Field evaluations of four SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests during SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant wave in South Africa.

Natasha Samsunder, Gila Lustig, Slindile Ngubane, Thando Glory Maseko, Santhuri Rambaran, Sinaye Ngcapu, Stanley Nzuzo Magini, Lara Lewis, Cherie Cawood, Ayesha B M Kharsany, Quarraisha Abdool Karim, Salim Abdool Karim, Kogieleum Naidoo, Aida Sivro
{"title":"Field evaluations of four SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests during SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant wave in South Africa.","authors":"Natasha Samsunder, Gila Lustig, Slindile Ngubane, Thando Glory Maseko, Santhuri Rambaran, Sinaye Ngcapu, Stanley Nzuzo Magini, Lara Lewis, Cherie Cawood, Ayesha B M Kharsany, Quarraisha Abdool Karim, Salim Abdool Karim, Kogieleum Naidoo, Aida Sivro","doi":"10.1186/s41512-023-00151-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Rapid antigen tests detecting SARS-CoV-2 were shown to be a useful tool in managing the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we report on the results of a prospective diagnostic accuracy study of four SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests in a South African setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Rapid antigen test evaluations were performed through drive-through testing centres in Durban, South Africa, from July to December 2021. Two evaluation studies were performed: nasal Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device (Abbott) was evaluated in parallel with the nasopharyngeal Espline SARS-CoV-2 Ag test (Fujirebio), followed by the evaluation of nasal RightSign COVID-19 Antigen Rapid test Cassette (Hangzhou Biotest Biotech) in parallel with the nasopharyngeal STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag test (SD Biosensor). The Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay was used as a reference test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Evaluation of Panbio and Espline Ag tests was performed on 494 samples (31% positivity), while the evaluation of Standard Q and RightTest Ag tests was performed on 539 samples (13.17% positivity). The overall sensitivity for all four tests ranged between 60 and 72% with excellent specificity values (> 98%). Sensitivity increased to > 80% in all tests in samples with cycle number value < 20. All four tests performed best in samples from patients presenting within the first week of symptom onset.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>All four evaluated tests detected a majority of the cases within the first week of symptom onset with high viral load.</p>","PeriodicalId":72800,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic and prognostic research","volume":"7 1","pages":"14"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10369830/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic and prognostic research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41512-023-00151-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Rapid antigen tests detecting SARS-CoV-2 were shown to be a useful tool in managing the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we report on the results of a prospective diagnostic accuracy study of four SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests in a South African setting.

Methods: Rapid antigen test evaluations were performed through drive-through testing centres in Durban, South Africa, from July to December 2021. Two evaluation studies were performed: nasal Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device (Abbott) was evaluated in parallel with the nasopharyngeal Espline SARS-CoV-2 Ag test (Fujirebio), followed by the evaluation of nasal RightSign COVID-19 Antigen Rapid test Cassette (Hangzhou Biotest Biotech) in parallel with the nasopharyngeal STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag test (SD Biosensor). The Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay was used as a reference test.

Results: Evaluation of Panbio and Espline Ag tests was performed on 494 samples (31% positivity), while the evaluation of Standard Q and RightTest Ag tests was performed on 539 samples (13.17% positivity). The overall sensitivity for all four tests ranged between 60 and 72% with excellent specificity values (> 98%). Sensitivity increased to > 80% in all tests in samples with cycle number value < 20. All four tests performed best in samples from patients presenting within the first week of symptom onset.

Conclusions: All four evaluated tests detected a majority of the cases within the first week of symptom onset with high viral load.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在南非 SARS-CoV-2 三角洲变异潮期间,对四种 SARS-CoV-2 快速抗原检测方法进行实地评估。
背景:检测 SARS-CoV-2 的快速抗原检测被证明是控制 COVID-19 大流行的有效工具。在此,我们报告了在南非环境中对四种 SARS-CoV-2 快速抗原检测方法的诊断准确性进行前瞻性研究的结果:方法:2021 年 7 月至 12 月,通过南非德班的驾车检测中心对快速抗原检测进行了评估。共进行了两项评估研究:鼻腔 Panbio COVID-19 Ag 快速检测装置(雅培)与鼻咽 Espline SARS-CoV-2 Ag 检测试剂盒(富士生物)同时进行评估;鼻腔 RightSign COVID-19 抗原快速检测试剂盒(杭州百特生物技术有限公司)与鼻咽 STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag 检测试剂盒(SD Biosensor)同时进行评估。雅培 RealTime SARS-CoV-2 检测试剂盒被用作参照检测试剂盒:Panbio 和 Espline Ag 检测试剂盒对 494 份样本进行了评估(阳性率为 31%),而 Standard Q 和 RightTest Ag 检测试剂盒对 539 份样本进行了评估(阳性率为 13.17%)。所有四种检测方法的总体灵敏度在 60% 到 72% 之间,特异性极高(> 98%)。在周期数值为结论的样本中,所有检测的灵敏度都提高到了 80%以上:所评估的四种检测方法都能在症状出现的第一周内检测出大部分高病毒载量病例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Risk prediction tools for pressure injury occurrence: an umbrella review of systematic reviews reporting model development and validation methods. Rehabilitation outcomes after comprehensive post-acute inpatient rehabilitation following moderate to severe acquired brain injury-study protocol for an overall prognosis study based on routinely collected health data. Validation of prognostic models predicting mortality or ICU admission in patients with COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries: a global individual participant data meta-analysis. Reported prevalence and comparison of diagnostic approaches for Candida africana: a systematic review with meta-analysis. The relative data hungriness of unpenalized and penalized logistic regression and ensemble-based machine learning methods: the case of calibration.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1