Diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 saliva antigen testing in a real-life clinical setting.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests with saliva facilitate examination in settings that lack trained personnel. However, little is known about the diagnostic accuracy in real-life clinical settings. Therefore, we studied the diagnostic accuracy of a saliva antigen test in diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection in a primary/secondary care testing facility.Methods
Individuals who presented at a COVID-19 testing facility affiliated with a Swiss university hospital were prospectively recruited (n=377). Saliva specimen was obtained, and the PCL Inc. COVID19 Gold antigen test was conducted in parallel with 2 real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays from a nasopharyngeal swab.Results
RT-PCR results were positive in 53 individuals, corresponding to a prevalence of 14.1% (missing material in 1 individual). The PCL saliva antigen test was positive in 22 individuals (5.8%) and negative in 354 (93.9%). The sensitivity of the saliva antigen test was 30.2% (95% confidence interval 18.3, 44.3), both overall and in symptomatic individuals. The specificity was 98.1% (96.0, 99.3).Conclusions
The diagnostic accuracy of a SARS-CoV-2 saliva antigen test in a primary/secondary care testing facility was remarkably lower than that reported in the manufacturer's specifications.
SUBMITTER: Jegerlehner S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8964446 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Naso-pharyngeal RT-PCR is the gold standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19, but there is a need for rapid and reliable tests. Some validation studies have used frozen aliquots mainly from adults. The aim of this real-life study was to test the performance of a SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test (SC2-RAT) in children. Symptomatic patients aged 0 to 17 years were recruited in the emergency department of the University Hospital of Creteil and in primary care pediatric practices from October 10, 2020 for 7 weeks. Each enrolled child had a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test and a SC2-RAT from two distinct nasopharyngeal swabs. Among the 308 patients (mean [SD] age 4.9 [5.3] years), fever was the main symptom (73.4%), with no difference between COVID-19-negative and -positive groups. The prevalence of COVID-19 was 10.7% (95% CI 7.5-14.7). On the whole cohort, the sensitivity and specificity of the SC2-RAT compared to RT-PCR was 87.9% (95% CI 71.8-96.6) and 98.5% (95% CI 96.3-99.6). Considering samples with cycle threshold >25, the sensibility was lower: 63.6% (95% CI 30.8-89.1) and the specificity 99.6% (95% CI 98.0-100.0). The mean delay to obtain an SC2-RAT result was <15 min but was 3.2 h (SD 5.5) for an RT-PCR result. Contact with a COVID-19-positive person was more frequent for COVID-19-positive than -negative patients (n = 21, 61.6%, vs. n = 64, 24.6%; p < 0.01). In real life, SC2-RAT seems reliable for symptomatic children, allowing to detect contagious children.
| S-EPMC8321236 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundQuantitative RT-PCR (RT-qPCR) of nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection requires medical personnel and is time consuming, and thus is poorly suited to mass screening. In June, 2020, a chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLEIA; Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag kit, Fujirebio, Tokyo, Japan) was developed that can detect SARS-CoV-2 nucleoproteins in NPS or saliva samples within 35 min. In this study, we assessed the utility of CLEIA in mass SARS-CoV-2 screening.MethodsWe did a diagnostic accuracy study to develop a mass-screening strategy for salivary detection of SARS-CoV-2 by CLEIA, enrolling hospitalised patients with clinically confirmed COVID-19, close contacts identified at community health centres, and asymptomatic international arrivals at two airports, all based in Japan. All test participants were enrolled consecutively. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of CLEIA compared with RT-qPCR, estimated according to concordance (Kendall's coefficient of concordance, W), and sensitivity (probability of CLEIA positivity given RT-qPCR positivity) and specificity (probability of CLEIA negativity given RT-qPCR negativity) for different antigen concentration cutoffs (0·19 pg/mL, 0·67 pg/mL, and 4·00 pg/mL; with samples considered positive if the antigen concentration was equal to or more than the cutoff and negative if it was less than the cutoff). We also assessed a two-step testing strategy post hoc with CLEIA as an initial test, using separate antigen cutoff values for test negativity and positivity from the predefined cutoff values. The proportion of intermediate results requiring secondary RT-qPCR was then quantified assuming prevalence values of RT-qPCR positivity in the overall tested population of 10%, 30%, and 50%.FindingsSelf-collected saliva was obtained from 2056 participants between June 12 and Aug 6, 2020. Results of CLEIA and RT-qPCR were concordant in 2020 (98·2%) samples (Kendall's W=0·99). Test sensitivity was 85·4% (76 of 89 positive samples; 90% credible interval [CrI] 78·0-90·3) at the cutoff of 0·19 pg/mL; 76·4% (68 of 89; 68·2-82·8) at the cutoff of 0·67 pg/mL; and 52·8% (47 of 89; 44·1-61·3) at the cutoff of 4·0 pg/mL. Test specificity was 91·3% (1796 of 1967 negative samples; 90% CrI 90·2-92·3) at the cutoff of 0·19 pg/mL, 99·2% (1952 of 1967; 98·8-99·5) at the cutoff of 0·67 pg/mL, and 100·0% (1967 of 1967; 99·8-100·0) at the cutoff of 4·00 pg/mL. Using a two-step testing strategy with a CLEIA negativity cutoff of 0·19 pg/mL (to maximise sensitivity) and a CLEIA positivity cutoff of 4·00 pg/mL (to maximise specificity), the proportions of indeterminate results (ie, samples requiring secondary RT-qPCR) would be approximately 11% assuming a prevalence of RT-qPCR positivity of 10%, 16% assuming a prevalence of RT-qPCR positivity of 30%, and 21% assuming a prevalence of RT-qPCR positivity of 50%.InterpretationCLEIA testing of self-collected saliva is simple and provides results quickly, and is thus suitable for mass testing. To improve accuracy, we propose a two-step screening strategy with an initial CLEIA test followed by confirmatory RT-qPCR for intermediate concentrations, varying positive and negative thresholds depending on local prevalence. Implementation of this strategy has expedited sample processing at Japanese airports since July, 2020, and might apply to other large-scale mass screening initiatives.FundingMinistry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan.
| S-EPMC8133768 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To safely re-open economies and prevent future outbreaks, rapid, frequent, point-of-need, SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing is necessary. However, existing field-deployable COVID-19 testing methods require the use of uncomfortable swabs and trained providers in PPE, while saliva-based methods must be transported to high complexity laboratories for testing. Here, we report the development and clinical validation of High-Performance Loop-mediated isothermal Amplification (HP-LAMP), a rapid, saliva-based, SARS-CoV-2 test with a limit of detection of 1.4 copies of virus per µl of saliva and a sensitivity and specificity with clinical samples of > 96%, on par with traditional RT-PCR based methods using swabs, but can deliver results using only a single fluid transfer step and simple heat block. Testing of 120 patient samples in 40 pools comprised of 5 patient samples each with either all negative or a single positive patient sample was 100% accurate. Thus, HP-LAMP may enable rapid and accurate results in the field using saliva, without need of a high-complexity laboratory.
| S-EPMC7943555 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConsidering the possibility of nasal self-sampling and the ease of use in performing SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs), self-testing is a feasible option.ObjectiveThe goal of this study was a head-to-head comparison of diagnostic accuracy of patient self-testing with professional testing using a SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT.Study designWe performed a manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study of nasal mid-turbinate self-sampling and self-testing with symptomatic adults using a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. Procedures were observed without intervention. For comparison, Ag-RDTs with nasopharyngeal sampling were professionally performed. Estimates of agreement, sensitivity, and specificity relative to RT-PCR on a combined oro-/nasopharyngeal sample were calculated. Feasibility was evaluated by observer and participant questionnaires.ResultsAmong 146 symptomatic adults, 40 (27.4%) were RT-PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2. Sensitivity with self-testing was 82.5% (33/40; 95% CI 68.1-91.3), and 85.0% (34/40; 95% CI 70.9-92.9) with professional testing. At high viral load (≥7.0 log10 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/ml), sensitivity was 96.6% (28/29; 95% CI 82.8-99.8) for both self- and professional testing. Deviations in sampling and testing were observed in 25 out of the 40 PCR-positives. Most participants (80.9%) considered the Ag-RDT as easy to perform.ConclusionLaypersons suspected for SARS-CoV-2 infection were able to reliably perform the Ag-RDT and test themselves. Procedural errors might be reduced by refinement of the instructions for use or the product design/procedures. Self-testing allows more wide-spread and frequent testing. Paired with the appropriate information of the public about the benefits and risks, self-testing may have significant impact on the pandemic.
| S-EPMC8163726 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Typing of diffuse gliomas according to the WHO 2016 Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System is based on the integration of histology with molecular biomarkers. However, the choice of appropriate methods for molecular analysis and criteria for interpretation of test results is left to each diagnostic laboratory. In the present study, we tested the applicability of combined immunohistochemistry, direct sequencing, and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) for diagnostic assessment of IDH1/2 mutation status, chromosome 1p/19q status, and TERT promoter mutations. To this end, we analyzed a consecutive series of 165 patients with diffuse low- and high-grade gliomas (WHO grade II and III) from three Austrian centers in which tissue specimens were routinely processed. We could reliably detect IDH1/2 mutations by combining immunohistochemistry, direct sequencing, and MLPA analysis. MLPA analysis also allowed reliable detection of combined whole chromosomal arm 1p/19q codeletion when using carefully selected criteria providing an optimal balance between sensitivity and specificity. Direct sequencing proved to be suitable for identification of TERT promoter mutations, although its analytical performance remains to be assessed. To conclude, we propose a practicable combination of methods and criteria which allow reliable molecular diagnostic testing of diffuse gliomas in the real-life setting.?.
| S-EPMC6102559 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We evaluated saliva (SAL) specimens for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing by comparison of 459 prospectively paired nasopharyngeal (NP) or mid-turbinate (MT) swabs from 449 individuals with the aim of using saliva for asymptomatic screening. Samples were collected in a drive-through car line for symptomatic individuals (N=380) and in the emergency department (ED) (N=69). The percent positive and negative agreement of saliva compared to nasopharyngeal swab were 81.1% (95% CI: 65.8% - 90.5%) and 99.8% (95% CI: 98.7% - 100%), respectively. The sensitivity increased to 90.0% (95% CI: 74.4% - 96.5%) when considering only samples with moderate to high viral load (Cycle threshold (Ct) for the NP <=34). Pools of five saliva specimens were also evaluated on three platforms: bioMérieux NucliSENS easyMAG with ABI 7500Fast (CDC assay), Hologic Panther Fusion, and Roche COBAS 6800. The median loss of signal upon pooling was 2-4 Ct values across the platforms. The sensitivity of detecting a positive specimen in a pool compared with testing individually was 100%, 93%, and 95% for CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR, Panther Fusion® SARS-CoV-2 assay, and cobas® SARS-CoV-2 test respectively, with decreased sample detection trending with lower viral load. We conclude that although pooled saliva testing, as collected in this study, is not quite as sensitive as NP/MT testing, saliva testing is adequate to detect individuals with higher viral loads in an asymptomatic screening program, does not require swabs or viral transport media for collection, and may help to improve voluntary screening compliance for those individuals averse to various forms of nasal collections.
| S-EPMC7553188 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We evaluated saliva (SAL) specimens for SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) testing by comparison of 459 prospectively paired nasopharyngeal (NP) or midturbinate (MT) swabs from 449 individuals with the aim of using saliva for asymptomatic screening. Samples were collected in a drive-through car line for symptomatic individuals (n = 380) and in the emergency department (ED) (n = 69). The percentages of positive and negative agreement of saliva compared to nasopharyngeal swab were 81.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.8% to 90.5%) and 99.8% (95% CI, 98.7% to 100%), respectively. The percent positive agreement increased to 90.0% (95% CI, 74.4% to 96.5%) when considering only samples with moderate to high viral load (cycle threshold [CT ] for the NP, ≤34). Pools of five saliva specimens were also evaluated on three platforms, bioMérieux NucliSENS easyMAG with ABI 7500Fast (CDC assay), Hologic Panther Fusion, and Roche Cobas 6800. The average loss of signal upon pooling was 2 to 3 CT values across the platforms. The sensitivities of detecting a positive specimen in a pool compared with testing individually were 94%, 90%, and 94% for the CDC 2019-nCoV real-time RT-PCR, Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assay, and Cobas SARS-CoV-2 test, respectively, with decreased sample detection trending with lower viral load. We conclude that although pooled saliva testing, as collected in this study, is not quite as sensitive as NP/MT testing, saliva testing is adequate to detect individuals with higher viral loads in an asymptomatic screening program, does not require swabs or viral transport medium for collection, and may help to improve voluntary screening compliance for those individuals averse to various forms of nasal collections.
| S-EPMC8106731 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Expanding testing capabilities is integral to managing the further spread of SARS-CoV-2 and developing reopening strategies, particularly in regards to identifying and isolating asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic individuals. Central to meeting testing demands are specimens that can be easily and reliably collected and laboratory capacity to rapidly ramp up to scale. We and others have demonstrated that high and consistent levels of SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be detected in saliva from COVID-19 inpatients, outpatients, and asymptomatic individuals. As saliva collection is non-invasive, extending this strategy to test pooled saliva samples from multiple individuals could thus provide a simple method to expand testing capacity. However, hesitation towards pooled sample testing arises due to the dilution of positive samples, potentially shifting weakly positive samples below the detection limit for SARS-CoV-2 and thereby decreasing the sensitivity. Here, we investigated the potential of pooling saliva samples by 5, 10, and 20 samples prior to RNA extraction and RT-qPCR detection of SARS-CoV-2. Based on samples tested, we conservatively estimated a reduction of 7.41%, 11.11%, and 14.81% sensitivity, for each of the pool sizes, respectively. Using these estimates we modeled anticipated changes in RT-qPCR cycle threshold to show the practical impact of pooling on results of SARS-CoV-2 testing. In tested populations with greater than 3% prevalence, testing samples in pools of 5 requires the least overall number of tests. Below 1% however, pools of 10 or 20 are more beneficial and likely more supportive of ongoing surveillance strategies.
| S-EPMC7480055 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSARS-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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsRapid 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.ConclusionsRapid 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.
| S-EPMC8407542 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We analyzed feasibility of pooling saliva samples for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 testing and found that sensitivity decreased according to pool size: 5 samples/pool, 7.4% reduction; 10 samples/pool, 11.1%; and 20 samples/pool, 14.8%. When virus prevalence is >2.6%, pools of 5 require fewer tests; when <0.6%, pools of 20 support screening strategies.
| S-EPMC8007323 | biostudies-literature