PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Tristan W Clark AU - Nathan J Brendish AU - Stephen Poole AU - Vasanth V Naidu AU - Christopher Mansbridge AU - Nicholas Norton AU - Helen Wheeler AU - Laura Presland AU - Sean Ewings TI - Diagnostic accuracy of a host response point-of-care test in patients with suspected COVID-19 AID - 10.1101/2020.05.27.20114512 DP - 2020 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2020.05.27.20114512 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/06/02/2020.05.27.20114512.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/06/02/2020.05.27.20114512.full AB - Rationale Management of the COVID-19 pandemic is hampered by long delays associated with centralised laboratory PCR testing. In hospitals this leads to poor patient flow and nosocomial transmission and rapid, accurate diagnostic tests are urgently required. The FebriDx is a point-of-care test that detects an antiviral host response protein in finger prick blood within 10 minutes, but its accuracy for the detection of COVID-19 is unknown.Objectives To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of FebriDx in hospitalised patients during the first wave of the pandemicMethods Measures of diagnostic accuracy were calculated based on FebriDx results compared to the reference standard of PCR, and stratified by duration of symptoms. A multivariable predictive model was developed and underwent internal validation.Results FebriDx was performed on 251 patients and gave a valid result in 248. 118 of 248 (48%) were PCR positive for COVID-19. Sensitivity of FebriDx for the identification of COVID-19 was 93% (110/118; 95% CI 87 to 97%) and specificity was 86% (112/130; 95%CI 79 to 92%). Positive and negative likelihood ratios were 6.73 (95%CI 4.37 to 10.37) and 0.08 (95%CI 0.04 to 0.15) respectively. In the multivariate model diagnosis of COVID-19 was not significantly influenced by clinical symptoms and signs, and FebriDx accuracy was not improved by restricting testing to those with duration of symptoms of less than seven days.Conclusions During the first wave of the pandemic, FebriDx had high sensitivity for the identification of COVID-19 in hospitalised adults and could be deployed as a front door triage tool.Trial registration ISRCTN14966673Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialISRCTN14966673Clinical Protocols https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/439309/1/CoV_19POC_Protocol_v1.1_eprints.pdf Funding StatementNo external funding was received for this work. The parent study is supported by Qiagen in the form of discounted equipment and consumables. They had no role in the study conception, design, data analysis or manuscript preparationAuthor 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 South Central - Hampshire A Research Ethics Committee: REC reference 20/SC/0138, 16th March 2020All 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 requests should be submitted to the corresponding author for consideration. Following publication access to anonymised data may be granted following review