Cargando…
Evaluation of a novel, rapid antigen detection test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2
BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently finally determined in laboratory settings by real-time reverse-transcription polymerase-chain-reaction (rt-PCR). However, simple testing with immediately available result...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8629250/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34843505 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259527 |
_version_ | 1784607165378461696 |
---|---|
author | Thell, Rainer Kallab, Verena Weinhappel, Wolfgang Mueckstein, Wolfgang Heschl, Lukas Heschl, Martina Korsatko, Stefan Toedling, Franz Blaschke, Amelie Herzog, Theresa Klicpera, Anna Koeller, Clara Haugk, Moritz Kreil, Anna Spiel, Alexander Kreuzer, Philipp Krause, Robert Sebesta, Christian Winkler, Stefan Laky, Brenda Szell, Marton |
author_facet | Thell, Rainer Kallab, Verena Weinhappel, Wolfgang Mueckstein, Wolfgang Heschl, Lukas Heschl, Martina Korsatko, Stefan Toedling, Franz Blaschke, Amelie Herzog, Theresa Klicpera, Anna Koeller, Clara Haugk, Moritz Kreil, Anna Spiel, Alexander Kreuzer, Philipp Krause, Robert Sebesta, Christian Winkler, Stefan Laky, Brenda Szell, Marton |
author_sort | Thell, Rainer |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently finally determined in laboratory settings by real-time reverse-transcription polymerase-chain-reaction (rt-PCR). However, simple testing with immediately available results are crucial to gain control over COVID-19. The aim was to evaluate such a point-of-care antigen rapid test (AG-rt) device in its performance compared to laboratory-based rt-PCR testing in COVID-19 suspected, symptomatic patients. METHODS: For this prospective study, two specimens each of 541 symptomatic female (54.7%) and male (45.3%) patients aged between 18 and 95 years tested at five emergency departments (ED, n = 296) and four primary healthcare centres (PHC, n = 245), were compared, using AG-rt (positive/negative/invalid) and rt-PCR (positive/negative and cycle threshold, Ct) to diagnose SARS-CoV-2. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and likelihood ratios (LR+/-) of the AG-rt were assessed. RESULTS: Differences between ED and PHC were detected regarding gender, age, symptoms, disease prevalence, and diagnostic performance. Overall, 174 (32.2%) were tested positive on AG-rt and 213 (39.4%) on rt-PCR. AG correctly classified 91.7% of all rt-PCR positive cases with a sensitivity of 80.3%, specificity of 99.1%, PPV of 98.3, NPV of 88.6%, LR(+) of 87.8, and LR(-) of 0.20. The highest sensitivities and specificities of AG-rt were detected in PHC (sensitivity: 84.4%, specificity: 100.0%), when using Ct of 30 as cut-off (sensitivity: 92.5%, specificity: 97.8%), and when symptom onset was within the first three days (sensitivity: 82.9%, specificity: 99.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The highest sensitivity was detected with a high viral load. Our findings suggest that AG-rt are comparable to rt-PCR to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 suspected symptomatic patients presenting both at emergency departments and primary health care centres. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8629250 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-86292502021-11-30 Evaluation of a novel, rapid antigen detection test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Thell, Rainer Kallab, Verena Weinhappel, Wolfgang Mueckstein, Wolfgang Heschl, Lukas Heschl, Martina Korsatko, Stefan Toedling, Franz Blaschke, Amelie Herzog, Theresa Klicpera, Anna Koeller, Clara Haugk, Moritz Kreil, Anna Spiel, Alexander Kreuzer, Philipp Krause, Robert Sebesta, Christian Winkler, Stefan Laky, Brenda Szell, Marton PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently finally determined in laboratory settings by real-time reverse-transcription polymerase-chain-reaction (rt-PCR). However, simple testing with immediately available results are crucial to gain control over COVID-19. The aim was to evaluate such a point-of-care antigen rapid test (AG-rt) device in its performance compared to laboratory-based rt-PCR testing in COVID-19 suspected, symptomatic patients. METHODS: For this prospective study, two specimens each of 541 symptomatic female (54.7%) and male (45.3%) patients aged between 18 and 95 years tested at five emergency departments (ED, n = 296) and four primary healthcare centres (PHC, n = 245), were compared, using AG-rt (positive/negative/invalid) and rt-PCR (positive/negative and cycle threshold, Ct) to diagnose SARS-CoV-2. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and likelihood ratios (LR+/-) of the AG-rt were assessed. RESULTS: Differences between ED and PHC were detected regarding gender, age, symptoms, disease prevalence, and diagnostic performance. Overall, 174 (32.2%) were tested positive on AG-rt and 213 (39.4%) on rt-PCR. AG correctly classified 91.7% of all rt-PCR positive cases with a sensitivity of 80.3%, specificity of 99.1%, PPV of 98.3, NPV of 88.6%, LR(+) of 87.8, and LR(-) of 0.20. The highest sensitivities and specificities of AG-rt were detected in PHC (sensitivity: 84.4%, specificity: 100.0%), when using Ct of 30 as cut-off (sensitivity: 92.5%, specificity: 97.8%), and when symptom onset was within the first three days (sensitivity: 82.9%, specificity: 99.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The highest sensitivity was detected with a high viral load. Our findings suggest that AG-rt are comparable to rt-PCR to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 suspected symptomatic patients presenting both at emergency departments and primary health care centres. Public Library of Science 2021-11-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8629250/ /pubmed/34843505 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259527 Text en © 2021 Thell et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Thell, Rainer Kallab, Verena Weinhappel, Wolfgang Mueckstein, Wolfgang Heschl, Lukas Heschl, Martina Korsatko, Stefan Toedling, Franz Blaschke, Amelie Herzog, Theresa Klicpera, Anna Koeller, Clara Haugk, Moritz Kreil, Anna Spiel, Alexander Kreuzer, Philipp Krause, Robert Sebesta, Christian Winkler, Stefan Laky, Brenda Szell, Marton Evaluation of a novel, rapid antigen detection test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 |
title | Evaluation of a novel, rapid antigen detection test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 |
title_full | Evaluation of a novel, rapid antigen detection test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of a novel, rapid antigen detection test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of a novel, rapid antigen detection test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 |
title_short | Evaluation of a novel, rapid antigen detection test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 |
title_sort | evaluation of a novel, rapid antigen detection test for the diagnosis of sars-cov-2 |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8629250/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34843505 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259527 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT thellrainer evaluationofanovelrapidantigendetectiontestforthediagnosisofsarscov2 AT kallabverena evaluationofanovelrapidantigendetectiontestforthediagnosisofsarscov2 AT weinhappelwolfgang evaluationofanovelrapidantigendetectiontestforthediagnosisofsarscov2 AT muecksteinwolfgang evaluationofanovelrapidantigendetectiontestforthediagnosisofsarscov2 AT heschllukas evaluationofanovelrapidantigendetectiontestforthediagnosisofsarscov2 AT heschlmartina evaluationofanovelrapidantigendetectiontestforthediagnosisofsarscov2 AT korsatkostefan evaluationofanovelrapidantigendetectiontestforthediagnosisofsarscov2 AT toedlingfranz evaluationofanovelrapidantigendetectiontestforthediagnosisofsarscov2 AT blaschkeamelie evaluationofanovelrapidantigendetectiontestforthediagnosisofsarscov2 AT herzogtheresa evaluationofanovelrapidantigendetectiontestforthediagnosisofsarscov2 AT klicperaanna evaluationofanovelrapidantigendetectiontestforthediagnosisofsarscov2 AT koellerclara evaluationofanovelrapidantigendetectiontestforthediagnosisofsarscov2 AT haugkmoritz evaluationofanovelrapidantigendetectiontestforthediagnosisofsarscov2 AT kreilanna evaluationofanovelrapidantigendetectiontestforthediagnosisofsarscov2 AT spielalexander evaluationofanovelrapidantigendetectiontestforthediagnosisofsarscov2 AT kreuzerphilipp evaluationofanovelrapidantigendetectiontestforthediagnosisofsarscov2 AT krauserobert evaluationofanovelrapidantigendetectiontestforthediagnosisofsarscov2 AT sebestachristian evaluationofanovelrapidantigendetectiontestforthediagnosisofsarscov2 AT winklerstefan evaluationofanovelrapidantigendetectiontestforthediagnosisofsarscov2 AT lakybrenda evaluationofanovelrapidantigendetectiontestforthediagnosisofsarscov2 AT szellmarton evaluationofanovelrapidantigendetectiontestforthediagnosisofsarscov2 |