RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Evaluation of a novel, rapid antigen detection test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.04.22.21255637
DO 10.1101/2021.04.22.21255637
A1 Rainer Thell
A1 Verena Kallab
A1 Wolfgang Weinhappel
A1 Wolfgang Mueckstein
A1 Lukas Heschl
A1 Martina Heschl
A1 Stefan Korsatko
A1 Franz Toedling
A1 Amelie Blaschke
A1 Theresa Herzog
A1 Anna Klicpera
A1 Clara Koeller
A1 Moritz Haugk
A1 Anna Kreil
A1 Alexander Spiel
A1 Philipp Kreuzer
A1 Robert Krause
A1 Christian Sebesta
A1 Stefan Winkler
A1 Brenda Laky
A1 Marton Szell
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/04/22/2021.04.22.21255637.abstract
AB Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently finally determined in laboratory settings by real-time reverse-transcription polymerase-chain-reaction (rt-PCR). However, simple testing with immediately available results are crucial to gain control over COVID-19. The aim was to evaluate such a point-of-care antigen rapid test (AG-rt) device in its performance compared to laboratory-based rt-PCR testing in COVID-19 suspected, symptomatic patients.Methods For this prospective study, two specimens each of 541 symptomatic female (54.7%) and male (45.3%) patients aged between 18 and 95 years tested at five emergency departments (ED, n=296) and four primary healthcare centres (PHC, n=245), were compared, using AG-rt (positive/negative/invalid) and rt-PCR (positive/negative and cycle threshold, Ct) to diagnose SARS-CoV-2. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and likelihood ratios (LR+/-) of the AG-rt were assessed.Results Differences between ED and PHC were detected regarding gender, age, symptoms, disease prevalence, and diagnostic performance. Overall, 174 (32.2%) were tested positive on AG-rt and 213 (39.4%) on rt-PCR. AG correctly classified 91.7% of all rt-PCR positive cases with a sensitivity of 80.3%, specificity of 99.1%, PPV of 98.3, NPV of 88.6%, LR(+) of 87.8, and LR(-) of 0.20. The highest sensitivities and specificities of AG-rt were detected in PHC (sensitivity: 84.4%, specificity: 100.0%), when using Ct of 30 as cut-off (sensitivity: 92.5%, specificity: 97.8%), and when symptom onset was within the first three days (sensitivity: 82.9%, specificity: 99.6%).Conclusions The highest sensitivity was detected with a high viral load. Our findings suggest that AG-rt are comparable to rt-PCR to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 suspected symptomatic patients presenting both at emergency departments and primary health care centres.SUMMARY The rapid SARS-Cov-2 antigen test (SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche Diagnostics), was compared in symptomatic patients with PCR testing both in emergency departments and primary health care centres. It showed an overall sensitivity of 80.3% and specificity of 99.1%; these were higher with lower PCR cycle threshold numbers and with a shorter onset of symptoms.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialTrial registered at 4 ethics committees in AustriaFunding StatementPartial funding by Roche.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:Ethics committees of City of Vienna, City of Graz, and provinces of Steiermark and Lower Austria.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.YesAll data stored at Klinik Donaustadt Vienna, Emergency Department and open for review anytime.