Assessing the performance of LumiraDx™ SARS-CoV-2 Ag test in detecting Omicron lineages: 2022-2023 study.

COVID-19 Coronaviruses Diagnostic testing Omicron Quantitative test RT-PCR Rapid antigen testing SARS-CoV-2 Sensitivity Specificity Viral epidemic

Journal

Heliyon
ISSN: 2405-8440
Titre abrégé: Heliyon
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101672560

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
30 Jun 2024
Historique:
received: 28 02 2024
revised: 12 06 2024
accepted: 17 06 2024
medline: 15 7 2024
pubmed: 15 7 2024
entrez: 15 7 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The introduction of rapid antigen tests revolutionized the approach to SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, offering prompt and accurate results with high sensitivity and specificity. Although it is more cost- and time-saving than the gold standard, real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), the efficacy in general population screening in both hospital- and community-based settings remains unknown. Moreover, rapid antigen testing is limited by qualitative results. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic reliability of the LumiraDx™ rapid antigen test during the Omicron era and to investigate its quantitative (analogue-to-digital converter (ADC)) results in comparison with RT-PCR Ct values. This prospective study included all adult patients with mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 symptoms who were not hospitalised and did not require oxygen supplementation, consented to participate, and attended the Infectious and Tropical Diseases Unit of Padua University Hospital from July 14th, 2022 to January 3rd, 2023. The patients underwent two different tests simultaneously: a nasal LumiraDx™ swab and a real-time RT-PCR assay performed on a nasopharyngeal swab. Sampling was repeated several times for a subset of subjects. We enrolled 266 consecutive participants and collected 601 pairs of LumiraDx™ and RT-PCR samples. The most prevalent variant was BA.4/BA.5 Omicron (60.2 %). The sensitivity and specificity of LumiraDx™ test when compared to real-time RT-PCR results as the reference standard were 93.1 % and 79.75 %, respectively. No significant differences in diagnostic reliability were found based on the available characteristics, age, sex, symptom status, or COVID-19 variant, except for the days from symptom onset. According to the multilevel logistic regression analysis, the only independent variable significantly associated with test concordance was the Ct value (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.56, p < 0.001). Significant differences in quantitative ADC values were found between false negative (FN) This study showed that LumiraDx™ test is reliable for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis in patients with mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 symptoms. This finding confirms the efficacy of rapid antigen tests in monitoring vulnerable individuals during the current post-vaccination era. When compared with the RT-PCR, LumiraDx™ test effectively quantitatively distinguishes between FN and TN cases, as well as FP and true TP tests, despite inaccuracies in qualitative results.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
The introduction of rapid antigen tests revolutionized the approach to SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, offering prompt and accurate results with high sensitivity and specificity. Although it is more cost- and time-saving than the gold standard, real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), the efficacy in general population screening in both hospital- and community-based settings remains unknown. Moreover, rapid antigen testing is limited by qualitative results. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic reliability of the LumiraDx™ rapid antigen test during the Omicron era and to investigate its quantitative (analogue-to-digital converter (ADC)) results in comparison with RT-PCR Ct values.
Methods UNASSIGNED
This prospective study included all adult patients with mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 symptoms who were not hospitalised and did not require oxygen supplementation, consented to participate, and attended the Infectious and Tropical Diseases Unit of Padua University Hospital from July 14th, 2022 to January 3rd, 2023. The patients underwent two different tests simultaneously: a nasal LumiraDx™ swab and a real-time RT-PCR assay performed on a nasopharyngeal swab. Sampling was repeated several times for a subset of subjects.
Results UNASSIGNED
We enrolled 266 consecutive participants and collected 601 pairs of LumiraDx™ and RT-PCR samples. The most prevalent variant was BA.4/BA.5 Omicron (60.2 %). The sensitivity and specificity of LumiraDx™ test when compared to real-time RT-PCR results as the reference standard were 93.1 % and 79.75 %, respectively. No significant differences in diagnostic reliability were found based on the available characteristics, age, sex, symptom status, or COVID-19 variant, except for the days from symptom onset. According to the multilevel logistic regression analysis, the only independent variable significantly associated with test concordance was the Ct value (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.56, p < 0.001). Significant differences in quantitative ADC values were found between false negative (FN)
Conclusions UNASSIGNED
This study showed that LumiraDx™ test is reliable for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis in patients with mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 symptoms. This finding confirms the efficacy of rapid antigen tests in monitoring vulnerable individuals during the current post-vaccination era. When compared with the RT-PCR, LumiraDx™ test effectively quantitatively distinguishes between FN and TN cases, as well as FP and true TP tests, despite inaccuracies in qualitative results.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39005900
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33229
pii: S2405-8440(24)09260-0
pmc: PMC11239691
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e33229

Informations de copyright

© 2024 The Author(s).

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Auteurs

Silvia Cocchio (S)

Department of Cardiac, Thoracic, Vascular Sciences, and Public Health, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.

Michele Nicoletti (M)

Department of Cardiac, Thoracic, Vascular Sciences, and Public Health, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.

Claudia Cozzolino (C)

Department of Cardiac, Thoracic, Vascular Sciences, and Public Health, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.

Maria Mazzitelli (M)

Infectious and Tropical Diseases Unit, Padua University Hospital, Padua, Italy.

Nicola Bonadiman (N)

Infectious and Tropical Diseases Unit, Padua University Hospital, Padua, Italy.

Samuele Gardin (S)

Infectious and Tropical Diseases Unit, Padua University Hospital, Padua, Italy.

Lolita Sasset (L)

Infectious and Tropical Diseases Unit, Padua University Hospital, Padua, Italy.

Melissa Zucconi (M)

Department of Cardiac, Thoracic, Vascular Sciences, and Public Health, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.

Anna Maria Cattelan (AM)

Infectious and Tropical Diseases Unit, Padua University Hospital, Padua, Italy.

Vincenzo Baldo (V)

Department of Cardiac, Thoracic, Vascular Sciences, and Public Health, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.

Classifications MeSH