducted using RevMan, MedCalc, and SPSS software.ResultsThe studies revealed a total of 4135 individuals, originating largely from the Americas and Asia. The prevalence of DENV cases was 53.8%. Pooled sensitivities vs. specificities for NS1 (only), IgM (only) and combined NS1/IgM were 70.97% vs. 94.73%, 40.32% vs. 93.01%, and 78.62% vs. 88.47%, respectively. Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of DENV for NS1 ICTs was 43.95 (95% CI: 36.61-52.78), for IgM only ICTs was 8.99 (95% CI: 7.25-11.16), and for NS1/IgM ICTs was 28.22 (95% CI: 24.18-32.95). ELISA ICTs yielded a DOR of 21.36, 95% CI: 17.08-26.741. RT-PCR had a DOR of 40.43, 95% CI: 23.3-71.2. Heterogeneity tests for subgroup analysis by ICT manufacturers for NS1 ICTs revealed an χ2 finding of 158.818 (df = 8), p < 0.001, whereas for IgM ICTs, the χ2 finding was 21.698 (df = 5), p < 0.001.ConclusionNS1-based ICTs had the highest diagnostic accuracy in acute phases of DENV infection. Certain factors influenced the pooled sensitivity, including ICT manufacturers, nature of the infection, reference method (RT-PCR), and serotypes. Prospective studies may examine the best strategy for incorporating ICTs for dengue diagnosis.

Project description:BackgroundOverall accuracy measures of medical tests are often used with unclear interpretations.ObjectivesTo develop methods of calculating the overall accuracy of medical tests in the patient population.MethodsAlgebraic equations based on Bayes' theorem.ResultsA new approach is proposed for calculating overall accuracy in the patient population. Examples and applications using published data are presented.ConclusionsThe overall accuracy is the proportion of the correct test results. We introduce a clear distinction between the overall accuracy measures of medical tests that are aimed at the detection of a disease in a screening of populations for public health purposes in the general population and the overall accuracy measures of tests aimed at determining a diagnosis in individuals in a clinical setting. We show that the overall detection accuracy measure is obtained in a specific study that explores test accuracy among persons with known diagnoses and may be useful for public health screening tests. It is different from the overall diagnostic accuracy that could be calculated in the clinical setting for the evaluation of medical tests aimed at determining the individual patients' diagnoses. We show that the overall detection accuracy is constant and is not affected by the prevalence of the disease. In contrast, the overall diagnostic accuracy changes and is dependent on the prevalence. Moreover, it ranges according to the ratio between the sensitivity and specificity. Thus, when the sensitivity is greater than the specificity, the overall diagnostic accuracy increases with increasing prevalence, and vice versa, that is, when the sensitivity is lower than the specificity, the overall diagnostic accuracy decreases with increasing prevalence so that another test might be more useful for diagnostic procedures. Our paper suggests a new and more appropriate methodology for estimating the overall diagnostic accuracy of any medical test. This may be important for helping clinicians avoid errors.

Project description:BackgroundRapid point-of-care tests provide plausible diagnostic strategy for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) in low resource areas. However, their utility depends upon their overall performance. Our objective was to meta-analyze the diagnostic accuracy of rapid point-of-care tests for HBsAg.MethodsLiterature search was done with the help of a metasearch engine Mett?, a query interface for retrieving articles from five leading medical databases. Studies that employed rapid point-of-care tests for detection of HBsAg and compared the results with reference test were included. Two reviewers performed quality assessment of the studies and extracted data for estimating test accuracy. Twenty-seven studies were meta-analyzed and stratified by multiple parameters.ResultsTwenty-seven studies had evaluated 49 test brands and generated 76 data points. Sensitivity of individual tests varied widely and were heterogeneous (range 43.5%-99.8%); while specificity estimates were more robust and close to 100% (range 90%-100%). Overall pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR), negative LR and diagnostic odds ratio for all tests were 97.1% (95% CI, 96.1%-97.9%), 99.9% (CI, 99.8%-100%), 118.4 (CI, 84.7-165.5), 0.032 (CI, 0.023-0.045) and 4094.7 (CI, 2504.1-6600.8) respectively. This suggested high pooled accuracy for all studies. We found substantial heterogeneity between studies. Three factors (study location, reference standard and study score) appeared most strongly associated with test estimates and observed heterogeneity. The Determine test showed consistency in performance in studies done across developed and developing countries and the Determine and the BinaxNOW tests had significantly higher estimates than pooled estimates of remaining tests. Tests revealed analytical sensitivity of 4 IU/ml against manufacturer's claim of 0.5 IU/ml; reduced sensitivity with HBsAg mutants and poor performance in seroconversion panels.ConclusionsTests with better analytical sensitivity need to be developed and their feasibility and outcomes in various clinical settings need to be addressed.