Cargando…
Sensitivity and Specificity of Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection Using Different Sampling Methods: A Clinical Unicentral Study
Rapid antigen detection of SARS-CoV-2 has been widely used. However, there is no consensus on the best sampling method. This study aimed to determine the level of agreement between SARS-CoV-2 fluorescent detection and a real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), using diffe...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9180118/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35682419 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116836 |
_version_ | 1784723438485635072 |
---|---|
author | Alonaizan, Faisal AlHumaid, Jehan AlJindan, Reem Bedi, Sumit Dardas, Heba Abdulfattah, Dalia Ashour, Hanadi AlShahrani, Mohammed Omar, Omar |
author_facet | Alonaizan, Faisal AlHumaid, Jehan AlJindan, Reem Bedi, Sumit Dardas, Heba Abdulfattah, Dalia Ashour, Hanadi AlShahrani, Mohammed Omar, Omar |
author_sort | Alonaizan, Faisal |
collection | PubMed |
description | Rapid antigen detection of SARS-CoV-2 has been widely used. However, there is no consensus on the best sampling method. This study aimed to determine the level of agreement between SARS-CoV-2 fluorescent detection and a real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), using different swab methods. Fifty COVID-19 and twenty-six healthy patients were confirmed via rRT-PCR, and each patient was sampled via four swab methods: oropharyngeal (O), nasal (N), spit saliva (S), and combined O/N/S swabs. Each swab was analyzed using an immunofluorescent Quidel system. The combined O/N/S swab provided the highest sensitivity (86%; Kappa = 0.8), followed by nasal (76%; Kappa = 0.68), whereas the saliva revealed the lowest sensitivity (66%; kappa = 0.57). Further, when considering positive detection in any of the O, N, and S samples, excellent agreements with rRT-PCR were achieved (Kappa = 0.91 and 0.97, respectively). Finally, among multiple factors, only patient age revealed a significant negative association with antigenic detection in the saliva. It is concluded that immunofluorescent detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen is a reliable method for rapid diagnosis under circumstances where at least two swabs, one nasal and one oropharyngeal, are analyzed. Alternatively, a single combined O/N/S swab would improve the sensitivity in contrast to each site swabbed alone. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9180118 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-91801182022-06-10 Sensitivity and Specificity of Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection Using Different Sampling Methods: A Clinical Unicentral Study Alonaizan, Faisal AlHumaid, Jehan AlJindan, Reem Bedi, Sumit Dardas, Heba Abdulfattah, Dalia Ashour, Hanadi AlShahrani, Mohammed Omar, Omar Int J Environ Res Public Health Article Rapid antigen detection of SARS-CoV-2 has been widely used. However, there is no consensus on the best sampling method. This study aimed to determine the level of agreement between SARS-CoV-2 fluorescent detection and a real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), using different swab methods. Fifty COVID-19 and twenty-six healthy patients were confirmed via rRT-PCR, and each patient was sampled via four swab methods: oropharyngeal (O), nasal (N), spit saliva (S), and combined O/N/S swabs. Each swab was analyzed using an immunofluorescent Quidel system. The combined O/N/S swab provided the highest sensitivity (86%; Kappa = 0.8), followed by nasal (76%; Kappa = 0.68), whereas the saliva revealed the lowest sensitivity (66%; kappa = 0.57). Further, when considering positive detection in any of the O, N, and S samples, excellent agreements with rRT-PCR were achieved (Kappa = 0.91 and 0.97, respectively). Finally, among multiple factors, only patient age revealed a significant negative association with antigenic detection in the saliva. It is concluded that immunofluorescent detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen is a reliable method for rapid diagnosis under circumstances where at least two swabs, one nasal and one oropharyngeal, are analyzed. Alternatively, a single combined O/N/S swab would improve the sensitivity in contrast to each site swabbed alone. MDPI 2022-06-02 /pmc/articles/PMC9180118/ /pubmed/35682419 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116836 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Alonaizan, Faisal AlHumaid, Jehan AlJindan, Reem Bedi, Sumit Dardas, Heba Abdulfattah, Dalia Ashour, Hanadi AlShahrani, Mohammed Omar, Omar Sensitivity and Specificity of Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection Using Different Sampling Methods: A Clinical Unicentral Study |
title | Sensitivity and Specificity of Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection Using Different Sampling Methods: A Clinical Unicentral Study |
title_full | Sensitivity and Specificity of Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection Using Different Sampling Methods: A Clinical Unicentral Study |
title_fullStr | Sensitivity and Specificity of Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection Using Different Sampling Methods: A Clinical Unicentral Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Sensitivity and Specificity of Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection Using Different Sampling Methods: A Clinical Unicentral Study |
title_short | Sensitivity and Specificity of Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection Using Different Sampling Methods: A Clinical Unicentral Study |
title_sort | sensitivity and specificity of rapid sars-cov-2 antigen detection using different sampling methods: a clinical unicentral study |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9180118/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35682419 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116836 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT alonaizanfaisal sensitivityandspecificityofrapidsarscov2antigendetectionusingdifferentsamplingmethodsaclinicalunicentralstudy AT alhumaidjehan sensitivityandspecificityofrapidsarscov2antigendetectionusingdifferentsamplingmethodsaclinicalunicentralstudy AT aljindanreem sensitivityandspecificityofrapidsarscov2antigendetectionusingdifferentsamplingmethodsaclinicalunicentralstudy AT bedisumit sensitivityandspecificityofrapidsarscov2antigendetectionusingdifferentsamplingmethodsaclinicalunicentralstudy AT dardasheba sensitivityandspecificityofrapidsarscov2antigendetectionusingdifferentsamplingmethodsaclinicalunicentralstudy AT abdulfattahdalia sensitivityandspecificityofrapidsarscov2antigendetectionusingdifferentsamplingmethodsaclinicalunicentralstudy AT ashourhanadi sensitivityandspecificityofrapidsarscov2antigendetectionusingdifferentsamplingmethodsaclinicalunicentralstudy AT alshahranimohammed sensitivityandspecificityofrapidsarscov2antigendetectionusingdifferentsamplingmethodsaclinicalunicentralstudy AT omaromar sensitivityandspecificityofrapidsarscov2antigendetectionusingdifferentsamplingmethodsaclinicalunicentralstudy |