RESUMO
PURPOSE: Rapid antigen-detecting tests (Ag-RDTs) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can transform pandemic control. Thus far, sensitivity (≤ 85%) of lateral-flow assays has limited scale-up. Conceivably, microfluidic immunofluorescence Ag-RDTs could increase sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection. METHODS: This multi-centre diagnostic accuracy study investigated performance of the microfluidic immunofluorescence LumiraDx™ assay, enrolling symptomatic and asymptomatic participants with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants collected a supervised nasal mid-turbinate (NMT) self-swab for Ag-RDT testing, in addition to a professionally collected nasopharyngeal (NP) swab for routine testing with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Results were compared to calculate sensitivity and specificity. Sub-analyses investigated the results by viral load, symptom presence and duration. An analytical study assessed exclusivity and limit-of-detection (LOD). In addition, we evaluated ease-of-use. RESULTS: The study was conducted between November 2nd 2020 and 4th of December 2020. 761 participants were enrolled, with 486 participants reporting symptoms on testing day. 120 out of 146 RT-PCR positive cases were detected positive by LumiraDx™, resulting in a sensitivity of 82.2% (95% CI 75.2-87.5%). Specificity was 99.3% (CI 98.3-99.7%). Sensitivity was increased in individuals with viral load ≥ 7 log10 SARS-CoV2 RNA copies/ml (93.8%; CI 86.2-97.3%). Testing against common respiratory commensals and pathogens showed no cross-reactivity and LOD was estimated to be 2-56 PFU/mL. The ease-of-use-assessment was favourable for lower throughput settings. CONCLUSION: The LumiraDx™ assay showed excellent analytical sensitivity, exclusivity and clinical specificity with good clinical sensitivity using supervised NMT self-sampling. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND REGISTRATION DATE: DRKS00021220 and 01.04.2020.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnóstico , Humanos , Pandemias , Sistemas Automatizados de Assistência Junto ao Leito , RNA Viral , Sensibilidade e EspecificidadeRESUMO
In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended two SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow antigen-detecting rapid diagnostics tests (Ag-RDTs), both initially with nasopharyngeal (NP) sample collection. Independent head-to-head studies are necessary for SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT nasal sampling to demonstrate comparability of performance with nasopharyngeal (NP) sampling. We conducted a head-to-head comparison study of a supervised, self-collected nasal mid-turbinate (NMT) swab and a professional-collected NP swab, using the Panbio™ Ag-RDT (distributed by Abbott). We calculated positive and negative percent agreement between the sampling methods as well as sensitivity and specificity for both sampling techniques compared to the reference standard reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). A SARS-CoV-2 infection could be diagnosed by RT-PCR in 45 of 290 participants (15.5%). Comparing the NMT and NP sampling the positive percent agreement of the Ag-RDT was 88.1% (37/42 PCR positives detected; CI 75.0-94.8%). The negative percent agreement was 98.8% (245/248; CI 96.5-99.6%). The overall sensitivity of Panbio with NMT sampling was 84.4% (38/45; CI 71.2-92.3%) and 88.9% (40/45; CI 76.5-95.5%) with NP sampling. Specificity was 99.2% (243/245; CI 97.1-99.8%) for both, NP and NMT sampling. The sensitivity of the Panbio test in participants with high viral load (> 7 log10 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/mL) was 96.3% (CI 81.7-99.8%) for both, NMT and NP sampling. For the Panbio supervised NMT self-sampling yields comparable results to NP sampling. This suggests that nasal self-sampling could be used for to enable scaled-up population testing.Clinical Trial DRKS00021220.
Assuntos
Teste para COVID-19/métodos , COVID-19/diagnóstico , SARS-CoV-2/isolamento & purificação , Manejo de Espécimes/métodos , Adulto , Antígenos Virais , COVID-19/imunologia , Teste de Ácido Nucleico para COVID-19 , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Nasofaringe/virologia , RNA Viral , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Carga Viral , Organização Mundial da SaúdeRESUMO
Self-testing is an effective tool to bridge the testing gap for several infectious diseases; however, its performance in detecting SARS-CoV-2 using antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) has not been systematically reviewed. This study aimed to inform WHO guidelines by evaluating the accuracy of COVID-19 self-testing and self-sampling coupled with professional Ag-RDT conduct and interpretation. Articles on this topic were searched until November 7th, 2022. Concordance between self-testing/self-sampling and fully professional-use Ag-RDTs was assessed using Cohen's kappa. Bivariate meta-analysis yielded pooled performance estimates. Quality and certainty of evidence were evaluated using QUADAS-2 and GRADE tools. Among 43 studies included, twelve reported on self-testing, and 31 assessed self-sampling only. Around 49.6% showed low risk of bias. Overall concordance with professional-use Ag-RDTs was high (kappa 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88-0.94]). Comparing self-testing/self-sampling to molecular testing, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 70.5% (95% CI 64.3-76.0) and 99.4% (95% CI 99.1-99.6), respectively. Higher sensitivity (i.e., 93.6% [95% CI 90.4-96.8] for Ct < 25) was estimated in subgroups with higher viral loads using Ct values as a proxy. Despite high heterogeneity among studies, COVID-19 self-testing/self-sampling exhibits high concordance with professional-use Ag-RDTs. This suggests that self-testing/self-sampling can be offered as part of COVID-19 testing strategies.Trial registration: PROSPERO: CRD42021250706.
Assuntos
Teste para COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnóstico , Testes de Diagnóstico Rápido , Autoteste , Sensibilidade e EspecificidadeRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Improvements in the early diagnosis of dengue are urgently needed, especially in resource-limited settings where the distinction between dengue and other febrile illnesses is crucial for patient management. METHODS: In this prospective, observational study (IDAMS), we included patients aged 5 years and older with undifferentiated fever at presentation from 26 outpatient facilities in eight countries (Bangladesh, Brazil, Cambodia, El Salvador, Indonesia, Malaysia, Venezuela, and Viet Nam). We used multivariable logistic regression to investigate the association between clinical symptoms and laboratory tests with dengue versus other febrile illnesses between day 2 and day 5 after onset of fever (ie, illness days). We built a set of candidate regression models including clinical and laboratory variables to reflect the need of a comprehensive versus parsimonious approach. We assessed performance of these models via standard measures of diagnostic values. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2011, and Aug 4, 2016, we recruited 7428 patients, of whom 2694 (36%) were diagnosed with laboratory-confirmed dengue and 2495 (34%) with (non-dengue) other febrile illnesses and met inclusion criteria, and were included in the analysis. 2703 (52%) of 5189 included patients were younger than 15 years, 2486 (48%) were aged 15 years or older, 2179 (42%) were female and 3010 (58%) were male. Platelet count, white blood cell count, and the change in these variables from the previous day of illness had a strong association with dengue. Cough and rhinitis had strong associations with other febrile illnesses, whereas bleeding, anorexia, and skin flush were generally associated with dengue. Model performance increased between day 2 and 5 of illness. The comprehensive model (18 clinical and laboratory predictors) had sensitivities of 0·80 to 0·87 and specificities of 0·80 to 0·91, whereas the parsimonious model (eight clinical and laboratory predictors) had sensitivities of 0·80 to 0·88 and specificities of 0·81 to 0·89. A model that includes laboratory markers that are easy to measure (eg, platelet count or white blood cell count) outperformed the models based on clinical variables only. INTERPRETATION: Our results confirm the important role of platelet and white blood cell counts in diagnosing dengue, and the importance of serial measurements over subsequent days. We successfully quantified the performance of clinical and laboratory markers covering the early period of dengue. Resulting algorithms performed better than published schemes for distinction of dengue from other febrile illnesses, and take into account the dynamic changes over time. Our results provide crucial information needed for the update of guidelines, including the Integrated Management of Childhood Illness handbook. FUNDING: EU's Seventh Framework Programme. TRANSLATIONS: For the Bangla, Bahasa Indonesia, Portuguese, Khmer, Spanish and Vietnamese translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
Assuntos
Febre , Humanos , Masculino , Feminino , Estudos Prospectivos , América Latina/epidemiologia , Ásia , Biomarcadores , Bangladesh , Febre/etiologia , Febre/diagnósticoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Data on the burden and clinical epidemiology of skin wounds in rural sub-Saharan Africa is scant. The scale of the problem including preventable progression to chronic wounds, disability and systemic complications is largely unaddressed. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study combining active (household-based survey) and passive case finding (health services-based survey) to determine the burden and clinical epidemiology of wounds within the Taabo Health and Demographic Surveillance System (HDSS) in rural Côte d'Ivoire. Patients identified with wounds received free care and were invited to participate in the wound management study simultaneously carried out in the survey area. The data were analysed for wound prevalence, stratified by wound and patient characteristics. RESULTS: 3842 HDSS-registered persons were surveyed. Overall wound prevalence derived from combined active and passive case finding was 13.0%. 74.1% (403/544) of patients were below the age of 15 years. Most frequent aetiologies were mechanical trauma (85.3%), furuncles (5.1%), burns (2.9%) and Buruli ulcer (2.2%). Most wounds were acute and smaller than 5 cm2 in size. 22.0% (176/799) of wounds showed evidence of secondary bacterial infection. 35.5% (22/62) of chronic wounds had persisted entirely neglected for years. Buruli ulcer prevalence was 2.3 per 1000 individuals and considerably higher than expected from an annual incidence of 0.01 per 1000 individuals as reported by WHO for Côte d'Ivoire at the time of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Skin wounds are highly prevalent in rural West Africa, where they represent a widely neglected problem. The HDSS-based survey with combined active and passive case finding adopted in this study provides a better estimate than school- and health institution-based surveys which underestimate the frequency of skin wounds and, particularly, of neglected tropical diseases of the skin, such as Buruli ulcer and yaws. A comparison with country-specific WHO data suggests underreporting of Buruli ulcer cases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03957447.
Assuntos
Úlcera de Buruli , Adolescente , Úlcera de Buruli/epidemiologia , Côte d'Ivoire/epidemiologia , Estudos Transversais , Humanos , Doenças Negligenciadas/epidemiologia , Prevalência , População RuralRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Wounds are a neglected health problem in rural communities of low-income countries, mostly caused by trauma and ulcerative skin diseases including Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) and associated with systemic complications and disability. Rural communities have limited access to high quality health services-based wound care. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study on wound management at three levels-community (C), health centre (HC), district hospital (DH)-in a rural community of Côte d'Ivoire. Patients with skin wounds actively identified in a house-to-house survey and passively in the health services in a defined area of the Taabo Health and Demographic Surveillance System were asked to participate and followed-up longitudinally. Endpoints were proportion of wounds closed, time to wound closure, wound size over time, frequency of secondary bacterial infection, need for recapturing after follow-up interruption, and duration of treatment stratified by health service level and wound aetiology. RESULTS: We enrolled 561 patients with 923 wounds between May 2019 and March 2020. The observation period ended in March 2021. Median age was 10 years (IQR 7-15), 63.0% of patients were male. Almost all (99.5%, 870/874) wounds closed within the observation period, 5.3% (49/923) were lost to follow-up. Wounds primarily treated in C, HC and DH closed within a median time of 10, 16 and 170 days, respectively. Median time to acute wound and chronic wound closure was 13 and 72 days, respectively. Wounds treated in C, HC and DH presented with secondary bacterial infections in 10.3% (36/350), 31.0% (133/429) and 100% (5/5) of cases, respectively. Recapturing was required in 68.3% (630/923) of wounds with participants reporting wound closure as the main reason for not attending follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: We describe a wound management model based on national and WHO recommendations focusing on early identification and treatment in the community with potential for broad implementation in low-income countries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03957447).
Assuntos
Doenças Negligenciadas , População Rural , Criança , Côte d'Ivoire/epidemiologia , Feminino , Serviços de Saúde , Humanos , Masculino , Doenças Negligenciadas/epidemiologia , Inquéritos e QuestionáriosRESUMO
Access to reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) testing, the gold standard for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection, is limited throughout the world, due to restricted resources, available infrastructure, and high costs. Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) overcome some of these barriers, but independent clinical validations in settings of intended use are scarce. To inform the World Health Organization's (WHO) emergency use listing (EUL) procedure and ensure affordable, high-quality Ag-RDTs, we assessed the performance and ease of use of the SureStatus for SARS-CoV-2. For this prospective, multicenter diagnostic accuracy study, we recruited unvaccinated participants with presumed SARS-CoV-2 infection in India and Germany from December 2020 to March 2021, when the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant was predominantly circulating. Paired swabs were performed for (i) routine clinical RT-PCR testing (sampling was either nasopharyngeal [NP] or combined NP and oropharyngeal [NP/OP]) and (ii) Ag-RDT (sampling was NP). Performance of the Ag-RDT was compared to RT-PCR overall and by predefined subgroups, e.g., cycle threshold (CT) value, symptoms, and days from symptom onset. To understand the usability, a system usability scale (SUS) questionnaire and ease-of-use (EoU) assessment were performed. A total of 1,119 participants were included in the analysis, of whom 205 (18.3%) were RT-PCR positive. SureStatus detected 169 out of 205 RT-PCR-positive participants, reporting a sensitivity of 82.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 76.6% to 87.1%) and a specificity of 98.5% (95% CI: 97.4% to 99.1%). In the first 7 days post-symptom onset, the sensitivity was 90.7% (95% CI: 83.5% to 94.9%), when CT values were low and viral loads were high. The test was characterized as easy to use (SUS, 85/100) and considered suitable for point-of-care settings, although quality concerns were raised due to visibly contaminated packaging of swabs included in the test kits. The SureStatus diagnostic test can be considered a reliable test during the first week of SARS-CoV-2 infection, with high sensitivity in combination with excellent usability. IMPORTANCE Our manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study assessed clinical performance in participants presumed to have a SARS-CoV-2 infection at three study sites in two countries. We assessed the accuracy overall and in predefined subgroups (CT values and symptom duration). SureStatus performed with high sensitivity. Its sensitivity was particularly high in the first 3 days after symptom onset and when CT values were low (i.e., the viral load was high). The system usability and ease-of-use assessment complements the accuracy assessment of the test and highlights critical factors to facilitate the widespread use of SureStatus in point-of-care settings. The high sensitivity demonstrated by the evaluated Ag-RDT within the first days of symptoms, when most transmission occurs, supports the role of Ag-RDTs for public health-relevant screening. Evidence from this study was used to inform the World Health Organization Emergency Use Listing procedure.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2/genética , COVID-19/diagnóstico , Testes Diagnósticos de Rotina , Sistemas Automatizados de Assistência Junto ao Leito , Estudos Prospectivos , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Organização Mundial da SaúdeRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 are important diagnostic tools. We assessed clinical performance and ease-of-use of seven Ag-RDTs in a prospective, manufacturer-independent, multi-centre cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study to inform global decision makers. METHODS: Unvaccinated participants suspected of a first SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited at six sites (Germany, Brazil). Ag-RDTs were evaluated sequentially, with collection of paired swabs for routine reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing and Ag-RDT testing. Performance was compared to RT-PCR overall and in sub-group analyses (viral load, symptoms, symptoms duration). To understandusability a System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire and ease-of-use (EoU) assessment were performed. FINDINGS: 7471 participants were included in the analysis. Sensitivities across Ag-RDTs ranged from 70·4%-90·1%, specificities were above 97·2% for all Ag-RDTs but one (93·1%).Ag-RDTs, Mologic, Bionote, Standard Q, showed diagnostic accuracy in line with WHO targets (> 80% sensitivity, > 97% specificity). All tests showed high sensitivity in the first three days after symptom onset (≥87·1%) and in individuals with viral loads≥ 6 log10SARS-CoV2 RNA copies/mL (≥ 88·7%). Usability varied, with Rapigen, Bionote and Standard Q reaching very good scores; 90, 88 and 84/100, respectively. INTERPRETATION: Variability in test performance is partially explained by variable viral loads in population evaluated over the course of the pandemic. All Ag-RDTs reach high sensitivity early in the disease and in individuals with high viral loads, supporting their role in identifying transmission relevant infections. For easy-to-use tests, performance shown will likely be maintained in routine implementation. FUNDING: Ministry of Science, Research and Arts, State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany, internal funds from Heidelberg University Hospital, University Hospital Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, UK Department of International Development, WHO, Unitaid.
Assuntos
Antígenos Virais/imunologia , Teste Sorológico para COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Sistemas Automatizados de Assistência Junto ao Leito , SARS-CoV-2/imunologia , Adulto , COVID-19/diagnóstico , COVID-19/imunologia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Sensibilidade e EspecificidadeRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Most SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests require nasopharyngeal sampling, which is frequently perceived as uncomfortable and requires healthcare professionals, thus limiting scale-up. Nasal sampling could enable self-sampling and increase acceptability. The term nasal sampling is often not used uniformly and sampling protocols differ. METHODS: This manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study, compared professional anterior nasal and nasal mid-turbinate sampling for a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test. The second group of participants collected a nasal mid-turbinate sample themselves and underwent a professional nasopharyngeal swab for comparison. The reference standard was real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) using combined oro-/nasopharyngeal sampling. Individuals with high suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection were tested. Sensitivity, specificity, and percent agreement were calculated. Self-sampling was observed without intervention. Feasibility was evaluated by observer and participant questionnaires. RESULTS: Among 132 symptomatic adults, both professional anterior nasal and nasal mid-turbinate sampling yielded a sensitivity of 86.1% (31/36 RT-PCR positives detected; 95%CI: 71.3-93.9) and a specificity of 100.0% (95%CI: 95.7-100). The positive percent agreement was 100% (95%CI: 89.0-100). Among 96 additional adults, self nasal mid-turbinate and professional nasopharyngeal sampling yielded an identical sensitivity of 91.2% (31/34; 95%CI 77.0-97.0). Specificity was 98.4% (95%CI: 91.4-99.9) with nasal mid-turbinate and 100.0% (95%CI: 94.2-100) with nasopharyngeal sampling. The positive percent agreement was 96.8% (95%CI: 83.8-99.8). Most participants (85.3%) considered self-sampling as easy to perform. CONCLUSION: Professional anterior nasal and nasal mid-turbinate sampling are of equivalent accuracy for an antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test in ambulatory symptomatic adults. Participants were able to reliably perform nasal mid-turbinate sampling themselves, following written and illustrated instructions. Nasal self-sampling will facilitate scaling of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adulto , Humanos , Estudos Prospectivos , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Conchas NasaisRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Considering the possibility of nasal self-sampling and the ease of use in performing SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs), self-testing is a feasible option. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was a head-to-head comparison of diagnostic accuracy of patient self-testing with professional testing using a SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study of nasal mid-turbinate self-sampling and self-testing with symptomatic adults using a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. Procedures were observed without intervention. For comparison, Ag-RDTs with nasopharyngeal sampling were professionally performed. Estimates of agreement, sensitivity, and specificity relative to RT-PCR on a combined oro-/nasopharyngeal sample were calculated. Feasibility was evaluated by observer and participant questionnaires. RESULTS: Among 146 symptomatic adults, 40 (27.4%) were RT-PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2. Sensitivity with self-testing was 82.5% (33/40; 95% CI 68.1-91.3), and 85.0% (34/40; 95% CI 70.9-92.9) with professional testing. At high viral load (≥7.0 log10 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/ml), sensitivity was 96.6% (28/29; 95% CI 82.8-99.8) for both self- and professional testing. Deviations in sampling and testing were observed in 25 out of the 40 PCR-positives. Most participants (80.9%) considered the Ag-RDT as easy to perform. CONCLUSION: Laypersons suspected for SARS-CoV-2 infection were able to reliably perform the Ag-RDT and test themselves. Procedural errors might be reduced by refinement of the instructions for use or the product design/procedures. Self-testing allows more wide-spread and frequent testing. Paired with the appropriate information of the public about the benefits and risks, self-testing may have significant impact on the pandemic.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adulto , Antígenos Virais , Estudos de Viabilidade , Humanos , Estudos Prospectivos , RNA Viral , Autoteste , Sensibilidade e EspecificidadeRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Most data on COVID-19 was collected in hospitalized cases. Much less is known about the spectrum of disease in entire populations. In this study, we examine a representative cohort of primarily symptomatic cases in an administrative district in Southern Germany. METHODS: We contacted all confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in the administrative district. Consenting participants answered a retrospective survey either via a telephone, electronically or via mail. Clinical and sociodemographic features were compared between hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients. Additionally, we assessed potential risk factors for hospitalization and time to hospitalization in a series of regression models. RESULTS: We included 897 participants in our study, 69% out of 1,305 total cases in the district with a mean age of 47 years (range 2-97), 51% of which were female and 47% had a pre-existing illness. The percentage of asymptomatic, mild, moderate (leading to hospital admission) and critical illness (requiring mechanical ventilation) was 54 patients (6%), 713 (79%), 97 (11%) and 16 (2%), respectively. Seventeen patients (2%) died. The most prevalent symptoms were fatigue (65%), cough (62%) and dysgeusia (60%). The risk factors for hospitalization included older age (OR 1.05 per year increase; 95% CI 1.04-1.07) preexisting lung conditions (OR 3.09; 95% CI 1.62-5.88). Female sex was a protective factor (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.33-0.77). CONCLUSION: This representative analysis of primarily symptomatic COVID-19 cases confirms age, male sex and preexisting lung conditions but not cardiovascular disease as risk factors for severe illness. Almost 80% of infection take a mild course, whereas 13% of patients suffer moderate to severe illness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00022926. URL: https://www.drks.de/drks_web/setLocale_EN.do.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Hospitalização , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescente , Adulto , Fatores Etários , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , COVID-19/mortalidade , COVID-19/patologia , COVID-19/terapia , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Risco , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Fatores SexuaisRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Diagnostics are essential for controlling the pandemic. Identifying a reliable and fast diagnostic device is needed for effective testing. We assessed performance and ease-of-use of the Abbott PanBio antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT). METHODS: This prospective, multi-centre diagnostic accuracy study enrolled at two sites in Germany. Following routine testing with reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), a second study-exclusive swab was performed for Ag-RDT testing. Routine swabs were nasopharyngeal (NP) or combined NP/oropharyngeal (OP) whereas the study-exclusive swabs were NP. To evaluate performance, sensitivity and specificity were assessed overall and in predefined sub-analyses accordingly to cycle-threshold values, days after symptom onset, disease severity and study site. Additionally, an ease-of-use assessment (EoU) and System Usability Scale (SUS) were performed. RESULTS: 1108 participants were enrolled between Sept 28 and Oct 30, 2020. Of these, 106 (9.6%) were PCR-positive. The Abbott PanBio detected 92/106 PCR-positive participants with a sensitivity of 86.8% (95% CI: 79.0% - 92.0%) and a specificity of 99.9% (95% CI: 99.4%-100%). The sub-analyses indicated that sensitivity was 95.8% in Ct-values <25 and within the first seven days from symptom onset. The test was characterized as easy to use (SUS: 86/100) and considered suitable for point-of-care settings. CONCLUSION: The Abbott PanBio Ag-RDT performs well for SARS-CoV-2 testing in this large manufacturer independent study, confirming its WHO recommendation for Emergency Use in settings with limited resources.