Cargando…
A systematic review comparing at-home diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2: Key points for pharmacy practice, including regulatory information
BACKGROUND: Home-based rapid diagnostic testing can play an integral role in controlling the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVES: This review aimed to identify and compare at-home diagnostic tests that have been granted Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) and convey details abo...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
American Pharmacists Association®. Published by Elsevier Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8196235/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34274214 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2021.06.012 |
_version_ | 1783706644392181760 |
---|---|
author | Kepczynski, Casey M. Genigeski, Jaelin A. Koski, Renee R. Bernknopf, Allison C. Konieczny, Alison M. Klepser, Michael E. |
author_facet | Kepczynski, Casey M. Genigeski, Jaelin A. Koski, Renee R. Bernknopf, Allison C. Konieczny, Alison M. Klepser, Michael E. |
author_sort | Kepczynski, Casey M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Home-based rapid diagnostic testing can play an integral role in controlling the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVES: This review aimed to identify and compare at-home diagnostic tests that have been granted Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) and convey details about COVID-19 diagnostic tests, including regulatory information, pertinent to pharmacy practice. METHODS: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) online resources pertaining to COVID-19 tests, EUAs, and medical devices were consulted, as were linked resources from FDA’s webpages. Homepages of the 9 COVID-19 home tests with EUAs were comprehensively reviewed. PubMed literature searches were performed, most recently in May 2021, to locate literature about the identified home tests, as were searches of Google Scholar, medRxiv, and bioRxiv. Studies were included if they were performed at home or if subjects self-tested at study sites. Samples were collected by a parent or guardian for patients under 18 years of age. Positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) for the clinical diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus was evaluated. RESULTS: Limited data have been published for these home tests given that they are available through EUAs that do not require clinical trials. Fifteen studies were located from searching the literature, but only 2 met the inclusion criteria. Review of the home tests’ websites yielded a single study for each test, with the 3 BinaxNOW platforms using the same study for their EUAs. The 9 COVID-19 home tests with EUAs as of May 7, 2021, include 3 molecular tests and 6 antigen tests. These tests had similar performance on the basis of PPA ranging from 83.5% to 97.4% and NPA ranging from 97% to 100%. CONCLUSION: The 9 SARS-CoV-2 home tests demonstrated satisfactory performance in comparison with laboratory real time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction tests. The convenience and ease of use of these tests make them well-suited for home-based rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8196235 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | American Pharmacists Association®. Published by Elsevier Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81962352021-06-15 A systematic review comparing at-home diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2: Key points for pharmacy practice, including regulatory information Kepczynski, Casey M. Genigeski, Jaelin A. Koski, Renee R. Bernknopf, Allison C. Konieczny, Alison M. Klepser, Michael E. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) Review BACKGROUND: Home-based rapid diagnostic testing can play an integral role in controlling the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVES: This review aimed to identify and compare at-home diagnostic tests that have been granted Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) and convey details about COVID-19 diagnostic tests, including regulatory information, pertinent to pharmacy practice. METHODS: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) online resources pertaining to COVID-19 tests, EUAs, and medical devices were consulted, as were linked resources from FDA’s webpages. Homepages of the 9 COVID-19 home tests with EUAs were comprehensively reviewed. PubMed literature searches were performed, most recently in May 2021, to locate literature about the identified home tests, as were searches of Google Scholar, medRxiv, and bioRxiv. Studies were included if they were performed at home or if subjects self-tested at study sites. Samples were collected by a parent or guardian for patients under 18 years of age. Positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) for the clinical diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus was evaluated. RESULTS: Limited data have been published for these home tests given that they are available through EUAs that do not require clinical trials. Fifteen studies were located from searching the literature, but only 2 met the inclusion criteria. Review of the home tests’ websites yielded a single study for each test, with the 3 BinaxNOW platforms using the same study for their EUAs. The 9 COVID-19 home tests with EUAs as of May 7, 2021, include 3 molecular tests and 6 antigen tests. These tests had similar performance on the basis of PPA ranging from 83.5% to 97.4% and NPA ranging from 97% to 100%. CONCLUSION: The 9 SARS-CoV-2 home tests demonstrated satisfactory performance in comparison with laboratory real time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction tests. The convenience and ease of use of these tests make them well-suited for home-based rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing. American Pharmacists Association®. Published by Elsevier Inc. 2021 2021-06-12 /pmc/articles/PMC8196235/ /pubmed/34274214 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2021.06.012 Text en © 2021 American Pharmacists Association®. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. |
spellingShingle | Review Kepczynski, Casey M. Genigeski, Jaelin A. Koski, Renee R. Bernknopf, Allison C. Konieczny, Alison M. Klepser, Michael E. A systematic review comparing at-home diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2: Key points for pharmacy practice, including regulatory information |
title | A systematic review comparing at-home diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2: Key points for pharmacy practice, including regulatory information |
title_full | A systematic review comparing at-home diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2: Key points for pharmacy practice, including regulatory information |
title_fullStr | A systematic review comparing at-home diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2: Key points for pharmacy practice, including regulatory information |
title_full_unstemmed | A systematic review comparing at-home diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2: Key points for pharmacy practice, including regulatory information |
title_short | A systematic review comparing at-home diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2: Key points for pharmacy practice, including regulatory information |
title_sort | systematic review comparing at-home diagnostic tests for sars-cov-2: key points for pharmacy practice, including regulatory information |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8196235/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34274214 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2021.06.012 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kepczynskicaseym asystematicreviewcomparingathomediagnostictestsforsarscov2keypointsforpharmacypracticeincludingregulatoryinformation AT genigeskijaelina asystematicreviewcomparingathomediagnostictestsforsarscov2keypointsforpharmacypracticeincludingregulatoryinformation AT koskireneer asystematicreviewcomparingathomediagnostictestsforsarscov2keypointsforpharmacypracticeincludingregulatoryinformation AT bernknopfallisonc asystematicreviewcomparingathomediagnostictestsforsarscov2keypointsforpharmacypracticeincludingregulatoryinformation AT koniecznyalisonm asystematicreviewcomparingathomediagnostictestsforsarscov2keypointsforpharmacypracticeincludingregulatoryinformation AT klepsermichaele asystematicreviewcomparingathomediagnostictestsforsarscov2keypointsforpharmacypracticeincludingregulatoryinformation AT kepczynskicaseym systematicreviewcomparingathomediagnostictestsforsarscov2keypointsforpharmacypracticeincludingregulatoryinformation AT genigeskijaelina systematicreviewcomparingathomediagnostictestsforsarscov2keypointsforpharmacypracticeincludingregulatoryinformation AT koskireneer systematicreviewcomparingathomediagnostictestsforsarscov2keypointsforpharmacypracticeincludingregulatoryinformation AT bernknopfallisonc systematicreviewcomparingathomediagnostictestsforsarscov2keypointsforpharmacypracticeincludingregulatoryinformation AT koniecznyalisonm systematicreviewcomparingathomediagnostictestsforsarscov2keypointsforpharmacypracticeincludingregulatoryinformation AT klepsermichaele systematicreviewcomparingathomediagnostictestsforsarscov2keypointsforpharmacypracticeincludingregulatoryinformation |