RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen detection testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic children in the clinical setting
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.04.15.21255577
DO 10.1101/2021.04.15.21255577
A1 Arnaud G. L’Huillier
A1 Matthieu Lacour
A1 Debora Sadiku
A1 Mehdi A. Gadiri
A1 Loraine De Siebenthal
A1 Manuel Schibler
A1 Isabella Eckerle
A1 Selina Pinösch
A1 Laurent Kaiser
A1 Alain Gervaix
A1 Alban Glangetas
A1 Annick Galetto-Lacour
A1 Laurence Lacroix
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/04/20/2021.04.15.21255577.abstract
AB Importance Antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have shown good sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection in adults and are used in children despite the lack data from children.Objective We evaluated the diagnostic performance of the Panbio™-COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device (P-RDT) in symptomatic and asymptomatic children against reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS).Design Prospective diagnostic study from 11.2020 to 03.2021.Setting Single-center.Participants Consecutive symptomatic and asymptomatic participants 0-16yo.Intervention Two NPS for both RT-PCR and P-RDT.Main outcome P-RDT sensitivity and specificity.Results Eight-hundred and twenty-two participants completed the study, of which 533 (64.9%) were symptomatic. Among the 119 (14.5%) RT-PCR positive patients, the overall P-RDT sensitivity was 0.66 (95%CI 0.57-0.74). Mean viral load (VL) was higher among P-RDT positive than negative ones (p<0.001). Sensitivity was 0.87 in specimens with VL>1.0E6 copies/mL (95%CI 0.87-1.00), which is the accepted cut-off for the presence of infectious virus, and decreased to 0.67 (95%CI 0.59-0.76) for specimens >1.0E3 copies/mL.Among symptomatic participants, the P-RDT displayed a sensitivity of 0.73 (95%CI 0.64-0.82), which peaked at 1.00 at 2 days post onset of symptoms (DPOS; 95%CI 1.00-1.00), then decreased to 0.56 (95%CI 0.23-0.88) at 5 DPOS. There was a trend towards lower P-RDT sensitivity in symptomatic children <12 years (0.62 [95%CI 0.45-0.78]) versus ≥12 years (0.80 [95%CI 0.69-0.91]; p=0.09). VL which was significantly lower in asymptomatic participants than in symptomatic ones (p<0.001). The P-RDT displayed a sensitivity of 0.43 (95%CI 0.26-0.61).Specificity was 1.00 in symptomatic and asymptomatic children (95%CI 0.99-1.00).Conclusion and relevance The overall respective 73% and 43% sensitivities of P-RDT in symptomatic and asymptomatic children was below the 80% cut-off recommended by the World Health Organization. These findings are likely explained by lower VLs in children at the time of diagnosis. As expected, we observed a direct correlation between VL and P-RDT sensitivity as well as variation of sensitivity according to DPOS, a major determinant of VL. These data highlight the limitations of RDTs both in symptomatic and asymptomatic children, with the potential exception in early symptomatic children ≥12yrs where sensitivity reached 80%.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe study was supported by the Geneva Centre for Emerging Viral Diseases.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study was approved by the local research ethics board (Commission cantonale d'ethique de la recherche #2020-02323).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.Yesdata are available upon reasonable request upon peer-reviewed manuscript publication