PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Massimo Micocci
AU  - Peter Buckle
AU  - Gail Hayward
AU  - A. Joy Allen
AU  - Kerrie Davies
AU  - Patrick Kierkegaard
AU  - Karen Spilsbury
AU  - Carl Thompson
AU  - Anita Astle
AU  - Ros Heath
AU  - Claire Sharpe
AU  - Cyd Akrill
AU  - Dan Lasserson
AU  - Rafael Perera
AU  - Richard Body
AU  - Adam L Gordon
TI  - Point of Care Testing using rapid automated Antigen Testing for SARS-COV-2 in Care Homes – an exploratory safety, usability and diagnostic agreement evaluation
AID  - 10.1101/2021.04.22.21255948
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.04.22.21255948
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/04/26/2021.04.22.21255948.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/04/26/2021.04.22.21255948.full
AB  - Introduction Successful adoption of POCTs (Point-of-Care tests) for COVID-19 in care homes requires the identification of ideal use cases and a full understanding of contextual and usability factors that affect test results and minimise biosafety risks. This paper presents findings from a scoping-usability and test performance study of a microfluidic immunofluorescence assay for COVID-19 in care homes.Methods A mixed-methods evaluation was conducted in four UK care homes to scope usability and to assess the agreement with qRT-PCR. A dry run with luminescent dye was carried out to explore biosafety issues.Results The agreement analysis was carried out on 227 asymptomatic participants (159 staff and 68 residents) and 14 symptomatic participants (5 staff and 9 residents). Asymptomatic specimens showed 50% (95% CI: 1.3%-98.7%) positive agreement and 96% (95% CI: 92.5%-98.1%) negative agreement with overall prevalence and bias-adjusted Kappa (PABAK) of 0.911 (95% CI: 0.857-0.965). Symptomatic specimens showed 83.3% (95% CI: 35.9%-99.6%) positive agreement and 100% (95% CI: 63.1%-100%) negative agreement with overall prevalence and bias-adjusted Kappa (PABAK) of 0.857 (95% CI: 0.549-1).The dry run showed four main sources of contamination that led to the modification of the standard operating procedures. Simulation after modification showed no further evidence of contamination.Conclusion Careful consideration of biosafety issues and contextual factors associated with care home are mandatory for safe use the POCT. Whilst POCT may have some utility for ruling out COVID-19, further diagnostic accuracy evaluations are needed to promote effective adoption.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementFunding statement This work was supported by National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation, as a part of the CONDOR study. MM, PB and PK are supported by the NIHR London In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative; ALG is funded in part by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration-East Midlands (ARC-EM). GH is supported by the NIHR Community Healthcare MedTech and IVD Cooperative. AJA is supported by the NIHR Newcastle In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative. KD is seconded part-time into the technologies Validation Group, within Test and Trace. CT and KS are funded in part by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Yorkshire and Humber. DL is funded in part by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands and the NIHR Community Healthcare MedTech and IVD Cooperative (MIC) at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust. RP acknowledges part-funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR Programme Grant for Applied Research), the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the NIHR Oxford and Thames Valley Applied Research Collaborative (ARC), NIHR Oxford Medtech and In-Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative and the Oxford Martin School. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders, the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. LumiraDx were loaned, at no cost, by the supplier, LumiraDx UK Ltd. The research team were independent of the manufacturer throughout and LumiraDx have not participated in the research and data analysis. 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:This project was approved as a service evaluation by Imperial College Healthcare NHS trust (ICHNT), registration no. 471. The collation of data from routinely collected specimens taken as part of mandated patient care was determined using the Health Research Authority online toolkit to be a service evaluation.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.YesDemographics of participants are included as supplementary mateiral