Molecular and antigen tests, and sample types for diagnosis of COVID-19: a review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zhang Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9248776 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The identification of viral RNA using reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is the gold standard for identifying an infection caused by SARS-CoV-2. The limitations of RT-qPCR such as requirement of expensive instruments, trained staff and laboratory facilities led to development of rapid antigen tests (RATs). The performance of RATs has been widely evaluated and found to be varied in different settings. The present systematic review aims to evaluate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of the commercially available RATs. This review was registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021278105). Literature search was performed through PubMed, Embase and Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to search studies published up to 26 August 2021. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of RATs and subgroup analyses were calculated. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) was used to assess the risk of bias in each study. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of RATs were 70% (95% CI: 69-71) and 98% (95% CI: 98-98), respectively. In subgroup analyses, nasal swabs showed the highest sensitivity of 83% (95% CI: 80-86) followed by nasopharyngeal swabs 71% (95% CI: 70-72), throat swabs 69% (95% CI: 63-75) and saliva 68% (95% CI: 59-77). Samples from symptomatic patients showed a higher sensitivity of 82% (95% CI: 82-82) as compared to asymptomatic patients at 68% (95% CI: 65-71), while a cycle threshold (Ct) value ≤25 showed a higher sensitivity of 96% (95% CI: 95-97) as compared to higher Ct value. Although the sensitivity of RATs needs to be enhanced, it may still be a viable option in places where laboratory facilities are lacking for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease.
| S-EPMC8774565 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC8242635 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) using saliva specimens is fast, noninvasive, and suitable for SARS-CoV-2 self-testing, unlike nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) testing. We evaluated a novel Beanguard gargle (BG)-based virus collection method that can be applied to Ag-RDT as an alternative to the current RT-PCR with an NPS for early diagnosis of COVID-19. This clinical trial comprised 102 COVID-19-positive patients hospitalized after a governmental screening process and 100 healthy individuals. Paired NPS and BG-based saliva specimens from COVID-19 patients and healthy individuals were analyzed using NPS-RT-PCR, BG-RT-PCR, and BG-Ag-RDTs, whose diagnostic performance for detecting SARS-CoV-2 was compared. BG-Ag-RDTs showed high sensitivity (97.8%) and specificity (100%) in 45 patients within 6 days of illness and detected all cases of SARS-CoV-2 Alpha and Delta variants. In 11 asymptomatic active COVID-19 cases, both BG-Ag-RDTs and BG-RT-PCR showed sensitivities and specificities of 100%. Sensitivities of BG-Ag-RDT and BG-RT-PCR toward salivary viral detection were highly concordant, with no discrimination between symptomatic (97.0%), asymptomatic (100%), or SARS-CoV-2 variant (100%) cases. The intermolecular interactions between SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins and truncated canavalin, an active ingredient from the bean extract (BE), were observed in terms of physicochemical properties. The detachment of the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain from hACE2 increased as the BE concentration increased, allowing the release of the virus from hACE2 for early diagnosis. Using BG-based saliva specimens remarkably enhances the Ag-RDT diagnostic performance as an alternative to NPS and enables noninvasive, rapid, and accurate COVID-19 self-testing and mass screening, supporting efficient COVID-19 management. IMPORTANCE An Ag-RDT is less likely to be accepted as an initial test method for early diagnosis owing to its low sensitivity. However, our self-collection method, Ag-RDT using BG-based saliva specimens, showed significantly enhanced detection sensitivity and specificity toward SARS-CoV-2 including the Alpha and Delta variants in all patients tested within 6 days of illness. The method represents an attractive alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs for the early diagnosis of symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID-19 cases. The evidence suggests that the method could have a potential for mass screening and monitoring of COVID-19 cases.
| S-EPMC8849053 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (diagnostic). The objectives are as follows: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of laboratory real‐time polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) and other laboratory molecular tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in secondary care has SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of each rapid PCR and antigen test to determine if a person presenting in the community or in secondary care has SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of each antibody test to determine if a person presenting in the community or in secondary care has SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, or has previously had SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in the community, general practice, or at the emergency department has SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, COVID‐19 pneumonia, or severe COVID‐19 pneumonia/ARDS requiring hospital admission. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of routine laboratory testing to determine if a person has COVID‐19 pneumonia or SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Secondary objectives Where data are available, for reviews #1 to #5, we will investigate the accuracy (either by stratified analysis or meta‐regression) according to: laboratory method, days of symptoms, severity of symptoms, reference standard, sample type, study design, setting; test brand and version, days of symptoms, severity of symptoms, reference standard, sample type, study design, setting; current infection or past infection, test brand and version, days of symptoms or days since symptoms resolved, reference standard, study design, setting; days of symptoms, reference standard, study design, setting; specific measurement or biomarker, days of symptoms, severity of symptoms, reference standard, sample type, study design, setting.
| S-EPMC7197648 | biostudies-literature
Project description:WHO recommends a minimum of 80% sensitivity and 97% specificity for antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs), which can be used for patients with symptoms consistent with COVID-19. However, after the acute phase when viral load decreases, use of Ag-RDTs might lead to high rates of false negatives, suggesting that the tests should be replaced by a combination of molecular and serological tests. When the likelihood of having COVID-19 is low, such as for asymptomatic individuals in low prevalence settings, for travel, return to schools, workplaces, and mass gatherings, Ag-RDTs with high negative predictive values can be used with confidence to rule out infection. For those who test positive in low prevalence settings, the high false positive rate means that mitigation strategies, such as molecular testing to confirm positive results, are needed. Ag-RDTs, when used appropriately, are promising tools for scaling up testing and ensuring that patient management and public health measures can be implemented without delay.
| S-EPMC7906660 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Self-testing is an effective tool to bridge the testing gap for several infectious diseases; however, its performance in detecting SARS-CoV-2 using antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) has not been systematically reviewed. This study aimed to inform WHO guidelines by evaluating the accuracy of COVID-19 self-testing and self-sampling coupled with professional Ag-RDT conduct and interpretation. Articles on this topic were searched until November 7th, 2022. Concordance between self-testing/self-sampling and fully professional-use Ag-RDTs was assessed using Cohen's kappa. Bivariate meta-analysis yielded pooled performance estimates. Quality and certainty of evidence were evaluated using QUADAS-2 and GRADE tools. Among 43 studies included, twelve reported on self-testing, and 31 assessed self-sampling only. Around 49.6% showed low risk of bias. Overall concordance with professional-use Ag-RDTs was high (kappa 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88-0.94]). Comparing self-testing/self-sampling to molecular testing, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 70.5% (95% CI 64.3-76.0) and 99.4% (95% CI 99.1-99.6), respectively. Higher sensitivity (i.e., 93.6% [95% CI 90.4-96.8] for Ct < 25) was estimated in subgroups with higher viral loads using Ct values as a proxy. Despite high heterogeneity among studies, COVID-19 self-testing/self-sampling exhibits high concordance with professional-use Ag-RDTs. This suggests that self-testing/self-sampling can be offered as part of COVID-19 testing strategies.Trial registration: PROSPERO: CRD42021250706.
| S-EPMC10713601 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Antigen detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) used for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleocapsid protein are inexpensive, faster and easy to use alternative of Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT) for diagnosis of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the diagnostic accuracy of Ag-RDTs in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). We included studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of Ag-RDTs (sensitivity and specificity) against reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as a reference standard. The study population comprised of people living in LMICs irrespective of age and gender, who had undergone testing for COVID-19. We included peer reviewed prospective or retrospective cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, case control studies, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) as well as non-randomized experimental studies which addressed the review question. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar to identify studies published between 1 January, 2020 and 15 August, 2021. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 tool was used to assess the methodological quality of studies. The analysis was done using Review Manager 5.4 and R software 4.0.2. From the total of 12 diagnostic accuracy studies with 4,817 study participants, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 78.2% and 99.5% respectively. Sensitivity was marginally higher in subgroup analysis based on studies with low risk of bias and applicability concerns (78.9%) and studies using SD Biosensor Ag-RDT (79.4%). However, an inverse relation between cycle threshold (Ct) and sensitivity of Ag-RDT was not seen. The review demonstrated pooled sensitivity value approaching the minimum performance requirement for diagnosis of COVID-19 by WHO with specificity value meeting the specified requirement. Ag-RDTs, therefore have the potential to be used as a screening tool for SARS-CoV-2 detection in low resource settings where RT-PCR might not be readily accessible. However, false negative results need to be interpreted with caution.
| S-EPMC10021667 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Physicians taking care of patients with COVID-19 have described different changes in routine blood parameters. However, these changes hinder them from performing COVID-19 diagnoses. We constructed a machine learning model for COVID-19 diagnosis that was based and cross-validated on the routine blood tests of 5333 patients with various bacterial and viral infections, and 160 COVID-19-positive patients. We selected the operational ROC point at a sensitivity of 81.9% and a specificity of 97.9%. The cross-validated AUC was 0.97. The five most useful routine blood parameters for COVID-19 diagnosis according to the feature importance scoring of the XGBoost algorithm were: MCHC, eosinophil count, albumin, INR, and prothrombin activity percentage. t-SNE visualization showed that the blood parameters of the patients with a severe COVID-19 course are more like the parameters of a bacterial than a viral infection. The reported diagnostic accuracy is at least comparable and probably complementary to RT-PCR and chest CT studies. Patients with fever, cough, myalgia, and other symptoms can now have initial routine blood tests assessed by our diagnostic tool. All patients with a positive COVID-19 prediction would then undergo standard RT-PCR studies to confirm the diagnosis. We believe that our results represent a significant contribution to improvements in COVID-19 diagnosis.
| S-EPMC8144373 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe early detection of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection to improve disease management becomes the greatest challenge. Despite the high sensitivity of RT-PCR, not only it was reported that 20-67% of infected patients had false-negative results. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are widely used as a point-of-care test for SARS-CoV-2 detection in pharyngeal and blood specimens. It's more appealing since it's less time-consuming, doesn't seem to be as expensive, and doesn't need any specific training, but the poor sensitivity is the major limitation. Several reports indicated the rapid test of blood and pharyngeal samples has the same sensitivity as the RT-PCR, but some reports have lower sensitivity, especially in asymptomatic patients.MethodsIn the present survey, we investigate the eligible studies for the sensitivity and specificity of rapid tests and explore the factors that influence the result to help better diagnose COVID-19 infection. 20 studies met the inclusion criteria which imposed 33 different tests.ResultsOur findings showed the type of sample, the type of assay, the time of sampling, and the load of virus influence on the sensitivity of RDTs.ConclusionThis research extends our knowledge of how to improve the sensitivity of RDTs to better diagnose the infected patients to address the controlling COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC9005339 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Appropriate isolation guidelines for COVID-19 patients are warranted. Currently, isolating for fixed time is adopted in most countries. However, given the variability in viral dynamics between patients, some patients may no longer be infectious by the end of isolation, whereas others may still be infectious. Utilizing viral test results to determine isolation length would minimize both the risk of prematurely ending isolation of infectious patients and the unnecessary individual burden of redundant isolation of noninfectious patients. In this study, we develop a data-driven computational framework to compute the population-level risk and the burden of different isolation guidelines with rapid antigen tests (i.e., lateral flow tests). Here, we show that when the detection limit is higher than the infectiousness threshold values, additional consecutive negative results are needed to ascertain infectiousness status. Further, rapid antigen tests should be designed to have lower detection limits than infectiousness threshold values to minimize the length of prolonged isolation. Utilizing viral test results to determine isolation length would minimize both the risk of prematurely ending isolation of infectious patients and the unnecessary individual burden of redundant isolation of noninfectious patients. Here, the authors develop a framework to compute the population-level risk of different isolation guidelines with rapid antigen tests.
| S-EPMC9392070 | biostudies-literature