Evaluation of the AMP SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test in a hospital setting
Objectives: Quick and inexpensive SARS-CoV-2 screening and frontline testing are in growing demand. Our study aimed to evaluate the performance of the immunochromatographic AMP rapid antigen test (AMP RAT) compared to the gold-standard real-time reverse transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) in a hospital cohort. Methods: A total of 392 patients, who presented consecutively with COVID-19 symptoms in our emergency department, were included in this retrospective study. Two swabs were collected per patient: a nasopharyngeal for the RAT and a combined naso- and oropharyngeal for the rRT-PCR. A positive rRT-PCR (defined as cycle threshold (Ct) < 40) was found in 94 (24%) patients. Results: In our cohort with a median patient age of 70, overall sensitivity and specificity of the AMP RAT was 69.2% (58.8–78.3, 95% CI) and 99.7% (98.1–100.0, 95% CI), respectively. In patients with a Ct value < 25 and < 30, higher sensitivities of 100.0% (89.4–100.0, 95% CI) and 91.8% (81.9–97.3%, 95% CI) were observed. Conclusions: The AMP RAT showed a high sensitivity in patients with a Ct value < 25 and < 30 and might be helpful for frontline testing whenever rRT-PCR is not readily available..
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2021 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2021 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:108 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
International Journal of Infectious Diseases - 108(2021), Seite 353-356 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Georg Leixner [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
doi.org [kostenfrei] |
|---|
| Themen: |
COVID-19 |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1016/j.ijid.2021.05.063 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
DOAJ071170383 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ071170383 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230309100241.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230228s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.05.063 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ071170383 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJb4f5d648269f4fb996810c34d5ac1a0d | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 050 | 0 | |a RC109-216 | |
| 100 | 0 | |a Georg Leixner |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Evaluation of the AMP SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test in a hospital setting |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Objectives: Quick and inexpensive SARS-CoV-2 screening and frontline testing are in growing demand. Our study aimed to evaluate the performance of the immunochromatographic AMP rapid antigen test (AMP RAT) compared to the gold-standard real-time reverse transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) in a hospital cohort. Methods: A total of 392 patients, who presented consecutively with COVID-19 symptoms in our emergency department, were included in this retrospective study. Two swabs were collected per patient: a nasopharyngeal for the RAT and a combined naso- and oropharyngeal for the rRT-PCR. A positive rRT-PCR (defined as cycle threshold (Ct) < 40) was found in 94 (24%) patients. Results: In our cohort with a median patient age of 70, overall sensitivity and specificity of the AMP RAT was 69.2% (58.8–78.3, 95% CI) and 99.7% (98.1–100.0, 95% CI), respectively. In patients with a Ct value < 25 and < 30, higher sensitivities of 100.0% (89.4–100.0, 95% CI) and 91.8% (81.9–97.3%, 95% CI) were observed. Conclusions: The AMP RAT showed a high sensitivity in patients with a Ct value < 25 and < 30 and might be helpful for frontline testing whenever rRT-PCR is not readily available. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a rRT-PCR | |
| 650 | 4 | |a COVID-19 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Diagnosis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Screening | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Coronavirus | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Infectious and parasitic diseases | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Astrid Voill-Glaninger |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Elisabeth Bonner |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Anna Kreil |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a René Zadnikar |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a André Viveiros |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t International Journal of Infectious Diseases |d Elsevier, 2015 |g 108(2021), Seite 353-356 |w (DE-627)DOAJ000043923 |x 18783511 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:108 |g year:2021 |g pages:353-356 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2021.05.063 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/b4f5d648269f4fb996810c34d5ac1a0d |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971221004665 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/1201-9712 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 108 |j 2021 |h 353-356 | ||