Cargando…

Field evaluation of COVID-19 rapid antigen test: Are rapid antigen tests less reliable among the elderly?

BACKGROUND: The global outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) leads to the development of accessible and cost-effective rapid antigen-detection tests (RATs), as quick and accurate diagnosis is crucial to curb the pandemic. AIM: To evaluate the Humasis COVID-19 Ag Test (Humasis Co., Ltd., Gy...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tabain, Irena, Cucevic, Djivo, Skreb, Nikola, Mrzljak, Anna, Ferencak, Ivana, Hruskar, Zeljka, Misic, Anita, Kuzle, Josipa, Skoda, Ana Marija, Jankovic, Hrvojka, Vilibic-Cavlek, Tatjana
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9294881/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35979325
http://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v10.i19.6456
_version_ 1784749942259056640
author Tabain, Irena
Cucevic, Djivo
Skreb, Nikola
Mrzljak, Anna
Ferencak, Ivana
Hruskar, Zeljka
Misic, Anita
Kuzle, Josipa
Skoda, Ana Marija
Jankovic, Hrvojka
Vilibic-Cavlek, Tatjana
author_facet Tabain, Irena
Cucevic, Djivo
Skreb, Nikola
Mrzljak, Anna
Ferencak, Ivana
Hruskar, Zeljka
Misic, Anita
Kuzle, Josipa
Skoda, Ana Marija
Jankovic, Hrvojka
Vilibic-Cavlek, Tatjana
author_sort Tabain, Irena
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The global outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) leads to the development of accessible and cost-effective rapid antigen-detection tests (RATs), as quick and accurate diagnosis is crucial to curb the pandemic. AIM: To evaluate the Humasis COVID-19 Ag Test (Humasis Co., Ltd., Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea) in the diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: This retrospective study was carried out at the Croatian Institute of Public Health and included patients with clinical symptoms of COVID-19 lasting no longer than 5 d prior to testing, whose nasopharyngeal swabs were primarily tested with RAT. Negative RAT samples underwent confirmatory real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Diagnostic efficacy was determined compared to RT-PCR. The patients were divided into three age groups (< 18, 19-65, > 65 years). Statistical analysis was performed with the significance level set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: In total, 2490 symptomatic patients were tested; 953 samples were positive on RAT, and 1537 were negative. All negative RAT samples were subjected to RT-PCR; 266 samples were positive and marked as false-negative results on RAT. The calculated negative predictive value as a measure of RAT efficacy was 82.69%. The χ(2) test and Kruskal-Wallis test showed a significant difference in the proportion of false negatives (P < 0.001) and RT-PCR cycle (Ct) values for false-negative RATs (P = 0.012) among the age groups. The young age group was significantly less likely to be false negative, whereas the false negatives from the elderly group experienced significantly lower Ct values than the other two age groups. CONCLUSION: Evaluated RAT demonstrated satisfactory performance with more reliable results in younger patients. Humasis COVID-19 Ag RAT is potentially a valuable tool in areas where access to molecular methods is limited; however, RT-PCR remains a gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 detection.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9294881
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92948812022-08-16 Field evaluation of COVID-19 rapid antigen test: Are rapid antigen tests less reliable among the elderly? Tabain, Irena Cucevic, Djivo Skreb, Nikola Mrzljak, Anna Ferencak, Ivana Hruskar, Zeljka Misic, Anita Kuzle, Josipa Skoda, Ana Marija Jankovic, Hrvojka Vilibic-Cavlek, Tatjana World J Clin Cases Retrospective Study BACKGROUND: The global outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) leads to the development of accessible and cost-effective rapid antigen-detection tests (RATs), as quick and accurate diagnosis is crucial to curb the pandemic. AIM: To evaluate the Humasis COVID-19 Ag Test (Humasis Co., Ltd., Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea) in the diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: This retrospective study was carried out at the Croatian Institute of Public Health and included patients with clinical symptoms of COVID-19 lasting no longer than 5 d prior to testing, whose nasopharyngeal swabs were primarily tested with RAT. Negative RAT samples underwent confirmatory real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Diagnostic efficacy was determined compared to RT-PCR. The patients were divided into three age groups (< 18, 19-65, > 65 years). Statistical analysis was performed with the significance level set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: In total, 2490 symptomatic patients were tested; 953 samples were positive on RAT, and 1537 were negative. All negative RAT samples were subjected to RT-PCR; 266 samples were positive and marked as false-negative results on RAT. The calculated negative predictive value as a measure of RAT efficacy was 82.69%. The χ(2) test and Kruskal-Wallis test showed a significant difference in the proportion of false negatives (P < 0.001) and RT-PCR cycle (Ct) values for false-negative RATs (P = 0.012) among the age groups. The young age group was significantly less likely to be false negative, whereas the false negatives from the elderly group experienced significantly lower Ct values than the other two age groups. CONCLUSION: Evaluated RAT demonstrated satisfactory performance with more reliable results in younger patients. Humasis COVID-19 Ag RAT is potentially a valuable tool in areas where access to molecular methods is limited; however, RT-PCR remains a gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2022-07-06 2022-07-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9294881/ /pubmed/35979325 http://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v10.i19.6456 Text en ©The Author(s) 2022. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Retrospective Study
Tabain, Irena
Cucevic, Djivo
Skreb, Nikola
Mrzljak, Anna
Ferencak, Ivana
Hruskar, Zeljka
Misic, Anita
Kuzle, Josipa
Skoda, Ana Marija
Jankovic, Hrvojka
Vilibic-Cavlek, Tatjana
Field evaluation of COVID-19 rapid antigen test: Are rapid antigen tests less reliable among the elderly?
title Field evaluation of COVID-19 rapid antigen test: Are rapid antigen tests less reliable among the elderly?
title_full Field evaluation of COVID-19 rapid antigen test: Are rapid antigen tests less reliable among the elderly?
title_fullStr Field evaluation of COVID-19 rapid antigen test: Are rapid antigen tests less reliable among the elderly?
title_full_unstemmed Field evaluation of COVID-19 rapid antigen test: Are rapid antigen tests less reliable among the elderly?
title_short Field evaluation of COVID-19 rapid antigen test: Are rapid antigen tests less reliable among the elderly?
title_sort field evaluation of covid-19 rapid antigen test: are rapid antigen tests less reliable among the elderly?
topic Retrospective Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9294881/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35979325
http://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v10.i19.6456
work_keys_str_mv AT tabainirena fieldevaluationofcovid19rapidantigentestarerapidantigentestslessreliableamongtheelderly
AT cucevicdjivo fieldevaluationofcovid19rapidantigentestarerapidantigentestslessreliableamongtheelderly
AT skrebnikola fieldevaluationofcovid19rapidantigentestarerapidantigentestslessreliableamongtheelderly
AT mrzljakanna fieldevaluationofcovid19rapidantigentestarerapidantigentestslessreliableamongtheelderly
AT ferencakivana fieldevaluationofcovid19rapidantigentestarerapidantigentestslessreliableamongtheelderly
AT hruskarzeljka fieldevaluationofcovid19rapidantigentestarerapidantigentestslessreliableamongtheelderly
AT misicanita fieldevaluationofcovid19rapidantigentestarerapidantigentestslessreliableamongtheelderly
AT kuzlejosipa fieldevaluationofcovid19rapidantigentestarerapidantigentestslessreliableamongtheelderly
AT skodaanamarija fieldevaluationofcovid19rapidantigentestarerapidantigentestslessreliableamongtheelderly
AT jankovichrvojka fieldevaluationofcovid19rapidantigentestarerapidantigentestslessreliableamongtheelderly
AT vilibiccavlektatjana fieldevaluationofcovid19rapidantigentestarerapidantigentestslessreliableamongtheelderly