Diagnostic accuracy of the FebriDx host response point-of-care test in patients hospitalised with suspected COVID-19.
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Betacoronavirus
COVID-19
COVID-19 Testing
Clinical Laboratory Techniques
/ instrumentation
Coronavirus Infections
/ diagnosis
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Pandemics
Pneumonia, Viral
/ diagnosis
Point-of-Care Testing
Reagent Kits, Diagnostic
SARS-CoV-2
Sensitivity and Specificity
Triage
/ methods
Accuracy
COVID-19
Host response
MxA
Point of care testing
SARS-CoV-2
Journal
The Journal of infection
ISSN: 1532-2742
Titre abrégé: J Infect
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7908424
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2020
10 2020
Historique:
received:
12
06
2020
revised:
18
06
2020
accepted:
20
06
2020
pubmed:
25
6
2020
medline:
6
10
2020
entrez:
25
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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 so 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 min, but its accuracy for the identification of COVID-19 is unknown. We performed a real-world diagnostic accuracy study of FebriDx in hospitalised patients during the first wave of the pandemic. Measures of diagnostic accuracy were calculated based on FebriDx results compared to the reference standard of SARS-CoV-2 PCR on combined nose and throat swabs. A multivariable predictive model including FebriDx, age, sex, and clinical characteristics was developed and underwent internal validation. FebriDx was performed on 251 patients and gave a valid result in 248. 118 of 248 (48%) were PCR positive for COVID-19. FebriDx results were available after 10 min compared with 1.7 (1.6 to 2.1) hours with point-of-care PCR testing and 23.4 (17.2 to 31.1) hours with laboratory PCR testing. 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 age, sex and other clinical features did not contribute significantly to the effect of the FebriDx result in distinguishing patients with and without COVID-19. During the first wave of the pandemic, FebriDx had high accuracy for the identification of COVID-19 in hospitalised adults and could be deployed as a front door triage tool. ISRCTN14966673.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32579983
pii: S0163-4453(20)30432-1
doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.06.051
pmc: PMC7306108
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Reagent Kits, Diagnostic
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
607-613Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : PDF-2016-09-061
Pays : United Kingdom
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest TWC has received speaker fees, honoraria, travel reimbursement, and equipment and consumables free of charge for the purposes of research outside of this submitted study, from BioFire diagnostics LLC and BioMerieux. TWC has received consultancy fees from Synairgen research Ltd, Randox laboratories Ltd and Cidara therapeutics. He a member of an advisory board for Roche and a member of two independent data monitoring committees for trials sponsored by Roche. He has acted as the UK chief investigator for an IMP study sponsored by Janssen. All other authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Références
Pediatrics. 2015 Apr;135(4):e985-93
pubmed: 25802344
Euro Surveill. 2020 Jan;25(3):
pubmed: 31992387
J Clin Med. 2017 Oct 07;6(10):
pubmed: 28991170
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Apr 23;58(5):
pubmed: 32132186
Stat Med. 1998 Apr 30;17(8):857-72
pubmed: 9595616
Stat Med. 2019 Mar 30;38(7):1276-1296
pubmed: 30357870
PLoS One. 2020 Mar 12;15(3):e0230183
pubmed: 32163484
Ann Med. 2018 Aug;50(5):420-429
pubmed: 29775092
Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 18;173(4):262-267
pubmed: 32422057
Stat Med. 1984 Apr-Jun;3(2):143-52
pubmed: 6463451
Radiology. 2020 Aug;296(2):E32-E40
pubmed: 32101510
Mol Diagn Ther. 2019 Dec;23(6):803-809
pubmed: 31691924
BMJ. 2020 Apr 7;369:m1328
pubmed: 32265220
Respir Med. 2020 Jul;168:105980
pubmed: 32364959
Pediatr Res. 2006 Dec;60(6):770-4
pubmed: 17065575