Unknown

Dataset Information

0

Laboratory and field evaluation of the STANDARD Q and PanbioTM SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid test in Namibia using nasopharyngeal samples


ABSTRACT:

Background

As new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern emerge, there is a need to scale up testing to minimize transmission of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Many countries especially those in the developing world continue to struggle with scaling up reverse transcriptase polymerase reaction (RT-PCR) to detect SARS-CoV-2 due to scarcity of resources. Alternatives such as antigen rapid diagnostics tests (Ag-RDTs) may provide a solution to enable countries scale up testing.

Methods

In this study, we evaluated the Panbio™ and STANDARD Q Ag-RDTs in the laboratory using 80 COVID-19 RT-PCR confirmed and 80 negative nasopharyngeal swabs. The STANDARD Q was further evaluated in the field on 112 symptomatic and 61 asymptomatic participants.

Results

For the laboratory evaluation, both tests had a sensitivity above 80% (Panbio™ = 86% vs STANDARD Q = 88%). The specificity of the Panbio™ was 100%, while that of the STANDARD Q was 99%. When evaluated in the field, the STANDARD Q maintained a high specificity of 99%, however the sensitivity was reduced to 56%.

Conclusion

Using Ag-RDTs in low resource settings will be helpful in scaling-up SARS-CoV-2 testing, however, negative results should be confirmed by RT-PCR where possible to rule out COVID-19 infection.

SUBMITTER: Konstantinus I 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9514621 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

Similar Datasets

| S-EPMC7662075 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC9955641 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC7881288 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC7884234 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC7836828 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC7833843 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC11326698 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC9289906 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC11768758 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC8426967 | biostudies-literature