The sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests in the view of large-scale testing.

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q4 MICROBIOLOGY Epidemiologie Mikrobiologie Imunologie Pub Date : 2021-01-01
P Dřevínek, J Hurych, Z Kepka, A Briksi, M Kulich, M Zajac, P Hubáček
{"title":"The sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests in the view of large-scale testing.","authors":"P Dřevínek,&nbsp;J Hurych,&nbsp;Z Kepka,&nbsp;A Briksi,&nbsp;M Kulich,&nbsp;M Zajac,&nbsp;P Hubáček","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Antigen tests have emerged as an alternative to SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic PCR, thought to be valuable especially for the screening of bigger communities. To check appropriateness of the antigen based testing, we determined sensitivity of two point-of-care antigen tests when applied to a cohort of COVID-19 symptomatic, COVID-19 asymptomatic and healthy persons.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We examined nasopharyngeal swabs with antigen test 1 (Panbio Covid-19 Ag Rapid Test, Abbott) and antigen test 2 (Standard F Covid-19 Ag FIA, SD Biosensor). An additional nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab of the same individual was checked with PCR (Allplex SARS-nCoV-2, Seegene). Within a 4-day period in October 2020, we collected specimens from 591 subjects. Of them, 290 had COVID-19 associated symptoms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>While PCR positivity was detected in 223 cases, antigen test 1 and antigen test 2 were found positive in 148 (sensitivity 0.664, 95%CI 0.599, 0.722) and 141 (sensitivity 0.623, 95%CI 0.558, 0.684) patients, respectively. When only symptomatic patients were analysed, sensitivity increased to 0.738 (95%CI 0.667, 0.799) for the antigen test 1 and to 0.685 (95%CI 0.611, 0.750) for the antigen test 2. The substantial drop in sensitivity to 12.9% (95%CI 0.067, 0.234) was observed for samples with the PCR threshold cycle above &gt; 30.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Low sensitivity of antigen tests leads to the considerable risk of false negativity. It is advisable to implement repeated testing with high enough frequency if the antigen test is used as a frontline screening tool, and to follow with PCR if it is applied to vulnerable populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":54374,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologie Mikrobiologie Imunologie","volume":"70 3","pages":"156-160"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiologie Mikrobiologie Imunologie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Antigen tests have emerged as an alternative to SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic PCR, thought to be valuable especially for the screening of bigger communities. To check appropriateness of the antigen based testing, we determined sensitivity of two point-of-care antigen tests when applied to a cohort of COVID-19 symptomatic, COVID-19 asymptomatic and healthy persons.

Methods: We examined nasopharyngeal swabs with antigen test 1 (Panbio Covid-19 Ag Rapid Test, Abbott) and antigen test 2 (Standard F Covid-19 Ag FIA, SD Biosensor). An additional nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab of the same individual was checked with PCR (Allplex SARS-nCoV-2, Seegene). Within a 4-day period in October 2020, we collected specimens from 591 subjects. Of them, 290 had COVID-19 associated symptoms.

Results: While PCR positivity was detected in 223 cases, antigen test 1 and antigen test 2 were found positive in 148 (sensitivity 0.664, 95%CI 0.599, 0.722) and 141 (sensitivity 0.623, 95%CI 0.558, 0.684) patients, respectively. When only symptomatic patients were analysed, sensitivity increased to 0.738 (95%CI 0.667, 0.799) for the antigen test 1 and to 0.685 (95%CI 0.611, 0.750) for the antigen test 2. The substantial drop in sensitivity to 12.9% (95%CI 0.067, 0.234) was observed for samples with the PCR threshold cycle above > 30.

Conclusions: Low sensitivity of antigen tests leads to the considerable risk of false negativity. It is advisable to implement repeated testing with high enough frequency if the antigen test is used as a frontline screening tool, and to follow with PCR if it is applied to vulnerable populations.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于大规模检测的SARS-CoV-2抗原检测敏感性分析
目的:抗原检测已成为SARS-CoV-2诊断PCR的替代方法,被认为对较大社区的筛查尤其有价值。为了检查基于抗原检测的适宜性,我们测定了两种即时护理抗原检测在COVID-19症状、COVID-19无症状和健康人群中的敏感性。方法:采用抗原试验1 (Panbio Covid-19 Ag Rapid test, Abbott)和抗原试验2 (Standard F -19 Ag FIA, SD Biosensor)对鼻咽拭子进行检测。对同一个体的另一份鼻咽和口咽拭子进行PCR检查(Allplex SARS-nCoV-2, Seegene)。在2020年10月的4天内,我们收集了591名受试者的标本。其中290人有COVID-19相关症状。结果:223例检测到PCR阳性,其中抗原1和抗原2分别有148例(敏感性0.664,95%CI 0.599, 0.722)和141例(敏感性0.623,95%CI 0.558, 0.684)检测到阳性。当仅分析有症状的患者时,抗原试验1的敏感性增加到0.738 (95%CI 0.667, 0.799),抗原试验2的敏感性增加到0.685 (95%CI 0.611, 0.750)。对于PCR阈值周期高于>的样品,灵敏度大幅下降至12.9% (95%CI 0.067, 0.234);30.结论:抗原检测的低敏感性导致假阴性的风险较大。如果抗原检测被用作一线筛查工具,建议以足够高的频率进行重复检测,如果将其应用于易感人群,建议随后进行PCR检测。
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
Epidemiologie Mikrobiologie Imunologie
Epidemiologie Mikrobiologie Imunologie Medicine-Immunology and Allergy
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: The journal publishes original papers, information from practice, reviews on epidemiological and microbiological subjects. Sufficient space is devoted to diagnostic methods from medical microbiology, parasitology, immunology, and to general aspects and discussions pertaining to preventive medicine. It also brings translations and book reviews useful for medical doctors and research workers and professionals in public health.
期刊最新文献
Posibilities for use of whole genome sequencing (WGS) for the analysis of Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates. Human papillomavirus infection (HPV) and pregnancy. Issues of risky behaviours in university students. Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. Infection of respiratory syncytial viruses (RSV) in the Czech Republic - analysis of hospitalizations and deaths in 2017-2022.
×
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