Cargando…

Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care lateral flow antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR in primary care (REAP-2)

BACKGROUND: Testing for COVID-19 with quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) may result in delayed detection of disease. Antigen detection via lateral flow testing (LFT) is faster and amenable to population-wide testing strategies. Our study assesses the diagnostic acc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Leber, Werner, Lammel, Oliver, Siebenhofer, Andrea, Redlberger-Fritz, Monika, Panovska-Griffiths, Jasmina, Czypionka, Thomas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8277224/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34278276
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101011
_version_ 1783722036035584000
author Leber, Werner
Lammel, Oliver
Siebenhofer, Andrea
Redlberger-Fritz, Monika
Panovska-Griffiths, Jasmina
Czypionka, Thomas
author_facet Leber, Werner
Lammel, Oliver
Siebenhofer, Andrea
Redlberger-Fritz, Monika
Panovska-Griffiths, Jasmina
Czypionka, Thomas
author_sort Leber, Werner
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Testing for COVID-19 with quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) may result in delayed detection of disease. Antigen detection via lateral flow testing (LFT) is faster and amenable to population-wide testing strategies. Our study assesses the diagnostic accuracy of LFT compared to RT-PCR on the same primarycare patients in Austria. METHODS: Patients with mild to moderate flu-like symptoms attending a general practice network in an Austrian district (October 22 to November 30, 2020) received clinical assessment including LFT. All suspected COVID-19 cases obtained additional RT-PCR and were divided into two groups: Group 1 (true reactive): suspected cases with reactive LFT and positive RT-PCR; and Group 2 (false non-reactive): suspected cases with a non-reactive LFT but positive RT-PCR. FINDINGS: Of the 2,562 symptomatic patients, 1,037 were suspected of COVID-19 and 826 (79.7%) patients tested RT-PCR positive. Among patients with positive RT-PCR, 788/826 tested LFT reactive (Group 1) and 38 (4.6%) non-reactive (Group 2). Overall sensitivity was 95.4% (95%CI: [94%,96.8%]), specificity 89.1% (95%CI: [86.3%, 91.9%]), positive predictive value 97.3% (95%CI:[95.9%, 98.7%]) and negative predictive value 82.5% (95%CI:[79.8%, 85.2%]). Reactive LFT and positive RT-PCR were positively correlated (r = 0.968,95CI=[0.952,0.985] and [Formula: see text] , 95%CI=[0.773,0.866]). Reactive LFT was negatively correlated with Ct-value (r = -0.2999,p < 0.001) and pre-test symptom duration (r = -0.1299,p = 0.0043) while Ct-value was positively correlated with pre-test symptom duration (r = 0.3733),p < 0.001). INTERPRETATION: We show that LFT is an accurate alternative to RT-PCR testing in primary care. We note the importance of administering LFT properly, here combined with clinical assessment in symptomatic patients. FUNDING: Thomas Czypionka received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programe under the grant agreement No 101016233 (PERISCOPE). No further funding was available for this study.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8277224
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82772242021-07-14 Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care lateral flow antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR in primary care (REAP-2) Leber, Werner Lammel, Oliver Siebenhofer, Andrea Redlberger-Fritz, Monika Panovska-Griffiths, Jasmina Czypionka, Thomas EClinicalMedicine Research Paper BACKGROUND: Testing for COVID-19 with quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) may result in delayed detection of disease. Antigen detection via lateral flow testing (LFT) is faster and amenable to population-wide testing strategies. Our study assesses the diagnostic accuracy of LFT compared to RT-PCR on the same primarycare patients in Austria. METHODS: Patients with mild to moderate flu-like symptoms attending a general practice network in an Austrian district (October 22 to November 30, 2020) received clinical assessment including LFT. All suspected COVID-19 cases obtained additional RT-PCR and were divided into two groups: Group 1 (true reactive): suspected cases with reactive LFT and positive RT-PCR; and Group 2 (false non-reactive): suspected cases with a non-reactive LFT but positive RT-PCR. FINDINGS: Of the 2,562 symptomatic patients, 1,037 were suspected of COVID-19 and 826 (79.7%) patients tested RT-PCR positive. Among patients with positive RT-PCR, 788/826 tested LFT reactive (Group 1) and 38 (4.6%) non-reactive (Group 2). Overall sensitivity was 95.4% (95%CI: [94%,96.8%]), specificity 89.1% (95%CI: [86.3%, 91.9%]), positive predictive value 97.3% (95%CI:[95.9%, 98.7%]) and negative predictive value 82.5% (95%CI:[79.8%, 85.2%]). Reactive LFT and positive RT-PCR were positively correlated (r = 0.968,95CI=[0.952,0.985] and [Formula: see text] , 95%CI=[0.773,0.866]). Reactive LFT was negatively correlated with Ct-value (r = -0.2999,p < 0.001) and pre-test symptom duration (r = -0.1299,p = 0.0043) while Ct-value was positively correlated with pre-test symptom duration (r = 0.3733),p < 0.001). INTERPRETATION: We show that LFT is an accurate alternative to RT-PCR testing in primary care. We note the importance of administering LFT properly, here combined with clinical assessment in symptomatic patients. FUNDING: Thomas Czypionka received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programe under the grant agreement No 101016233 (PERISCOPE). No further funding was available for this study. Elsevier 2021-07-13 /pmc/articles/PMC8277224/ /pubmed/34278276 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101011 Text en © 2021 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Research Paper
Leber, Werner
Lammel, Oliver
Siebenhofer, Andrea
Redlberger-Fritz, Monika
Panovska-Griffiths, Jasmina
Czypionka, Thomas
Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care lateral flow antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR in primary care (REAP-2)
title Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care lateral flow antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR in primary care (REAP-2)
title_full Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care lateral flow antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR in primary care (REAP-2)
title_fullStr Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care lateral flow antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR in primary care (REAP-2)
title_full_unstemmed Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care lateral flow antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR in primary care (REAP-2)
title_short Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care lateral flow antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR in primary care (REAP-2)
title_sort comparing the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care lateral flow antigen testing for sars-cov-2 with rt-pcr in primary care (reap-2)
topic Research Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8277224/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34278276
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101011
work_keys_str_mv AT leberwerner comparingthediagnosticaccuracyofpointofcarelateralflowantigentestingforsarscov2withrtpcrinprimarycarereap2
AT lammeloliver comparingthediagnosticaccuracyofpointofcarelateralflowantigentestingforsarscov2withrtpcrinprimarycarereap2
AT siebenhoferandrea comparingthediagnosticaccuracyofpointofcarelateralflowantigentestingforsarscov2withrtpcrinprimarycarereap2
AT redlbergerfritzmonika comparingthediagnosticaccuracyofpointofcarelateralflowantigentestingforsarscov2withrtpcrinprimarycarereap2
AT panovskagriffithsjasmina comparingthediagnosticaccuracyofpointofcarelateralflowantigentestingforsarscov2withrtpcrinprimarycarereap2
AT czypionkathomas comparingthediagnosticaccuracyofpointofcarelateralflowantigentestingforsarscov2withrtpcrinprimarycarereap2