Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of a new point-of-care rapid test for SARS-CoV-2 virus detection.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
The easy access to a quick diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a key point to improve the management of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and to contain its spread. Up to now, laboratory real-time PCR is the standard of care, but requires a fully equipped laboratory and significant infrastructure. Consequently, new diagnostic tools are required.Methods
In the present work, the diagnostic accuracy of the point-of-care rapid test "bKIT Virus Finder COVID-19" (Hyris Ltd) is evaluated by a retrospective and a prospective analysis on SARS CoV-2 samples previously assessed with an FDA "authorized for the emergency use-EUA" reference method. Descriptive statistics were used for the present study.Results
Results obtained with the Hyris Kit are the same as that of standard laboratory-based real time PCR methods for all the analyzed samples. In addition, the Hyris Kit provides the test results in less than 2 h, a significantly shorter time compared to the reference methods, without the need of a fully equipped laboratory.Conclusions
To conclude, the Hyris kit represents a promising tool to improve the health surveillance and to increase the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 testing.
SUBMITTER: Miscio L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7752099 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of a new point-of-care rapid test for SARS-CoV-2 virus detection.
Miscio Leonardo L Olivieri Antonio A Labonia Francesco F De Feo Gianfranco G Chiodini Paolo P Portella Giuseppe G Atripaldi Luigi L Parrella Roberto R Conenna Rodolfo R Buonaguro Franco Maria FM Cavalcanti Ernesta E Ascierto Paolo P Botti Gerardo G Bianchi Attilio A
Journal of translational medicine 20201221 1
<h4>Background</h4>The easy access to a quick diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a key point to improve the management of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and to contain its spread. Up to now, laboratory real-time PCR is the standard of care, but requires a fully equipped laboratory and significant infrastructure. Consequently, new diagnostic tools are required.<h4>Methods</h4>In the present work, the diagnostic accuracy of the point-of-care rapid tes ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundAn ideal test for COVID-19 would combine the sensitivity of laboratory-based PCR with the speed and ease of use of point-of-care (POC) or home-based rapid antigen testing. We evaluated clinical performance of the Diagnostic Analyzer for Selective Hybridization (DASH) SARS-CoV-2 POC rapid PCR test.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study of adults with and without symptoms of COVID-19 at four clinical sites where we collected two bilateral anterior nasal swabs and information on COVID-19 symptoms, vaccination, and exposure. One swab was tested with the DASH SARS-CoV-2 POC PCR and the second in a central laboratory using Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 PCR. We assessed test concordance and calculated sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values using Xpert as the "gold standard".ResultsWe enrolled 315 and analyzed 313 participants with median age 42 years; 65% were female, 62% symptomatic, 75% had received ≥2 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, and 16% currently SARS-CoV-2 positive. There were concordant results for 307 tests indicating an overall agreement for DASH of 0.98 [95% CI 0.96, 0.99] compared to Xpert. DASH performed at 0.96 [95% CI 0.86, 1.00] sensitivity and 0.98 [95% CI 0.96, 1.00] specificity, with a positive predictive value of 0.85 [95% CI 0.73, 0.96] and negative predictive value of 0.996 [95% CI 0.99, 1.00]. The six discordant tests between DASH and Xpert all had high Ct values (>30) on the respective positive assay. DASH and Xpert Ct values were highly correlated (R = 0.89 [95% CI 0.81, 0.94]).ConclusionsDASH POC SARS-CoV-2 PCR was accurate, easy to use, and provided fast results (approximately 15 minutes) in real-life clinical settings with an overall performance similar to an EUA-approved laboratory-based PCR.
| S-EPMC9202852 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRapid and accurate testing for SARS-CoV-2 is an essential tool in the medical and public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. An ideal test for COVID-19 would combine the sensitivity of laboratory-based PCR combined with the speed and ease of use of point-of-care (POC) or home-based rapid antigen testing.MethodsTo evaluate the performance of the Diagnostic Analyzer for Selective Hybridization (DASH) SARS-CoV-2 POC PCR (sample insertion to result time of 16 minutes), we conducted a cross-sectional study of adults with and without symptoms of COVID-19 at four clinical sites. We collected two bilateral anterior nasal swabs from each participant and information on COVID-19 symptoms, vaccination, and exposure. One swab was tested with the DASH SARS-CoV-2 POC PCR and the second in a central laboratory using Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 PCR. We assessed test concordance and calculated sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values using Xpert as the "gold standard."ResultsWe enrolled 315 and analyzed 313 participants with median age 42 years; 65% were female, 62% symptomatic, 75% had received ≥2 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, and 16% currently COVID-19 positive. There were concordant results for 307 tests indicating an overall agreement for DASH of 0.98 [95% CI 0.96, 0.99] compared to Xpert. DASH performed at 0.96 [95% CI 0.86, 1.00] sensitivity and 0.98 [95% CI 0.96, 1.00] specificity, with a positive predictive value of 0.85 [95% CI 0.73, 0.96] and negative predictive value of 0.996 [95% CI 0.99, 1.00]. The six discordant tests between DASH and Xpert all had high Ct values (>30) on the respective positive assay. DASH and Xpert Ct values were highly correlated (R=0.89 [95% CI 0.81, 0.94]).ConclusionsDASH POC SARS-CoV-2 PCR was accurate, easy to use, and provided fast results in real-life clinical settings with an overall performance similar to an EUA-approved laboratory-based PCR. Its compact design and ease of use are optimal for a variety of healthcare, and potentially community settings, including areas with lack of access to central laboratory-based PCR testing.SummaryDASH is an accurate, easy to use, and fast point-of-care test with applications for diagnosis and screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
| S-EPMC8811909 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesDiagnostics 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).MethodsThis 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.Results1108 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.ConclusionThe 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.
| S-EPMC8158996 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC9604065 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAccess to rapid diagnosis is key to the control and management of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Laboratory RT-PCR testing is the current standard of care but usually requires a centralised laboratory and significant infrastructure. We describe our diagnostic accuracy assessment of a novel, rapid point-of-care real time RT-PCR CovidNudge test, which requires no laboratory handling or sample pre-processing.MethodsBetween April and May, 2020, we obtained two nasopharyngeal swab samples from individuals in three hospitals in London and Oxford (UK). Samples were collected from three groups: self-referred health-care workers with suspected COVID-19; patients attending emergency departments with suspected COVID-19; and hospital inpatient admissions with or without suspected COVID-19. For the CovidNudge test, nasopharyngeal swabs were inserted directly into a cartridge which contains all reagents and components required for RT-PCR reactions, including multiple technical replicates of seven SARS-CoV-2 gene targets (rdrp1, rdrp2, e-gene, n-gene, n1, n2 and n3) and human ribonuclease P (RNaseP) as sample adequacy control. Swab samples were tested in parallel using the CovidNudge platform, and with standard laboratory RT-PCR using swabs in viral transport medium for processing in a central laboratory. The primary analysis was to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the point-of-care CovidNudge test with laboratory-based testing.FindingsWe obtained 386 paired samples: 280 (73%) from self-referred health-care workers, 15 (4%) from patients in the emergency department, and 91 (23%) hospital inpatient admissions. Of the 386 paired samples, 67 tested positive on the CovidNudge point-of-care platform and 71 with standard laboratory RT-PCR. The overall sensitivity of the point-of-care test compared with laboratory-based testing was 94% (95% CI 86-98) with an overall specificity of 100% (99-100). The sensitivity of the test varied by group (self-referred healthcare workers 94% [95% CI 85-98]; patients in the emergency department 100% [48-100]; and hospital inpatient admissions 100% [29-100]). Specificity was consistent between groups (self-referred health-care workers 100% [95% CI 98-100]; patients in the emergency department 100% [69-100]; and hospital inpatient admissions 100% [96-100]). Point of care testing performance was similar during a period of high background prevalence of laboratory positive tests (25% [95% 20-31] in April, 2020) and low prevalence (3% [95% 1-9] in inpatient screening). Amplification of viral nucleocapsid (n1, n2, and n3) and envelope protein gene (e-gene) were most sensitive for detection of spiked SARS-CoV-2 RNA.InterpretationThe CovidNudge platform was a sensitive, specific, and rapid point of care test for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 without laboratory handling or sample pre-processing. The device, which has been implemented in UK hospitals since May, 2020, could enable rapid decisions for clinical care and testing programmes.FundingNational Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at Oxford University in partnership with Public Health England, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Oxford, and DnaNudge.
| S-EPMC7498257 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The rapid detection of infections caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is necessary in the ongoing pandemic. Antigen-specific point-of-care tests (POCT) may be useful for this purpose. Here, such a POCT (SARS-CoV-2 NADAL® COVID-19 Ag) was compared to a laboratory-developed triplex real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) designed for the detection of viral nucleoprotein gene and two control targets. This RT-PCR served as a reference to investigate POCT sensitivity by re-testing upper respiratory tract (URT) samples (n = 124) exhibiting different SARS-CoV-2 loads in terms of RT-PCR threshold cycle (Ct) values. The optical intensities of the antigen bands were compared to the Ct values of the RT-PCR. The infectivity of various virus loads was estimated by inoculating Vero cells with URT samples (n = 64, Ct 17-34). POCT sensitivity varied from 100% (Ct < 25) to 73.1% (Ct ≤ 30); higher SARS-CoV-2 loads correlated with higher band intensities. All samples with a Ct > 30 were negative; among SARS-CoV-2 free samples (n = 10) no false-positives were detected. A head-to-head comparison with another POCT (Abbott, Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test) yielded similar results. Isolation of SARS-CoV-2 in cell-culture was successful up to a Ct value of 29. The POCT reliably detects high SARS-CoV-2 loads and rapidly identifies infectious individuals.
| S-EPMC7823488 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAccurate and timely diagnosis is essential in limiting the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The reference standard, rRT-PCR, requires specialized laboratories, costly reagents, and a long turnaround time. Antigen RDTs provide a feasible alternative to rRT-PCR since they are quick, relatively inexpensive, and do not require a laboratory. The WHO requires that Ag RDTs have a sensitivity ≥80% and specificity ≥97%.MethodsThis evaluation was conducted at 11 health facilities in Kenya between March and July 2021. We enrolled persons of any age with respiratory symptoms and asymptomatic contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases. We collected demographic and clinical information and two nasopharyngeal specimens from each participant for Ag RDT testing and rRT-PCR. We calculated the diagnostic performance of the Panbio™ Ag RDT against the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) rRT-PCR test.ResultsWe evaluated the Ag RDT in 2,245 individuals where 551 (24.5%, 95% CI: 22.8-26.3%) tested positive by rRT-PCR. Overall sensitivity of the Ag RDT was 46.6% (95% CI: 42.4-50.9%), specificity 98.5% (95% CI: 97.8-99.0%), PPV 90.8% (95% CI: 86.8-93.9%) and NPV 85.0% (95% CI: 83.4-86.6%). Among symptomatic individuals, sensitivity was 60.6% (95% CI: 54.3-66.7%) and specificity was 98.1% (95% CI: 96.7-99.0%). Among asymptomatic individuals, sensitivity was 34.7% (95% CI 29.3-40.4%) and specificity was 98.7% (95% CI: 97.8-99.3%). In persons with onset of symptoms <5 days (594/876, 67.8%), sensitivity was 67.1% (95% CI: 59.2-74.3%), and 53.3% (95% CI: 40.0-66.3%) among those with onset of symptoms >7 days (157/876, 17.9%). The highest sensitivity was 87.0% (95% CI: 80.9-91.8%) in symptomatic individuals with cycle threshold (Ct) values ≤30.ConclusionThe overall sensitivity and NPV of the Panbio™ Ag RDT were much lower than expected. The specificity of the Ag RDT was high and satisfactory; therefore, a positive result may not require confirmation by rRT-PCR. The kit may be useful as a rapid screening tool only for symptomatic patients in high-risk settings with limited access to rRT-PCR. A negative result should be interpreted based on clinical and epidemiological information and may require retesting by rRT-PCR.
| S-EPMC9876661 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks can occur when there is communication between the intracranial cavities and the external environment. They are a common and serious complication of numerous procedures in otolaryngology, and if not treated, persistent leaks can increase a patient's risk of developing life-threatening complications such as meningitis. As it is not uncommon for patients to exhibit increased secretions postoperatively, distinguishing normal secretions from those containing CSF can be difficult. Currently, there are no proven, available tests that allow a medical provider concerned about a CSF leak to inexpensively, rapidly, and noninvasively rule out the presence of a leak. The gold standard laboratory-based test requires that a sample be sent to a tertiary site for analysis, where days to weeks may pass before results return. To address this, our group recently developed a semiquantitative, barcode-style lateral-flow immunoassay (LFA) for the quantification of the beta-trace protein, which has been reported to be an indicator of the presence of CSF leaks. In the work presented here, we created a rapid diagnostic test kit composed of our LFA, a collection swab, dilution buffers, disposable pipettes, and instructions. Validation studies demonstrated excellent predictive capabilities of this kit in distinguishing between clinical specimens containing CSF and those that did not. Our diagnostic kit for CSF leak detection can be operated by an untrained user, does not require any external equipment, and can be performed in approximately 20 min, making it well suited for use at the point of care. This kit has the potential to transform patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC6980299 | biostudies-literature
Project description:COVID-19 testing is required before admission of a patient in the hospitals, invasive procedures, major and minor surgeries etc. Real Time Polymerase chain reaction is the gold standard test for the diagnosis, but requires well equipped biosafety laboratory along with trained manpower. In this study we have evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of novel TrueNat molecular assay for detecting SARS CoV-2. TrueNat is a chip-based real time PCR test and works on portable, light weight, battery powered equipment and can be used in remote areas with poor infrastructure. In this study 1807 patients samples were collected for both TrueNat and RTPCR COVID-19 testing during study period. Of these 174 (9.7%) and 174 (15%) were positive by RTPCR and TrueNat respectively and taking results of RTPCR as gold standard TrueNat test showed a sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of 69.5, 90.9% and 89.2% respectively. It can be concluded that TrueNat is a simple, easy to use, good rapid molecular diagnostic test for diagnosis of COVID-19 especially in resource limited settings and will prove to be a game changer of molecular diagnostics in future.
| S-EPMC8513858 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe objective of this study was to develop a scalable approach for direct comparison of the analytical sensitivities of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antigen point-of-care tests (AgPOCTs) to rapidly identify poor-performing products.MethodsWe present a methodology for quick assessment of the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 AgPOCTs suitable for quality evaluation of many different products. We established reference samples with high, medium, and low SARS-CoV-2 viral loads along with a SARS-CoV-2 negative control sample. Test samples were used to semi-quantitatively assess the analytical sensitivities of 32 different commercial AgPOCTs in a head-to-head comparison.ResultsAmong 32 SARS-CoV-2 AgPOCTs tested, we observe sensitivity differences across a broad range of viral loads (9.8 × 108 to 1.8 × 105 SARS-CoV-2 genome copies per ml). 23 AgPOCTs detected the Ct25 test sample (1.6 × 106 copies/ml), while only five tests detected the Ct28 test sample (1.8 × 105 copies/ml). In the low-range of analytical sensitivity, we found three saliva spit tests only delivering positive results for the Ct21 sample (2.7 × 107 copies/ml). Comparison with published data supports our AgPOCT ranking. Importantly, we identified an AgPOCT widely offered, which did not reliably recognize the sample with the highest viral load (Ct16 test sample with 9.8 × 108 copies/ml) leading to serious doubts about its usefulness in SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics.ConclusionThe results show that the rapid sensitivity assessment procedure presented here provides useful estimations on the analytical sensitivities of 32 AgPOCTs and identified a widely-spread AgPOCT with concerningly low sensitivity.
| S-EPMC8994089 | biostudies-literature