Diagnostic accuracy of Panbio rapid antigen tests on oropharyngeal swabs for detection of SARS-CoV-2.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
08
02
2021
accepted:
03
06
2021
entrez:
24
6
2021
pubmed:
25
6
2021
medline:
6
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 offer new opportunities for testing in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) are the reference sample type, but oropharyngeal swabs (OPS) may be a more acceptable sample type in some patients. We conducted a prospective study in a single screening center to assess the diagnostic performance of the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (Abbott) on OPS compared with reverse-transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) using NPS during the second pandemic wave in Switzerland. 402 outpatients were enrolled in a COVID-19 screening center, of whom 168 (41.8%) had a positive RT-qPCR test. The oropharyngeal Ag-RDT clinical sensitivity compared to nasopharyngeal RT-qPCR was 81% (95%CI: 74.2-86.6). Two false positives were noted out of the 234 RT-qPCR negative individuals, which resulted in a clinical specificity of 99.1% (95%CI: 96.9-99.9) for the Ag-RDT. For cycle threshold values ≤ 26.7 (≥ 1E6 SARS-CoV-2 genomes copies/mL, a presumed cut-off for infectious virus), 96.3% sensitivity (95%CI: 90.7-99.0%) was obtained with the Ag-RDT using OPS. Based on our findings, the diagnostic performance of the Panbio™ Covid-19 RDT with OPS samples, if taken by a trained person and high requirements regarding quality of the specimen, meet the criteria required by the WHO for Ag-RDTs (sensitivity ≥80% and specificity ≥97%) in a high incidence setting in symptomatic individuals.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 offer new opportunities for testing in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) are the reference sample type, but oropharyngeal swabs (OPS) may be a more acceptable sample type in some patients.
METHODS
We conducted a prospective study in a single screening center to assess the diagnostic performance of the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (Abbott) on OPS compared with reverse-transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) using NPS during the second pandemic wave in Switzerland.
RESULTS
402 outpatients were enrolled in a COVID-19 screening center, of whom 168 (41.8%) had a positive RT-qPCR test. The oropharyngeal Ag-RDT clinical sensitivity compared to nasopharyngeal RT-qPCR was 81% (95%CI: 74.2-86.6). Two false positives were noted out of the 234 RT-qPCR negative individuals, which resulted in a clinical specificity of 99.1% (95%CI: 96.9-99.9) for the Ag-RDT. For cycle threshold values ≤ 26.7 (≥ 1E6 SARS-CoV-2 genomes copies/mL, a presumed cut-off for infectious virus), 96.3% sensitivity (95%CI: 90.7-99.0%) was obtained with the Ag-RDT using OPS.
INTERPRETATION
Based on our findings, the diagnostic performance of the Panbio™ Covid-19 RDT with OPS samples, if taken by a trained person and high requirements regarding quality of the specimen, meet the criteria required by the WHO for Ag-RDTs (sensitivity ≥80% and specificity ≥97%) in a high incidence setting in symptomatic individuals.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34166410
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253321
pii: PONE-D-21-04295
pmc: PMC8224876
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antigens, Viral
0
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0253321Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Nat Commun. 2021 Jan 11;12(1):267
pubmed: 33431879
Euro Surveill. 2020 Jan;25(3):
pubmed: 31992387
J Infect. 2021 Mar;82(3):391-398
pubmed: 33592253
PLoS One. 2021 Mar 31;16(3):e0248921
pubmed: 33788882
J Clin Virol. 2020 Dec;133:104659
pubmed: 33160179
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021 Mar;27(3):472.e7-472.e10
pubmed: 33189872
J Clin Microbiol. 2021 Jan 21;59(2):
pubmed: 33139420
J Infect. 2021 May;82(5):186-230
pubmed: 33421447
mSphere. 2020 Nov 11;5(6):
pubmed: 33177214
Nature. 2020 May;581(7809):465-469
pubmed: 32235945
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021 Feb;40(2):441-445
pubmed: 32939576
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021 Apr;27(4):636.e1-636.e4
pubmed: 33421573
Front Med (Lausanne). 2020 Jun 18;7:334
pubmed: 32626720
Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Oct;26(10):2494-2497
pubmed: 32603290
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021 Feb 16;:
pubmed: 33601009
EClinicalMedicine. 2021 Jan;31:100677
pubmed: 33521610