Antigen-based Rapid Diagnostic Tests Research Articles

Comparative evaluation of RT-PCR and antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 detection: performance, variant specificity, and clinical implications.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the critical need for accurate and efficient diagnostic tools for detecting severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. This study presents a comparison of two diagnostic tests: RT-PCR and antigen detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs). This study focused on their performance, variant specificity, and their clinical implications. A simultaneous testing of 268 samples was carried out for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR and Ag-RDTs [flourescence immunoassay (FIA) and lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA)]. Viral load was quantified, and variant identification was performed using a PCR-based assay. The prevalence was found to be 30.2% using reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR), 26.5% using FIA, and 25% using LFIA. When comparing the FIA and LFIA, the overall diagnostic performance was found to be 80.25% vs 76.54%, 96.79% vs 97.33%, 91.55% vs 90.51%, and 91.88% vs 92.56% for sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV), respectively. Both Ag-RDTs showed a strong agreement with RT-PCR (κ = 0.78-0.80). The overall accuracies of the FIA and LFIA were 92.41% and 92.13%, respectively. The FIA showed higher sensitivity (73.68%) and PPV (92.08%) than the LFIA (65.79% and 90.56%, respectively) in asymptomatic patients. At low Ct values (<25), both Ag-RDTs had 100% sensitivity, but the sensitivity reduced to 31.82% for FIA and 27.27% for LFIA at Ct values > 30. The diagnostic sensitivity of FIA compared to LFIA for detecting the Alpha variant was 78.85% vs. 69.23% and 72.22% vs. 83.33% for the Delta variant. Both Ag-RDTs had 100% sensitivity for detecting Omicron. Both Ag-RDTs performed well in patients with high viral loads and Omicron variant infections compared to those infected with Alpha and Delta variants. This study confirms the comparable performance of RT-PCR and Ag-RDTs, specifically FIA and LFIA, for SARS-CoV-2 detection. The FIA showed higher sensitivity and PPV in asymptomatic cases, while both Ag-RDTs exhibited strong agreement with RT-PCR results. Notably, Ag-RDTs, particularly FIA, proved effective in detecting the Omicron variant and cases with high viral loads, highlighting their potential clinical utility in managing the COVID-19 pandemic.IMPORTANCEThis study is of utmost importance in providing effective responses to manage the COVID-19 pandemic. It rigorously compares the diagnostic accuracy, variant specificity, and practical considerations of reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) and antigen detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), answering critical questions. The results of this study will help healthcare professionals choose the appropriate testing methods, allocate resources effectively, and enhance public health strategies. Given the evolution of the virus, understanding the performance of these diagnostic tools is crucial to adapting to emerging variants. Additionally, the study provides insights into logistical challenges and accessibility issues, which will contribute to refining testing workflows, particularly in resource-limited settings. Ultimately, the study's impact extends to global healthcare, providing valuable information for policymakers, clinicians, and public health officials as they work together for mitigating the impact of the pandemic.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Antigen-Based Rapid Test during the Fourth Wave of COVID-19 in Edo State, Nigeria

Background: Since the use of rapid test kits for diagnosis of COVID-19, diagnostic accuracy has been of concern, particularly in resource- limited settings. This study assessed diagnostic accuracy of Abbot Panbio antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (RDT) for COVID-19 using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as the gold standard in Edo State, Nigeria.&#x0D; Methodology: We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional study during the 4th wave of the pandemic in Edo State from January 5 – February 4th, 2022. Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs were collected from 240 consenting participants at 10 sample collection sites. The index test (RDT) and gold standard test (real-time reverse transcription PCR) were performed simultaneously. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and ROC analysis were conducted on the RDT compared to RT-PCR using SPSS version 26.0 software. &#x0D; Results: Thirty-six (15.0%) participants tested positive on RDT and 34 (14.2%) tested positive on PCR. RDT had a sensitivity of 73.5% (95% CI: 66.0–81.0) and specificity of 94.7% (95% CI: 91.6-97.8) with a positive predictive value of 69.4% (95% CI: 55.8-80.7), and negative predictive value of 95.6% (95% CI: 91.8-98.0). The area under the curve (AUC) of the ROC for the RDT against PCR was 84.1% (75.1% - 93.1%).&#x0D; Conclusion: The diagnostic accuracy of the Panbio rapid antigen test for SARSCoV-2 was below WHO standards. However, they remain useful tools for continued surveillance of the disease. Rigorous evaluations combining the results of rapid antigen tests with other clinical information would prove useful for prompt diagnosis and surveillance of COVID-19 in Nigeria.

Accuracy of a new rapid diagnostic test for urinary antigen detection and assessment of drug treatment in opisthorchiasis

BackgroundScreening for opisthorchiasis, a parasitic worm infection affecting many millions of people in Southeast Asia, has traditionally relied on faecal egg examination such as the formalin-ethyl acetate concentration technique (FECT) and Kato-Katz method. Although the urinary enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) has been used more recently, we developed a urinary antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (RDT) to simplify diagnosis and as a point-of-care testing (POCT) and field applications for surveillance and control of opisthorchiasis.MethodsA urinary Opisthorchis viverrini (OV)-RDT was developed using immunochromatographic methodology with a specific monoclonal antibody against OV. The diagnostic performance of the urinary OV-RDT was compared to that of quantitative faecal FECT and urinary antigen ELISA (n = 493). Cross-reactivities of urinary OV-RDT with other helminthiases coexisted with O. viverrini were determined (n = 96). A field trial in the application of urinary OV-RDT was compared with urinary antigen ELISA at baseline screening and assessment of drug treatment outcomes in opisthorchiasis (n = 1629). The McNemar chi-square, Kruskal–Wallis and Cohen’s kappa coefficient (κ-value) tests were used for statistical analyses.ResultsUrinary OV-RDT had sensitivity of 94.2% and specificity of 93.2%, compared to faecal FECT. Urinary OV-RDT had high diagnostic agreement (Kappa = 0.842–0.874, P < 0.001) and quantitative correlation with urinary antigen ELISA (Kruskal–Wallis tests = 316.2, P < 0.0001) and faecal FECT (Kruskal–Wallis tests = 362.3, P < 0.0001). The positive rates by OV-RDT, ELISA and FECT were 48.9%, 52.5% and 49.3%, respectively. Cross-reactions of urinary OV-RDT with other helminthiases were few (2%). Field trials of urinary OV-RDT yielded comparable prevalence of O. viverrini between urinary OV-RDT (53.2%) and urinary antigen ELISA (54.0%). OV screening showed high diagnostic agreement (kappa > 0.8, P < 0.0001) between urinary OV-RDT and urinary antigen ELISA. The cure rates of opisthorchiasis at 1 month post-praziquantel treatment determined by urinary OV-RDT (86.6%) and urinary antigen ELISA (80.5%) were similar (P > 0.05).ConclusionsThe urinary OV-RDT test has high potential as a new tool for screening and evaluating treatment outcomes in opisthorchiasis. The ease of sample collection and simplicity of urinary OV-RDT may facilitate mass screening, control and elimination of opisthorchiasis, thereby contributing to a reduction in the disease burden in Southeast Asia.Graphical

COVID-19 screening in low resource settings using artificial intelligence for chest radiographs and point-of-care blood tests

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems for detection of COVID-19 using chest X-Ray (CXR) imaging and point-of-care blood tests were applied to data from four low resource African settings. The performance of these systems to detect COVID-19 using various input data was analysed and compared with antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests. Participants were tested using the gold standard of RT-PCR test (nasopharyngeal swab) to determine whether they were infected with SARS-CoV-2. A total of 3737 (260 RT-PCR positive) participants were included. In our cohort, AI for CXR images was a poor predictor of COVID-19 (AUC = 0.60), since the majority of positive cases had mild symptoms and no visible pneumonia in the lungs. AI systems using differential white blood cell counts (WBC), or a combination of WBC and C-Reactive Protein (CRP) both achieved an AUC of 0.74 with a suggested optimal cut-off point at 83% sensitivity and 63% specificity. The antigen-RDT tests in this trial obtained 65% sensitivity at 98% specificity. This study is the first to validate AI tools for COVID-19 detection in an African setting. It demonstrates that screening for COVID-19 using AI with point-of-care blood tests is feasible and can operate at a higher sensitivity level than antigen testing.

Diagnostic performance of GENEDIA W and ActiveXpress+ COVID-19 antigens tests among symptomatic individuals in Peru and The United Kingdom.

In order to generate independent performance data regarding accuracy of COVID-19 antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs), prospective diagnostic evaluation studies across multiple sites are required to evaluate their performance in different clinical settings. This report describes the clinical evaluation the GENEDIA W COVID-19 Ag Device (Green Cross Medical Science Corp., Chungbuk, Korea) and the ActiveXpress+ COVID-19 Complete Testing Kit (Edinburgh Genetics Ltd, UK), in two testing sites Peru and the United Kingdom. Nasopharyngeal swabs collected from 456 symptomatic patients at primary points of care in Lima, Peru and 610 symptomatic participants at a COVID-19 Drive-Through testing site in Liverpool, England were analyzed by Ag-RDT and compared to RT-PCR. Analytical evaluation of both Ag-RDTs was assessed using serial dilutions of direct culture supernatant of a clinical SARS-CoV-2 isolate from the B.1.1.7 lineage. For GENEDIA brand, the values of overall sensitivity and specificity were 60.4% [95% CI 52.4-67.9%], and 99.2% [95% CI 97.6-99.7%] respectively; and for Active Xpress+ the overall values of sensitivity and specificity were 66.2% [95% CI 54.0-76.5%], and 99.6% [95% CI 97.9-99.9%] respectively. The analytical limit of detection was determined at 5.0 x 102 pfu/ml what equals to approximately 1.0 x 104 gcn/ml for both Ag-RDTs. The UK cohort had lower median Ct values compared to that of Peru during both evaluations. When split by Ct, both Ag-RDTs had optimum sensitivities at Ct<20 (in Peru; 95% [95% CI 76.4-99.1%] and 100.0% [95% CI 74.1-100.0%] and in the UK; 59.2% [95% CI 44.2-73.0%] and 100.0% [95% CI 15.8-100.0%], for the GENDIA and the ActiveXpress+, respectively). Whilst the overall clinical sensitivity of the Genedia did not meet WHO minimum performance requirements for rapid immunoassays in either cohort, the ActiveXpress+ did so for the small UK cohort. This study illustrates comparative performance of Ag-RDTs across two global settings and considers the different approaches in evaluation methods.

SARS-CoV-2 Testing Strategies in the Diagnosis and Management of COVID-19 Patients in Low-Income Countries: A Scoping Review.

The accuracy of diagnostic laboratory tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can impact downstream clinical procedures in managing and controlling the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To assess the effectiveness of laboratory tools for managing COVID-19 patients in low-income countries (LICs), we systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, Scopus and CINHAL databases for reports published between January 2020 and June 2022. We found that 22 of 1303 articles reported the performance of various SARS-CoV-2 detection tools across 10 LICs. These tools were (1) real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR); (2) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP); (3) rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs); (4) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); and (5) dot-blot immunoassay. The detection of COVID-19 is largely divided into two main streams-direct virus (antigen) detection and serology (immunoglobulin)-based detection. Point-of-care testing using antigen-based RDTs is preferred in LICs because of cost effectiveness and simplicity in the test procedures. The nucleic acid amplification technology (RT-PCR and RT-LAMP) has the highest diagnostic performance among the available tests, but it is not broadly used in this context due to costs and shortage of facilities/trained staff. The serology-based test method is affected by antibody interferences and varying amounts of SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulins expressed at different stages of disease onset. We further discuss the effectiveness and shortcomings of each of these tools in the diagnosis and management of COVID-19. Using the LICs as the study model, our findings highlight ways to improve the quality and turnaround time of COVID-19 testing in resource-constrained settings, notably through local/international collaborative efforts to refine the molecular-based or immunoassay-based testing technologies.

Evaluating diagnostic accuracies of Panbio™ test and RT-PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia using Bayesian Latent-Class Models (BLCM).

Rapid diagnostics are vital for curving the transmission and control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although many commercially available antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 are recommended by the WHO, their diagnostic performance has not yet been assessed in Ethiopia. So far, the vast majority of studies assessing diagnostic accuracies of rapid antigen tests considered RT-PCR as a reference standard, which inevitably leads to bias when RT-PCR is not 100% sensitive and specific. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of Panbio™ jointly with the RT-PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. A prospective cross-sectional study was done from July to September 2021 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, during the third wave of the pandemic involving two health centers and two hospitals. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of Panbio™ and RT-PCR were obtained using Bayesian Latent-Class Models (BLCM). 438 COVID-19 presumptive clients were enrolled, 239 (54.6%) were females, of whom 196 (44.7%) had a positive RT-PCR and 158 (36.1%) were Panbio™ positive. The Panbio™ and RT-PCR had a sensitivity (95% CrI) of 99.6 (98.4-100) %, 89.3 (83.2-97.6) % and specificity (95% CrI) of 93.4 (82.3-100) %, and 99.1 (97.5-100) %, respectively. Most of the study participants, 318 (72.6%) exhibited COVID-19 symptoms; the most reported was cough 191 (43.6%). As expected the RT-PCR performed very well with a near-perfect specificity and a high, but not perfect sensitivity. The diagnostic performance of Panbio™ is coherent with the WHO established criteria of having a sensitivity ≥80% for Ag-RDTs. Both tests displayed high diagnostic accuracies in patients with and without symptoms. Hence, we recommend the use of the Panbio™ for both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals in clinical settings for screening purposes.

Evaluation of diagnostic utility and performance of rapid SARS-CoV- 2 antigen detection assay in comparison with Real-Time RT-PCR in Kolkata, India

Background: COVID-19 has so far affected millions of people in India. The present study was undertaken to find out the performance and reliability of rapid antigen test (RAT) in compared to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR).Methods: The pre and existing medical conditions and clinical signs and symptoms were noted. The nasopharyngeal swab samples were taken for RAT, while both nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab samples were mixed in a sterile viral transported medium (VTM) for RT-PCR. All patients were examined by RAT, while symptomatic negative in RAT were re-examined by RT-PCR.Results: Total 18,965 samples were examined by RAT and 3,998 samples by RT-PCR. Among them, only 5,753 patients (30.3%) were symptomatic and 1,757 patients (9.2%) were symptomatic positive. RAT showed overall 15.2% positive cases. Only 3.7% samples exhibited false negative results in RAT, which were found positive in RT-PCR. Interestingly, Ct (cycle threshold) values were &gt;30 in all these samples.Conclusion: Hence, specific antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (RDT) will be most useful and reliable among any other qualitative tests for screening purpose.

Highly valued despite burdens: Qualitative implementation research on rapid tests for hospital-based SARS-CoV-2 screening

Antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 have good reliability and have been repeatedly implemented as part of pandemic response policies, especially for screening in high-risk settings (e.g., hospitals and care homes) where fast recognition of an infection is essential. However, evidence from actual implementation efforts and associated experiences is lacking.We conducted a qualitative study at a large tertiary care hospital in Germany to identify step-by-step processes when implementing RDTs for the screening of incoming patients, as well as stakeholders’ implementation experiences. We relied on 30 in-depth interviews with hospital staff (members of the regulatory body, department heads, staff working on the wards, staff training providers on how to perform RDTs, and providers performing RDTs as part of the screening) and patients being screened with RDTs.Despite some initial reservations, RDTs were rapidly accepted and adopted as the best available tool for accessible and reliable screening. Decentralized implementation efforts resulted in different procedures being operationalized across departments. Procedures were continuously refined based on initial experiences (e.g., infrastructural or scheduling constraints), pandemic dynamics (growing infection rates), and changing regulations (e.g., screening of all external personnel). To reduce interdepartmental tension, stakeholders recommended high-level, consistently communicated and enforced regulations.Despite challenges, RDT-based screening for all incoming patients was observed to be feasible and acceptable among implementers and patients, and merits continued consideration in the context of high infection and stagnating vaccination rates.

Reverse transcription PCR to detect low density malaria infections

Background: Targeted malaria elimination strategies require highly sensitive tests to detect low density malaria infections (LDMI). Commonly used methods for malaria diagnosis such as light microscopy and antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are not sensitive enough for reliable identification of infections with parasitaemia below 200 parasites per milliliter of blood. While targeted malaria elimination efforts on the Thailand-Myanmar border have successfully used high sample volume ultrasensitive quantitative PCR (uPCR) to determine malaria prevalence, the necessity for venous collection and processing of large quantities of patient blood limits the widespread tractability of this method. Methods: Here we evaluated a real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR) method that reduces the required sample volume compared to uPCR. To do this, 304 samples collected from an active case detection program in Kayin state, Myanmar were compared using uPCR and RT-qPCR. Results: Plasmodium spp. RT-qPCRconfirmed 18 of 21 uPCR Plasmodium falciparum positives, while P. falciparum specificRT-qPCR confirmed 17 of the 21 uPCR P. falciparum positives. Combining both RT-qPCR results increased the sensitivity to 100% and specificity was 95.1%. Conclusion: Malaria detection in areas of low transmission and LDMI can benefit from the increased sensitivity of ribosomal RNA detection by RT-PCR, especially where sample volume is limited. Isolation of high quality RNA also allows for downstream analysis of malaria transcripts.

Two-test algorithms for infectious disease diagnosis: Implications for COVID-19.

Diagnostic assays for various infectious diseases, including COVID-19, have been challenged for their utility as standalone point-of-care diagnostic tests due to suboptimal accuracy, complexity, high cost or long turnaround times for results. It is therefore critical to optimise their use to meet the needs of users. We used a simulation approach to estimate diagnostic outcomes, number of tests required and average turnaround time of using two-test algorithms compared with singular testing; the two tests were reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and an antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT). A web-based application of the model was developed to visualise and compare diagnostic outcomes for different disease prevalence and test performance characteristics (sensitivity and specificity). We tested the model using hypothetical prevalence data for COVID-19, representing low- and high-prevalence contexts and performance characteristics of RT-PCR and Ag-RDTs. The two-test algorithm when RT-PCR was applied to samples negative by Ag-RDT predicted gains in sensitivity of 27% and 7%, respectively, compared with Ag-RDT and RT-PCR alone. Similarly, when RT-PCR was applied to samples positive by Ag-RDT, specificity gains of 2.9% and 1.9%, respectively, were predicted. The algorithm using Ag-RDT followed by RT-PCR as a confirmatory test for positive patients limited the requirement of RT-PCR testing resources to 16,400 and 3,034 tests when testing a population of 100,000 with an infection prevalence of 20% and 0.05%, respectively. A two-test algorithm comprising a rapid screening test followed by confirmatory laboratory testing can reduce false positive rate, produce rapid results and conserve laboratory resources, but can lead to large number of missed cases in high prevalence setting. The web application of the model can identify the best testing strategies, tailored to specific use cases and we also present some examples how it was used as part of the Access to Covid-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator Diagnostics Pillar.

The economic cost of implementing antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 screening in high-risk transmission settings: evidence from Germany

BackgroundAntigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) have been implemented in hospitals and nursing homes to screen for infectious individuals without symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infections and to prevent entry into these high-risk settings. Despite their benefits for screening, the cost of large-scale implementation is largely understudied. Our study presents evidence on their implementation costs in high-risk settings.This study aimed to estimate the economic costs of implementing Ag-RDT-based screening for SARS-CoV-2 in two tertiary care hospitals (University Hospital Heidelberg - UKHD, and Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin) and one nursing home in Germany.MethodsWe adopted a health system perspective and followed the three sequential steps to costing: identification of resources, measurement of resource consumption, and valuation of costs. Data on resource consumption were collected between October 2020 and April 2021 through various techniques and data sources. The cost estimation considered all costs along the screening algorithm including PCR confirmation tests for positive cases. We estimated the costs for the two implementation modalities observed: staff dedicated exclusively to screening and staff not dedicated exclusively to screening. Furthermore, cost estimations were performed under both observed capacity use and hypothetical capacity use assumptions (60, 80 and 100%).ResultsOur study indicates that the average cost per Ag-RDT is highly dependent on the capacity use and implementation mode. Staff time and test kits are the two main cost drivers of implementing the large-scale screening programs for SARS-CoV-2 using Ag-RDTs. For hospitals, the average cost per test in UKHD was €30.12 (capacity observed); €14.56 (non-dedicated mode); €19.47, €16.37, €14.53 at 60, 80, 100% capacity respectively (dedicated mode); and at Charité €13.10 (non-dedicated mode). For the nursing home the estimated average cost per test was €15.03 (non-dedicated mode).ConclusionsThe information on the estimated costs by mode of implementation and capacity use may support the planning of Ag-RDT-based covid-19 screening programs suitable for each institution. Further research is needed to cost this screening strategy for COVID-19 in other high-risk, high-income settings to reach generalizability.

Clinical Evaluation of a New Antigen-Based COVID-19 Rapid Diagnostic Test from Symptomatic Patients.

Accurate diagnosis at the right moment is the prerequisite for treatment of any disease. Failure to correctly diagnose a disease can result in highly detrimental effects, unmistakably a crucial factor during the COVID-19 pandemic. RT-PCR is the gold standard for COVID-19 detection while there are other test procedures available, such as LAMP, X-Ray, and ELISA. However, these tests are expensive, require sophisticated equipment and a highly trained workforce, and multiple hours or even days are often required to obtain the test results. A rapid and cheap detection system can thus render a solution to the screening system on a larger scale and be added as an aid to the current detection processes. Recently, some rapid antigen-based COVID-19 tests devices have been developed and commercialized. In this study, we evaluated the clinical performance of a new rapid detection device (OnSite® COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test by CTK Biotech Inc., Poway, CA, USA) on COVID-19 symptomatic patients (n = 380). The overall sensitivity and specificity were 91.0% (95% CI: 84.8–95.3%) and 99.2% (95% CI: 97.1–99.9), against gold standard RT-PCR. The kit was capable of detecting patients even after 06 days of onset of symptoms and the sensitivity can be maximized to 98% in samples with an average RT-PCR Ct ≤ 26.48, demonstrating a high potential of the kit for clinical diagnosis of symptomatic patients in healthcare facilities.

Clinical evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-based rapid diagnostic test kit for detection of COVID-19 cases in Bangladesh

The rapid and early detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections is key to control the current Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The present study was conducted to clinically evaluate a rapid diagnostic test (RDT) kit, Standard Q COVID-19 Ag Test (SD Biosensor®, Republic of Korea), with reference to the standard real-time RT-PCR for detection of COVID-19 cases in Bangladesh. Nasopharyngeal swabs were taken from 900 COVID-19 suspected patients. Among them, 34.11% (n = 307) were diagnosed as COVID-19 cases by RT-PCR assay, of which 85% (n = 261) were also detectable using the RDT. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the RDT compared to RT-PCR were 85.02% and 100%, respectively, regardless of age, sex, and type of SARS-CoV-2 variants. Most of the RT-PCR positive cases (94%) were found within the first five days of disease onset, and the sensitivity of RDT was 85.91% for the same samples. The positive predictive value (PPV) of the RDT was 100%, and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 92.8%. The Cohen's kappa value of 0.882 indicated excellent agreement between the RDT and RT-PCR assays. The findings of this study showed the potential use of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-based RDT to expedite the diagnostic process and onward COVID-19 management in Bangladesh.

Role of Covid Antigen in the Diagnosis of Covid Positive in Obstetric Patients

Background and Aim: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rapid emergence postured significant challenges on the health system in recent years. The early detection of cases is thought to be critical in preventing this pandemic by coronavirus disease (COVID-19), especially important in the obstetrical population due to theirs numerous interactions with another parturient when hospitalized for delivery. Therefore, the present study aimed to assess the COVID antigen test performance in COVID-positive obstetrics patients. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on 1296 Covid-19 asymptomatic women admitted to the Obstetrics and Gynaecology Department of Muhammad Teaching Hospital &amp; Medical College, Peshawar and Fauji Foundation Hospital, Rawalpindi for the duration of six months from February 2021 to July 2021. Antigen-based test rapid diagnostic test (RDT) was used for screening out COVID-19 positive obstetrics patients or women through nasopharyngeal swabs. Women with negative rapid antigen test results were confirmed with RT-polymers chain reaction test of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT). Ethical approval and informed consent were taken from the hospital ethical committee and each individual respectively. All the known positive COVID-19 patients during admission were excluded. SPSS version 24 was used for data analysis. Results: The overall prevalence of rapid antigen-positive tested patients was 13.2% (171/1296). The prevalence of positive tested women through rapid antigen test, Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT), and RT-PCR were 27 (2.1%), 51 (3.9%), and 93 (7.2%) respectively. Of the total 1296 rapid antigen tests, 27 were positive, and the false-negative confirmed positive by NAAT was 144.Thus the sensitivity of the rapid antigen test was 15.8% and the negative predictive value was 93.7%. Of the total 298 Nucleic Acid Amplification Tested had sensitivity and negative predictive value of 89.6% and 99.06% respectively. RT-PCR was carried out on 972 patients, positive diagnosed cases were 36 while 15 were initially negative and were positive with the test was repeated. The sensitivity and negative predictive value was 71.45% and 95.8% respectively. Conclusion: Our study found that Ag-RDT plays a significant role in SARS-CoV-2 early detection in infected individuals, with high specificity and sensitivity to disease infectious stage, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic, and can be used as a decision supported tool. Early detection of COVID-19 status in women admitted for delivery could benefit neonatal protection care. Keywords: Covid-19; Rapid antigen test; RT-PCR test

Evaluation of the currently used antigen-based Rapid Diagnostic Test for the detection of SARS CoV-2 virus in respiratory specimens

Evaluation of the currently used antigen-based Rapid Diagnostic Test for the detection of SARS CoV-2 virus in respiratory specimens

Reverse transcription PCR to detect low density malaria infections.

Background: Targeted malaria elimination strategies require highly sensitive tests to detect low density malaria infections (LDMI). Commonly used methods for malaria diagnosis such as light microscopy and antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are not sensitive enough for reliable identification of infections with parasitaemia below 200 parasites per milliliter of blood. While targeted malaria elimination efforts on the Thailand-Myanmar border have successfully used high sample volume ultrasensitive quantitative PCR (uPCR) to determine malaria prevalence, the necessity for venous collection and processing of large quantities of patient blood limits the widespread tractability of this method. Methods: Here we evaluated a real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR) method that reduces the required sample volume compared to uPCR. To do this, 304 samples collected from an active case detection program in Kayin state, Myanmar were compared using uPCR and RT-qPCR. Results: Plasmodium spp. RT-qPCRconfirmed 18 of 21 uPCR Plasmodium falciparum positives, while P. falciparum specificRT-qPCR confirmed 17 of the 21 uPCR P. falciparum positives. Combining both RT-qPCR results increased the sensitivity to 100% and specificity was 95.1%. Conclusion: Malaria detection in areas of low transmission and LDMI can benefit from the increased sensitivity of ribosomal RNA detection by RT-PCR, especially where sample volume is limited. Isolation of high quality RNA also allows for downstream analysis of malaria transcripts.

Integration of symptomatic, demographical and diet-related comorbidities data with SARS-CoV-2 antibody rapid diagnostic tests during epidemiological surveillance: a cross-sectional study in Jakarta, Indonesia

ObjectivesAffordable options for COVID-19 epidemiological surveillance are needed. Virus detection by reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) is sensitive but costly, and antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are cheap but with reduced sensitivity;...

The potential of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection tests in the screening of asymptomatic persons

ObjectivesThe aim was to assess the performance of antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS CoV-2 when implemented for large-scale universal screening of asymptomatic individuals. MethodsThis study was a pragmatic implementation study for universal Ag-RDT-based screening at a tertiary care hospital in Germany where patients presenting for elective procedures and selected personnel without symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 were screened with an Ag-RDT since October 2020. Test performance was calculated on an individual patient level. ResultsIn total, 49 542 RDTs were performed in 27 421 asymptomatic individuals over a duration of 5 and a half months. Out of 222 positive results, 196 underwent in-house confirmatory testing with PCR, out of which 170 were confirmed positive, indicating a positive predictive value of 86.7% (95% CI 81.2–91.1%). Negative Ag-RDTs were not routinely tested with PCR, but a total of 94 cases of false negative Ag-RDTs were detected due to PCR tests being performed within the following 5 days with a median cycle threshold value of 33 (IQR 29–35). DiscussionThis study provides evidence that Ag-RDTs can have a high diagnostic yield for transmission relevant infections with limited false positives when utilized at the point of care on asymptomatic patients and thus can be a suitable public health test for universal screening.

Utility of Antigen-Based Rapid Diagnostic Test for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Virus in Routine Hospital Settings.

ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the performance of an antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (RDT) for the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted on 677 patients. Two nasopharyngeal swabs and 1 oropharyngeal swab were collected from patients. The RDT was performed onsite by a commercially available immune-chromatographic assay on the nasopharyngeal swab. The nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs were examined for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by real-time reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assay. ResultsThe overall sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 RDT was 34.5% and the specificity was 99.8%. The positive predictive value and negative predictive value of the test were 96.6% and 91.5%, respectively. The detection rate of RDT in RT-qPCR positive results was high (45%) for cycle threshold values <25. ConclusionThe utility of RDT is in diagnosing symptomatic patients and may not be particularly suited as a screening tool for patients with low viral load. The low sensitivity of RDT does not qualify its use as a single test in patients who test negative; RT-qPCR continues to be the gold standard test.