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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alonaizan, Faisal, AlHumaid, Jehan, AlJindan, Reem, Bedi, Sumit, Dardas, Heba, Abdulfattah, Dalia, Ashour, Hanadi, AlShahrani, Mohammed, Omar, Omar
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