Abstract
Background RT-qPCR is the reference test for identification of active SARS-CoV-2 infection, but is associated with diagnostic delay. Antigen detection assays can generate results within 20 minutes and outside of laboratory settings. Yet, their diagnostic test performance in real life settings has not been determined.
Methods The diagnostic value of the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (Abbott), was determined in comparison to RT-qPCR (Seegene Allplex) in community-dwelling mildly symptomatic subjects in a medium (Utrecht, the Netherlands) and high endemic area (Aruba), using two concurrently obtained nasopharyngeal swabs.
Findings 1367 and 208 subjects were enrolled in Utrecht and Aruba, respectively. SARS-CoV-2 prevalence, based on RT-qPCR, was 10.2% (n=139) and 30.3% (n=63) in Utrecht and Aruba respectively. Specificity of the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test was 100% (95%CI: 99.7-100%) in both settings. Test sensitivity was 72.6% (95%CI: 64.5-79.9%) in the Netherlands and 81.0% (95% CI: 69.0–89.8%) in Aruba. Probability of false negative results was associated with RT-qPCR Ct-values, but not with duration of symptoms. Restricting RT-qPCR test positivity to Ct-values <32 yielded test sensitivities of 95.2% (95%CI: 89.3-98.5%) in the Netherlands and 98.0% (95%CI: 89.2–99.95%) in Aruba.
Interpretation In community-dwelling subjects with mild respiratory symptoms the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test had 100% specificity, and a sensitivity above 95% for nasopharyngeal samples when using Ct values <32 cycles as cut-off for RT-qPCR test positivity. Considering short turnaround times, user friendliness, low costs and opportunities for decentralized testing, this test can improve our efforts to control transmission of SARS-CoV-2.
Funding UMCU and LABHOH, Aruba
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was investigator initiated. No external funding was received.
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:
The medical research ethics committee (MREC) of Utrecht decided the study is not subject to the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) and did not require full review by an accredited MREC. The ethical committee of the hospital board of Aruba approved the study. All participants have provided written informed consent.
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
All available deidentified participant data can be made available upon request per email to the corresponding author.
