Cargando…
Combined RT-PCR and Host Response Point-of-Care Testing in Patients Hospitalised with Suspected COVID-19: A Prospective Diagnostic Accuracy Study
INTRODUCTION: RT-PCR has suboptimal sensitivity for the diagnosis of COVID-19. A composite reference standard comprising RT-PCR plus radiological and clinical features has been recommended for diagnostic accuracy studies. The FebriDx finger prick point-of-care test detects an antiviral host response...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Healthcare
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9083481/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35534764 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40121-022-00646-4 |
_version_ | 1784703430353223680 |
---|---|
author | Brendish, Nathan J. Tanner, Alex R. Poole, Stephen Beard, Kate R. Naidu, Vasanth V. Mansbridge, Christopher T. Norton, Nicholas J. Wheeler, Helen Presland, Laura Clark, Tristan W. |
author_facet | Brendish, Nathan J. Tanner, Alex R. Poole, Stephen Beard, Kate R. Naidu, Vasanth V. Mansbridge, Christopher T. Norton, Nicholas J. Wheeler, Helen Presland, Laura Clark, Tristan W. |
author_sort | Brendish, Nathan J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: RT-PCR has suboptimal sensitivity for the diagnosis of COVID-19. A composite reference standard comprising RT-PCR plus radiological and clinical features has been recommended for diagnostic accuracy studies. The FebriDx finger prick point-of-care test detects an antiviral host response protein (MxA) in 10 min. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of FebriDx and RT-PCR compared to a composite reference standard. METHODS: Adults presenting to hospital with suspected COVID-19 were tested by FebriDx and RT-PCR. A composite reference standard was used to classify patients as having COVID-19 based on RT-PCR positivity, or RT-PCR negativity with COVID-19 radiological findings or other clinical criteria. Measures of accuracy were calculated for MxA alone, RT-PCR alone, and both combined. This study is registered with the ISRCTN (ISRCTN14966673) and has completed. RESULTS: A total of 478 patients were tested, with valid results in 475. Of these 475 patients, 222 (46.7%) were classified as having COVID-19; 192 (40.4%) were RT-PCR positive, and 30 (6.3%) were RT-PCR negative and diagnosed on radiological/clinical criteria. Sensitivity of FebriDx MxA vs the composite reference standard was 186/222 (83.8%, 95% CI 78.3–88.4) and was similar to the sensitivity of RT-PCR (192/222 (86.5%, 95% CI 81.3–90.7), (difference of 2.7%, 95% CI − 3.9 to 9.3, p = 0.42). The sensitivity of combined FebriDx and RT-PCR was 208/222 (93.7%) which was superior to both RT-PCR alone (difference of 9.9, 95% CI 4.1–15.9; p = 0.001) and FebriDx MxA alone (difference of 7.2, 95% CI 1.6–12.9; p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: Sensitivity of combined FebriDx and RT-PCR testing was superior to each alone for the detection of COVID-19 in hospital and may improve infection control and treatment decisions. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40121-022-00646-4. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9083481 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer Healthcare |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-90834812022-05-10 Combined RT-PCR and Host Response Point-of-Care Testing in Patients Hospitalised with Suspected COVID-19: A Prospective Diagnostic Accuracy Study Brendish, Nathan J. Tanner, Alex R. Poole, Stephen Beard, Kate R. Naidu, Vasanth V. Mansbridge, Christopher T. Norton, Nicholas J. Wheeler, Helen Presland, Laura Clark, Tristan W. Infect Dis Ther Original Research INTRODUCTION: RT-PCR has suboptimal sensitivity for the diagnosis of COVID-19. A composite reference standard comprising RT-PCR plus radiological and clinical features has been recommended for diagnostic accuracy studies. The FebriDx finger prick point-of-care test detects an antiviral host response protein (MxA) in 10 min. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of FebriDx and RT-PCR compared to a composite reference standard. METHODS: Adults presenting to hospital with suspected COVID-19 were tested by FebriDx and RT-PCR. A composite reference standard was used to classify patients as having COVID-19 based on RT-PCR positivity, or RT-PCR negativity with COVID-19 radiological findings or other clinical criteria. Measures of accuracy were calculated for MxA alone, RT-PCR alone, and both combined. This study is registered with the ISRCTN (ISRCTN14966673) and has completed. RESULTS: A total of 478 patients were tested, with valid results in 475. Of these 475 patients, 222 (46.7%) were classified as having COVID-19; 192 (40.4%) were RT-PCR positive, and 30 (6.3%) were RT-PCR negative and diagnosed on radiological/clinical criteria. Sensitivity of FebriDx MxA vs the composite reference standard was 186/222 (83.8%, 95% CI 78.3–88.4) and was similar to the sensitivity of RT-PCR (192/222 (86.5%, 95% CI 81.3–90.7), (difference of 2.7%, 95% CI − 3.9 to 9.3, p = 0.42). The sensitivity of combined FebriDx and RT-PCR was 208/222 (93.7%) which was superior to both RT-PCR alone (difference of 9.9, 95% CI 4.1–15.9; p = 0.001) and FebriDx MxA alone (difference of 7.2, 95% CI 1.6–12.9; p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: Sensitivity of combined FebriDx and RT-PCR testing was superior to each alone for the detection of COVID-19 in hospital and may improve infection control and treatment decisions. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40121-022-00646-4. Springer Healthcare 2022-05-09 2022-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9083481/ /pubmed/35534764 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40121-022-00646-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial 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-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Research Brendish, Nathan J. Tanner, Alex R. Poole, Stephen Beard, Kate R. Naidu, Vasanth V. Mansbridge, Christopher T. Norton, Nicholas J. Wheeler, Helen Presland, Laura Clark, Tristan W. Combined RT-PCR and Host Response Point-of-Care Testing in Patients Hospitalised with Suspected COVID-19: A Prospective Diagnostic Accuracy Study |
title | Combined RT-PCR and Host Response Point-of-Care Testing in Patients Hospitalised with Suspected COVID-19: A Prospective Diagnostic Accuracy Study |
title_full | Combined RT-PCR and Host Response Point-of-Care Testing in Patients Hospitalised with Suspected COVID-19: A Prospective Diagnostic Accuracy Study |
title_fullStr | Combined RT-PCR and Host Response Point-of-Care Testing in Patients Hospitalised with Suspected COVID-19: A Prospective Diagnostic Accuracy Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Combined RT-PCR and Host Response Point-of-Care Testing in Patients Hospitalised with Suspected COVID-19: A Prospective Diagnostic Accuracy Study |
title_short | Combined RT-PCR and Host Response Point-of-Care Testing in Patients Hospitalised with Suspected COVID-19: A Prospective Diagnostic Accuracy Study |
title_sort | combined rt-pcr and host response point-of-care testing in patients hospitalised with suspected covid-19: a prospective diagnostic accuracy study |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9083481/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35534764 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40121-022-00646-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT brendishnathanj combinedrtpcrandhostresponsepointofcaretestinginpatientshospitalisedwithsuspectedcovid19aprospectivediagnosticaccuracystudy AT tanneralexr combinedrtpcrandhostresponsepointofcaretestinginpatientshospitalisedwithsuspectedcovid19aprospectivediagnosticaccuracystudy AT poolestephen combinedrtpcrandhostresponsepointofcaretestinginpatientshospitalisedwithsuspectedcovid19aprospectivediagnosticaccuracystudy AT beardkater combinedrtpcrandhostresponsepointofcaretestinginpatientshospitalisedwithsuspectedcovid19aprospectivediagnosticaccuracystudy AT naiduvasanthv combinedrtpcrandhostresponsepointofcaretestinginpatientshospitalisedwithsuspectedcovid19aprospectivediagnosticaccuracystudy AT mansbridgechristophert combinedrtpcrandhostresponsepointofcaretestinginpatientshospitalisedwithsuspectedcovid19aprospectivediagnosticaccuracystudy AT nortonnicholasj combinedrtpcrandhostresponsepointofcaretestinginpatientshospitalisedwithsuspectedcovid19aprospectivediagnosticaccuracystudy AT wheelerhelen combinedrtpcrandhostresponsepointofcaretestinginpatientshospitalisedwithsuspectedcovid19aprospectivediagnosticaccuracystudy AT preslandlaura combinedrtpcrandhostresponsepointofcaretestinginpatientshospitalisedwithsuspectedcovid19aprospectivediagnosticaccuracystudy AT clarktristanw combinedrtpcrandhostresponsepointofcaretestinginpatientshospitalisedwithsuspectedcovid19aprospectivediagnosticaccuracystudy |