Abstract
Background The SARS-CoV-2 virus is responsible for the infectious respiratory disease called COVID-19 (COronaVIrus Disease). In response to the growing COVID-19 pandemic, Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs) have been developed to detect specific antibodies, IgG and IgM, to SARS-CoV-2 virus in human whole blood. We conducted a real-life study to evaluate the performance of two RDTs, COVID-PRESTO® and COVID-DUO®, compared to the gold standard, RT-PCR.
Methods RT-PCR testing of SARS-Cov-2 was performed from nasopharyngeal swab specimens collected in adult patients visiting the infectious disease department at the hospital (Orléans, France). Fingertip whole blood samples taken at different time points after onset of the disease were tested with RDTs. The specificity and sensitivity of the rapid test kits compared to test of reference (RT-PCR) were calculated.
Results Among 381 patients with symptoms of COVID-19 who went to the hospital for a diagnostic, 143 patients were RT-PCR negative. Results of test with RDTs were all negative for these patients, indicating a specificity of 100% for both RDTs.
In the RT-PCR positive subgroup (n=238), 133 patients were tested with COVID-PRESTO® and 129 patients were tested with COVID-DUO® (24 patients tested with both). The further the onset of symptoms was from the date of collection, the greater the sensitivity. The sensitivity of COVID-PRESTO® test ranged from 10.00% for patients having experienced their 1st symptoms from 0 to 5 days ago to 100% in patients where symptoms had occurred more than 15 days before the date of tests. For COVID-DUO® test, the sensitivity ranged from 35.71% [0-5 days] to 100% (> 15 days).
Conclusion COVID-PRESTO® and DUO® RDTs turned out to be very specific (none false positive) and to be sensitive enough after 15 days from onset of symptom. These easy to use IgG/IgM combined test kits are the first ones allowing a screening with capillary blood sample, by typing from a finger prick. These rapid tests are particularly interesting for screening in low resource settings.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
Approved by Ethics Committee from Limoges (France)
Funding Statement
Rapid Diagnostic Tests were provided free of charge by AAZ-LMB.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Non interventional study approved by Ethics Committee from Limoges (France) - Comite de Protection des Personnes du Sud-Ouest et Outre-Mer 4
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The raw data underlying the results presented in the study are available from Thierry Prazuck, corresponding author.
