Cargando…

Should rapid antigen tests be first-line for COVID-19 testing? Results of a prospective urban cohort study

BACKGROUND: A highly accurate, rapid, and low-cost COVID-19 test is essential for guiding isolation measures. To date, the most widely used tests are either nucleic acid amplification tests or antigen tests. The objective of this study is to further assess the diagnostic performance of the Binax-CoV...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hassoun, Mohamad Rani, Kudlapur, Nathan T., Chen, Grace M., Green-Ross, Jenna, Patel, Ashlesha
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10111331/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37072695
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-023-08171-6
_version_ 1785027431902478336
author Hassoun, Mohamad Rani
Kudlapur, Nathan T.
Chen, Grace M.
Green-Ross, Jenna
Patel, Ashlesha
author_facet Hassoun, Mohamad Rani
Kudlapur, Nathan T.
Chen, Grace M.
Green-Ross, Jenna
Patel, Ashlesha
author_sort Hassoun, Mohamad Rani
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A highly accurate, rapid, and low-cost COVID-19 test is essential for guiding isolation measures. To date, the most widely used tests are either nucleic acid amplification tests or antigen tests. The objective of this study is to further assess the diagnostic performance of the Binax-CoV2 rapid antigen test in comparison to the current gold standard reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), with additional analysis of symptomatology and cycle threshold utility. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study performed between November and December 2020. Individuals who presented to COVID-19 testing events and received both RT-qPCR and a rapid antigent test were included. Testing occurred at the emergency department of an urban hospital and at a community mobile unit. No fees or appointments were required. Individuals self-reported the presence or absence of symptoms and history of positive COVID-19 test within the previous two weeks. Trained staff collected two subsequent nasopharyngeal swabs of both nares. One set of swabs underwent RT-qPCR and the other underwent Binax-CoV2 assay per manufacturer guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 390 patients were included, of which 302 were from the community site. Of these 302, 42 (14%) were RT-qPCR positive. Of the 42 RT-qPCR positive, 30 (71.4%) were also positive by Binax-CoV2. The Binax-CoV2 test had a sensitivity of 71.4% (95% CI: 55%–84%) and a specificity of 99.6% (95% CI: 98%–100%) in this population. Performance of the Binax-CoV2 test performed better in individuals with higher viral load. For symptomatic patients with cycle threshold < 20, sensitivity reached 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The Binax-CoV2 assay’s specificity and sensitivity in individuals with high viral load makes it a suitable first-line test for detecting COVID-19. However, given the assay’s measured sensitivity, a negative result on the Binax-CoV2 assay may warrant additional testing with more sensitive tests, such as the RT-qPCR. This is particularly the case with high clinical suspicion for an active SARS-CoV-2 infection even after a negative Binax-CoV2 result.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10111331
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101113312023-04-20 Should rapid antigen tests be first-line for COVID-19 testing? Results of a prospective urban cohort study Hassoun, Mohamad Rani Kudlapur, Nathan T. Chen, Grace M. Green-Ross, Jenna Patel, Ashlesha BMC Infect Dis Research BACKGROUND: A highly accurate, rapid, and low-cost COVID-19 test is essential for guiding isolation measures. To date, the most widely used tests are either nucleic acid amplification tests or antigen tests. The objective of this study is to further assess the diagnostic performance of the Binax-CoV2 rapid antigen test in comparison to the current gold standard reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), with additional analysis of symptomatology and cycle threshold utility. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study performed between November and December 2020. Individuals who presented to COVID-19 testing events and received both RT-qPCR and a rapid antigent test were included. Testing occurred at the emergency department of an urban hospital and at a community mobile unit. No fees or appointments were required. Individuals self-reported the presence or absence of symptoms and history of positive COVID-19 test within the previous two weeks. Trained staff collected two subsequent nasopharyngeal swabs of both nares. One set of swabs underwent RT-qPCR and the other underwent Binax-CoV2 assay per manufacturer guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 390 patients were included, of which 302 were from the community site. Of these 302, 42 (14%) were RT-qPCR positive. Of the 42 RT-qPCR positive, 30 (71.4%) were also positive by Binax-CoV2. The Binax-CoV2 test had a sensitivity of 71.4% (95% CI: 55%–84%) and a specificity of 99.6% (95% CI: 98%–100%) in this population. Performance of the Binax-CoV2 test performed better in individuals with higher viral load. For symptomatic patients with cycle threshold < 20, sensitivity reached 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The Binax-CoV2 assay’s specificity and sensitivity in individuals with high viral load makes it a suitable first-line test for detecting COVID-19. However, given the assay’s measured sensitivity, a negative result on the Binax-CoV2 assay may warrant additional testing with more sensitive tests, such as the RT-qPCR. This is particularly the case with high clinical suspicion for an active SARS-CoV-2 infection even after a negative Binax-CoV2 result. BioMed Central 2023-04-18 /pmc/articles/PMC10111331/ /pubmed/37072695 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-023-08171-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Hassoun, Mohamad Rani
Kudlapur, Nathan T.
Chen, Grace M.
Green-Ross, Jenna
Patel, Ashlesha
Should rapid antigen tests be first-line for COVID-19 testing? Results of a prospective urban cohort study
title Should rapid antigen tests be first-line for COVID-19 testing? Results of a prospective urban cohort study
title_full Should rapid antigen tests be first-line for COVID-19 testing? Results of a prospective urban cohort study
title_fullStr Should rapid antigen tests be first-line for COVID-19 testing? Results of a prospective urban cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Should rapid antigen tests be first-line for COVID-19 testing? Results of a prospective urban cohort study
title_short Should rapid antigen tests be first-line for COVID-19 testing? Results of a prospective urban cohort study
title_sort should rapid antigen tests be first-line for covid-19 testing? results of a prospective urban cohort study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10111331/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37072695
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-023-08171-6
work_keys_str_mv AT hassounmohamadrani shouldrapidantigentestsbefirstlineforcovid19testingresultsofaprospectiveurbancohortstudy
AT kudlapurnathant shouldrapidantigentestsbefirstlineforcovid19testingresultsofaprospectiveurbancohortstudy
AT chengracem shouldrapidantigentestsbefirstlineforcovid19testingresultsofaprospectiveurbancohortstudy
AT greenrossjenna shouldrapidantigentestsbefirstlineforcovid19testingresultsofaprospectiveurbancohortstudy
AT patelashlesha shouldrapidantigentestsbefirstlineforcovid19testingresultsofaprospectiveurbancohortstudy