Lateral flow test performance in children for SARS-CoV-2 using anterior nasal and buccal swabbing: sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values.
epidemiology
infectious disease medicine
paediatrics
Journal
Archives of disease in childhood
ISSN: 1468-2044
Titre abrégé: Arch Dis Child
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0372434
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2023
02 2023
Historique:
received:
03
05
2022
accepted:
16
08
2022
entrez:
19
1
2023
pubmed:
20
1
2023
medline:
24
1
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To determine if the sensitivity of the lateral flow test is dependent on the viral load and on the location of swabbing in the respiratory tract in children. Phase 1: Routinely performed reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) using nose and throat (NT) swabs or endotracheal (ET) aspirates were compared with Innova lateral flow tests (LFTs) using anterior nasal (AN) swabs. Phase 2: RT-PCR-positive children underwent paired AN RT-PCR and LFT and/or paired AN RT-PCR and buccal LFT. Tertiary paediatric hospitals. Children under the age of 18 years. Phase 1: undergoing routine testing, phase 2: known SARS-CoV-2 positive. Phase 1: 435 paired swabs taken in 431 asymptomatic patients resulted in 8 positive RT-PCRs, 9 PCR test failures and 418 negative RT-PCRs from NT or ET swabs. The test performance of AN LFT demonstrated sensitivity: 25% (4%-59%), specificity: 100% (99%-100%), positive predictive value (PPV): 100% (18%-100%) and negative predictive value (NPV): 99% (97%-99%).Phase 2: 14 AN RT-PCR-positive results demonstrated a sensitivity of 77% (50%-92%) of LFTs performed on AN swabs. 15/16 paired buccal LFT swabs were negative. The NPV, PPV and specificity of LFTs are excellent. The sensitivity of LFTs compared with RT-PCR is good when the samples are colocated but may be reduced when the LFT swab is taken from the AN. Buccal swabs are not appropriate for LFT testing. Careful consideration of the swabbing reason, the tolerance of the child and the requirements for test processing (eg, rapidity of results) should be undertaken within hospital settings. NCT04629157.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36657801
pii: archdischild-2022-324353
doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2022-324353
pmc: PMC9887373
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04629157']
Types de publication
Clinical Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
137-140Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: Public Health England, now UK Health and Security Agency, supplied the lateral flow tests used within the study and contributed £100,000 towards the running of the study.
Références
BMC Med. 2022 Jan 13;20(1):25
pubmed: 35022051
BMC Infect Dis. 2021 Aug 18;21(1):828
pubmed: 34407759
EClinicalMedicine. 2021 Jun;36:100924
pubmed: 34101770
Arch Dis Child. 2022 Feb;107(2):207
pubmed: 34728461
BMJ. 2021 Jul 6;374:n1637
pubmed: 34230058
J Infect. 2021 Aug;83(2):237-279
pubmed: 33992689
Anaesthesia. 2022 Jan;77(1):108-109
pubmed: 34739137
Anaesthesia. 2021 Jun;76(6):748-758
pubmed: 33690889
Euro Surveill. 2020 Aug;25(32):
pubmed: 32794447
BMJ. 2015 Oct 28;351:h5527
pubmed: 26511519