Dataset Information

Diagnostic performance and clinical implications of rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing in Mexico using real-world nationwide COVID-19 registry data.

ABSTRACT:

Background

SARS-CoV-2 testing capacity is important to monitor epidemic dynamics and as a mitigation strategy. Given difficulties of large-scale quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) implementation, rapid antigen tests (Rapid Ag-T) have been proposed as alternatives in settings like Mexico. Here, we evaluated diagnostic performance of Rapid Ag-T for SARS-CoV-2 infection and its associated clinical implications compared to qRT-PCR testing in Mexico.

Methods

We analyzed data from the COVID-19 registry of the Mexican General Directorate of Epidemiology up to April 30th, 2021 (n = 6,632,938) and cases with both qRT-PCR and Rapid Ag-T (n = 216,388). We evaluated diagnostic performance using accuracy measures and assessed time-dependent changes in the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC). We also explored test discordances as predictors of hospitalization, intubation, severe COVID-19 and mortality.

Results

Rapid Ag-T is primarily used in Mexico City. Rapid Ag-T have low sensitivity 37.6% (95%CI 36.6-38.7), high specificity 95.5% (95%CI 95.1-95.8) and acceptable positive 86.1% (95%CI 85.0-86.6) and negative predictive values 67.2% (95%CI 66.2-69.2). Rapid Ag-T has optimal diagnostic performance up to days 3 after symptom onset, and its performance is modified by testing location, comorbidity, and age. qRT-PCR (-) / Rapid Ag-T (+) cases had higher risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes (HR 1.54 95% CI 1.41-1.68) and were older, qRT-PCR (+)/ Rapid Ag-T(-) cases had slightly higher risk or adverse outcomes and ≥7 days from symptom onset (HR 1.53 95% CI 1.48-1.59). Cases detected with rapid Ag-T were younger, without comorbidities, and milder COVID-19 course.

Conclusions

Rapid Ag-T could be used as an alternative to qRT-PCR for large scale SARS-CoV-2 testing in Mexico. Interpretation of Rapid Ag-T results should be done with caution to minimize the risk associated with false negative results.

SUBMITTER: Bello-Chavolla OY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8407542 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Real-world data are needed to establish SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing (RAT) as an effective and reliable approach for SARS-CoV-2 screening. This study included 1,952,931 individuals who provided upper respiratory specimens during SARS-CoV-2 screening at CityMD urgent care locations in the New York metropolitan area from October 2020 to March 2021. Positive and negative results, as determined by the BD Veritor™ System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Veritor), were obtained for all individuals, with reflex reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing performed on a case-by-case basis, per standard of care. Using verification bias adjustment, two alternative model assumptions were utilized for RAT results with missing reflex RT-PCR results. The worst antigen diagnostic performance estimates asserted that missing RT-PCR results would show a distribution similar to those RT-PCR results actually obtained, based on symptom category. The best antigen diagnostic performance estimates asserted that individuals without RT-PCR results had a clinical presentation consistent with RAT results, and, therefore, missing RT-PCR results would agree with RAT results. For patients with symptoms or high-risk exposure, 25.3% (n = 86,811/343,253) of RAT results were positive; vs. 3.4% (n = 53,046/1,559,733) positive for asymptomatic individuals without high-risk exposure. Reflex RT-PCR results were obtained from 46.3% (n = 158,836/343,253) and 13.8% (n = 215,708/1,559,733) of symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, respectively. RT-PCR confirmed 94.4% (4,265/4,518) of positive and 90.6% (139,759/154,318) of negative RAT results in symptomatic individuals; and confirmed 83.4% (6,693/8,024) of positive and 95.3% (197,955/207,684) of negative RAT results in asymptomatic individuals. Applied assumptions for missing reflex RT-PCR results led to worst performance sensitivity estimates of 77.2 and 38.5% in the symptomatic and asymptomatic populations, respectively; assumptions for best performance estimates led to sensitivity values of 85.6 and 84.2%, respectively. Specificity values, regardless of assumptions or symptom category, ranged from 97.9-99.9%. At 10% SARS-CoV-2 prevalence, RAT positive predictive value was 86.9 and 99.0% for worst and best performance estimates across the total population, respectively; negative predictive values were >95% regardless of the applied assumption. Veritor test performance was consistent with that listed in the manufacturer instructions for use for symptomatic individuals. Real-world evidence should be gathered on RATs to support their efficacy as SARS-CoV-2 persists.

Project description:BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends parasitological confirmation of all malaria cases. Tanzania is implementing a phased rollout of malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for routine use in all levels of care as one strategy to increase parasitological confirmation of malaria diagnosis. This study was carried out to evaluated artemisinin combination therapy (ACT) prescribing patterns in febrile patients with and without uncomplicated malaria in one pre-RDT implementation and one post-RDT implementation area. METHODS: A cross-sectional health facility surveys was conducted during high and low malaria transmission seasons in 2010 in both areas. Clinical information and a reference blood film on all patients presenting for an initial illness consultation were collected. Malaria was defined as a history of fever in the past 48 h and microscopically confirmed parasitaemia. Routine diagnostic testing was defined as RDT or microscopy ordered by the health worker and performed at the health facility as part of the health worker-patient consultation. Correct diagnostic testing was defined as febrile patient tested with RDT or microscopy. Over-testing was defined as a non-febrile patient tested with RDT or microscopy. Correct treatment was defined as patient with malaria prescribed ACT. Over-treatment was defined as patient without malaria prescribed ACT. RESULTS: A total of 1,247 febrile patients (627 from pre-implementation area and 620 from post-implementation area) were included in the analysis. In the post-RDT implementation area, 80.9% (95% CI, 68.2-89.3) of patients with malaria received recommended treatment with ACT compared to 70.3% (95% CI, 54.7-82.2) of patients in the pre-RDT implementation area. Correct treatment was significantly higher in the post-implementation area during high transmission season (85.9% (95% CI, 72.0-93.6) compared to 58.3% (95% CI, 39.4-75.1) in pre-implementation area (p?=?0.01). Over-treatment with ACT of patients without malaria was less common in the post-RDT implementation area (20.9%; 95% CI, 14.7-28.8) compared to the pre-RDT implementation area (45.8%; 95% CI, 37.2-54.6) (p?<?0.01) in high transmission. The odds of overtreatment was significantly lower in post- RDT area (adjusted Odds Ratio (OR: 95% CI) 0.57(0.36-0.89); and much higher with clinical diagnosis adjusted OR (95% CI) 2.24(1.37-3.67) CONCLUSION: Implementation of RDTs increased use of RDTs for parasitological confirmation and reduced over-treatment with ACT during high malaria transmission season in one area in Tanzania. Continued monitoring of the national RDT rollout will be needed to assess whether these changes in case management practices will be replicated in other areas and sustained over time. Additional measures (such as refresher trainings, closer supervisions, etc.) may be needed to improve ACT targeting during low transmission seasons.