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

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11320%2F21%3A10433635" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11320/21:10433635 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00064203:_____/21:10433635 RIV/00216208:11130/21:10433635

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=5xNS3j0T4m" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=5xNS3j0T4m</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

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

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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 &gt; 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.

Název v anglickém jazyce

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

Popis výsledku anglicky

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 &gt; 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.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30304 - Public and environmental health

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2021

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Epidemiologie, mikrobiologie, imunologie

ISSN

1210-7913

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

70

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

3

Stát vydavatele periodika

CZ - Česká republika

Počet stran výsledku

5

Strana od-do

156-160

Kód UT WoS článku

000708463000002

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85118385995