Dataset Information

Field evaluation of the performance of seven Antigen Rapid diagnostic tests for the diagnosis of SARs-CoV-2 virus infection in Uganda.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of seven antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag RDTs) in a clinical setting to identify those that could be recommended for use in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Uganda.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional prospective study. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected consecutively from COVID-19 PCR positive and COVID-19 PCR negative participants at isolation centers and points of entry, and tested with the SARS-CoV-2 Ag RDTs. Test sensitivity and specificity were generated by comparing results against qRT-PCR results (Berlin Protocol) at a cycle threshold (Ct) cut-off of ≤39. Sensitivity was also calculated at Ct cut-offs ≤29 and ≤33.

Results

None of the Ag RDTs had a sensitivity of ≥80% at Ct cut-off values ≤33 and ≤39. Two kits, Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag and VivaDiag™ SARS-CoV-2 Ag had a sensitivity of ≥80% at a Ct cut-off value of ≤29. Four kits: BIOCREDIT COVID -19 Ag, COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip, MEDsan® SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test and Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test had a specificity of ≥97%.

Conclusions

This evaluation identified one Ag RDT, Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag with a performance at high viral load (Ct value ≤29) reaching that recommended by WHO. This kit was recommended for screening of patients with COVID -19-like symptoms presenting at health facilities.

SUBMITTER: Bwogi J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9089886 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Field evaluation of the performance of seven Antigen Rapid diagnostic tests for the diagnosis of SARs-CoV-2 virus infection in Uganda.

Bwogi Josephine J Lutalo Tom T Tushabe Phionah P Bukenya Henry H Eliku James Peter JP Ssewanyana Isaac I Nabadda Susan S Nsereko Christopher C Cotten Matthew M Downing Robert R Lutwama Julius J Kaleebu Pontiano P

PloS one 20220510 5

<h4>Objective</h4>The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of seven antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag RDTs) in a clinical setting to identify those that could be recommended for use in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Uganda.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a cross-sectional prospective study. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected consecutively from COVID-19 PCR positive and COVID-19 PCR negative participants at isolation centers and points of entry, and tested with the SARS-Co ...[more]

PMID: 35536792

Similar Datasets

Project description:The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, which started in December 2019, has been posing significant challenges to the health care system worldwide. As the pandemic spreads with rapidly increasing number of positive cases, early diagnosis of infected patients is crucial to successfully limit the spread of the virus. Although the real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is the recommended laboratory method to diagnose COVID-19 infection, many factors such as availability of laboratory equipment, reagents and trained personnel affect the use of time-consuming molecular techniques. To facilitate on-the-spot diagnosis of COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests were developed by several different manufacturers. The evaluation of such rapid tests is particularly important due to the recent unanimous agreement by the European Commission Member States on a recommendation setting out a framework for the use of antigen rapid tests that contains a list of the mutually recognized assays and the basis of independent validation protocols. To evaluate the on-field performance of ten commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid tests (CLINITEST Rapid COVID-19 Antigen Test, GenBody COVID-19 Antigen Test, GENEDIA W COVID-19 Ag Test, Healgen Coronavirus Antigen Rapid Test, Humasis COVID-19 Ag Test, VivaDiag SARS-CoV-2 Ag Rapid Test, Helix i-SARS-CoV-2 Ag Rapid Test, Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test, Abbot COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test and Vazyme SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection Kit) and compare with RT-qPCR as a reference method, the Hungarian National Public Health Center provided 1,597 antigen rapid tests to the National Ambulance Service, COVID-testing trucks and two hospitals treating COVID-19 patients. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were determined by performing the rapid test directly from nasopharyngeal swab samples of symptomatic individuals. For strongly positive samples (Ct < 25) sensitivities ranged between 66.7% and 100%, while for positive samples (Ct < 30) they gave a maximum sensitivity of 87.5%. The specificity of the tests was ranging between 79% to 100%. The results presented here are of high importance to the European Commission and also help governmental decision-making regarding the application of the proper rapid tests for screening different at-risk populations. Nonetheless, SARS-Cov-2 rapid tests play an important role in early and on-the-spot diagnosis of potentially infected individuals.

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:BackgroundAn ultrasensitive malaria rapid diagnostic test (RDT) was recently developed for the improved detection of low-density Plasmodium falciparum infections. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of the PfHRP2-based Abbott Malaria Ag P. falciparum ultrasensitive RDT (uRDT) to that of the conventional SD-Bioline Malaria Ag P. falciparum RDT (cRDT) when performed under field conditions.MethodsFinger-prick blood samples were collected from adults and children in two cross-sectional surveys in May of 2017 in southern Mozambique. Using real-time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) as the reference method, the age-specific diagnostic performance indicators of the cRDT and uRDT were compared. The presence of histidine-rich protein 2 (HRP2) and Plasmodium lactate dehydrogenase (pLDH) antigens was evaluated in a subset from dried blood spots by a quantitative antigen assay. pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 gene deletions were assessed in samples positive by RT-qPCR and negative by both RDTs.ResultsAmong the 4,396 participants with complete test results, the sensitivity of uRDTs (68.2; 95% CI 60.8 to 74.9) was marginally better than that of cRDTs (61.5; 95% CI 53.9 to 68.6) (p-value = 0.004), while the specificities were similar (uRDT: 99.0 [95% CI 98.6 to 99.2], cRDT: 99.2 [95% CI 98.9 to 99.4], p-value = 0.02). While the performance of both RDTs was lowest in ≥ 15-year-olds, driven by the higher prevalence of low parasite density infections in this group, the sensitivity of uRDTs was significantly higher in this age group (54.9, 95% CI 40.3 to 68.9) compared to the sensitivity of cRDTs (39.2, 95% CI 25.8 to 53.9) (p-value = 0.008). Both RDTs detected P. falciparum infections at similar geometric mean parasite densities (112.9 parasites/μL for uRDTs and 145.5 parasites/μL for cRDTs). The presence of HRP2 antigen was similar among false positive (FP) samples of both tests (80.5% among uRDT-FPs and 84.4% among cRDT-FPs). Only one false negative sample was detected with a partial pfhrp2 deletion.ConclusionThis study showed that the uRDTs developed by Abbott do not substantially outperform SD-Bioline Pf malaria RDTs in the community and are still not comparable to molecular methods to detect P. falciparum infections in this study setting.

Dataset Information

Field evaluation of the performance of seven Antigen Rapid diagnostic tests for the diagnosis of SARs-CoV-2 virus infection in Uganda.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Field evaluation of the performance of seven Antigen Rapid diagnostic tests for the diagnosis of SARs-CoV-2 virus infection in Uganda.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets