Abstract
For the last two years, the SARS-CoV-2 virus spread all around the world and led to the COVID-19 pandemic. The need of methods to control the pandemic and to propose rapid and efficient diagnostic tools has emerged. In this perspective, SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen detection tests (RADT) have been developed. We performed a retrospective study on 638 collected nasopharyngeal samples used for reference RT-qPCR diagnosis to compare the AQ+ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test” from InTec (AQ+ InTec test) performance with other commercially available RADT. We analysed the sensitivity and specificity of the different tests and showed a better overall performance of the AQ+ InTec test, which was confirmed on the SARS-Cov-2 Omicron variant. We then conducted a prospective study on 1428 patients, to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the AQ+ InTec test on nasal and nasopharyngeal samples in a point of care setting. We showed that sensitivity and specificity reach acceptable criteria regarding the official recommendations of the MDCG 2021-21 in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Overall, the results of these two studies confirm that the AQ+ InTec test is a valuable tool for testing in a pandemic context with a high proportion of asymptomatic patients who are potential carriers for the SARS-CoV-2 virus and is performant on the most current circulating variant Omicron.
Highlights
The sensitivity of the AQ+ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test from InTec reaches 94.4% on nasal samples and 97.4% on nasopharyngeal samples.
The performance of the test remains high on asymptomatic patients with a sensitivity of 89.2% on nasal samples and 97.0% on nasopharyngeal samples.
Prospective study in a point of care setting revealed a better sensitivity compared with other commercially available rapid antigen detection tests
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
IDRCB2020-A02619-30
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the Regional Hospital of Orleans
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 ethics committee of the Regional Hospital of Orleans (France) and the ethics committee of Sud Ouest and Outre Mer (France) gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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
Footnotes
raphael.serreauurc{at}gmail.com
aurelie.theillay{at}chr-orleans.fr
sandra.pallay{at}chr-orleans.fr
daniela-filipa.pires-roteia{at}chr-orleans.fr
fanny.prazuck{at}yahoo.fr
fabien.lesne{at}chr-orleans.fr
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors