Field evaluation of a rapid antigen test (Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device) for COVID-19 diagnosis in primary healthcare centres
Copyright © 2020 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved..
OBJECTIVES: To our knowledge no previous study has assessed the performance of a rapid antigen diagnostic immunoassay (RAD) conducted at the point of care (POC). We evaluated the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device for diagnosis of coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) in symptomatic patients (n = 412) attending primary healthcare centres.
METHODS: RAD was performed immediately after sampling following the manufacturer's instructions (reading at 15 min). RT-PCRs were carried out within 24 h of specimen collection. Samples displaying discordant results were processed for culture in Vero E6 cells. Presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in cell cultures was confirmed by RT-PCR.
RESULTS: Out of 412 patients, 43 (10.4%) tested positive by RT-PCR and RAD, and 358 (86.9%) tested negative by both methods; discordant results (RT-PCR+/RAD-) were obtained in 11 patients (2.7%). Overall specificity and sensitivity of rapid antigen detection (RAD) was 100% (95%CI 98.7-100%) and 79.6% (95%CI 67.0-88.8%), respectively, taking RT-PCR as the reference. Overall RAD negative predictive value for an estimated prevalence of 5% and 10% was 99% (95%CI 97.4-99.6%) and 97.9% (95%CI 95.9-98.9), respectively. SARS-CoV-2 could not be cultured from specimens yielding RT-PCR+/RAD- results (n = 11).
CONCLUSION: The Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device performed well as a POC test for early diagnosis of COVID-19 in primary healthcare centres. More crucially, the data suggested that patients with RT-PCR-proven COVID-19 testing negative by RAD are unlikely to be infectious.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2021 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2021 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:27 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases - 27(2021), 3 vom: 15. März, Seite 472.e7-472.e10 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Albert, Eliseo [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Antigens, Viral |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 11.03.2021 Date Revised 11.03.2021 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1016/j.cmi.2020.11.004 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM317572873 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM317572873 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231225163540.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.11.004 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1058.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM317572873 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)33189872 | ||
| 035 | |a (PII)S1198-743X(20)30697-2 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Albert, Eliseo |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Field evaluation of a rapid antigen test (Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device) for COVID-19 diagnosis in primary healthcare centres |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 11.03.2021 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 11.03.2021 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright © 2020 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. | ||
| 520 | |a OBJECTIVES: To our knowledge no previous study has assessed the performance of a rapid antigen diagnostic immunoassay (RAD) conducted at the point of care (POC). We evaluated the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device for diagnosis of coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) in symptomatic patients (n = 412) attending primary healthcare centres | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: RAD was performed immediately after sampling following the manufacturer's instructions (reading at 15 min). RT-PCRs were carried out within 24 h of specimen collection. Samples displaying discordant results were processed for culture in Vero E6 cells. Presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in cell cultures was confirmed by RT-PCR | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: Out of 412 patients, 43 (10.4%) tested positive by RT-PCR and RAD, and 358 (86.9%) tested negative by both methods; discordant results (RT-PCR+/RAD-) were obtained in 11 patients (2.7%). Overall specificity and sensitivity of rapid antigen detection (RAD) was 100% (95%CI 98.7-100%) and 79.6% (95%CI 67.0-88.8%), respectively, taking RT-PCR as the reference. Overall RAD negative predictive value for an estimated prevalence of 5% and 10% was 99% (95%CI 97.4-99.6%) and 97.9% (95%CI 95.9-98.9), respectively. SARS-CoV-2 could not be cultured from specimens yielding RT-PCR+/RAD- results (n = 11) | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSION: The Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device performed well as a POC test for early diagnosis of COVID-19 in primary healthcare centres. More crucially, the data suggested that patients with RT-PCR-proven COVID-19 testing negative by RAD are unlikely to be infectious | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Evaluation Study | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a COVID-19 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Early diagnosis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Primary healthcare centre | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Rapid antigen detection test (RAD) | |
| 650 | 4 | |a SARS-CoV-2 | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Antigens, Viral |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Reagent Kits, Diagnostic |2 NLM | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Torres, Ignacio |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Bueno, Felipe |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Huntley, Dixie |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Molla, Estefanía |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Fernández-Fuentes, Miguel Ángel |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Martínez, Mireia |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Poujois, Sandrine |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Forqué, Lorena |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Valdivia, Arantxa |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Solano de la Asunción, Carlos |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ferrer, Josep |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Colomina, Javier |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Navarro, David |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases |d 1995 |g 27(2021), 3 vom: 15. März, Seite 472.e7-472.e10 |w (DE-627)NLM094580014 |x 1469-0691 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:27 |g year:2021 |g number:3 |g day:15 |g month:03 |g pages:472.e7-472.e10 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2020.11.004 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 27 |j 2021 |e 3 |b 15 |c 03 |h 472.e7-472.e10 | ||