Matthias E. Futschik , Sarah A. Tunkel , Elena Turek , David Chapman , Zareen Thorlu-Bangura , Raghavendran Kulasegaran-Shylini , Edward Blandford , Andrew Dodgson , Paul E. Klapper , Malur Sudhanva , Derrick Crook , John Bell , Susan Hopkins , Tim Peto , Tom Fowler
{"title":"Double testing with lateral flow antigen test devices for COVID-19: does a second test in quick succession add value?","authors":"Matthias E. Futschik , Sarah A. Tunkel , Elena Turek , David Chapman , Zareen Thorlu-Bangura , Raghavendran Kulasegaran-Shylini , Edward Blandford , Andrew Dodgson , Paul E. Klapper , Malur Sudhanva , Derrick Crook , John Bell , Susan Hopkins , Tim Peto , Tom Fowler","doi":"10.1016/j.jviromet.2024.115000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background/Objectives</h3><p>We investigated if performing two lateral flow device (LFD) tests, LFD2 immediately after LFD1, could improve diagnostic sensitivity or specificity for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen.</p></div><div><h3>Study Design</h3><p>Individuals aged ≥16 years attending UK community testing sites (February–May 2021) performed two successive LFD tests and provided a nose-and-throat sample for a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. Using the PCR result as the reference diagnosis, we assessed whether improvements could be achieved in sensitivity (by counting a positive result in either LFD as a positive overall test result) or specificity (by using LFD2 as confirmatory test).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Overall, 2231 participants were included with 159 (7 %) having a positive PCR test. Of 2223 participants who completed both LFD tests, LFD results were highly concordant both with each other and with PCR tests (>97 %). The proportion of discord LFD results decreased significantly over the study period. Combined LFD usage achieved a sensitivity of 68.6 %, versus 67.1 % for either LFD individually. The specificity increased from 99.5 % to 99.8 % when using LFD2 as confirmatory test. Observed increases in sensitivity and specificity were not statistically significant. Void results were recorded for 31 (1.4 %) LFD1s, 19 (0.9 %) LFD2s and 6 (0.3 %) combined LFD tests.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>LFD tests were highly reproducible even when they were performed by untrained users following only written instructions and without supervision. While performing two LFD tests of the same type in quick succession marginally increased sensitivity or specificity, statistically significant improvements were not detected in our study.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":17663,"journal":{"name":"Journal of virological methods","volume":"329 ","pages":"Article 115000"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166093424001241/pdfft?md5=d0dfdd5a36c868ec73707eb26179a71a&pid=1-s2.0-S0166093424001241-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of virological methods","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166093424001241","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background/Objectives
We investigated if performing two lateral flow device (LFD) tests, LFD2 immediately after LFD1, could improve diagnostic sensitivity or specificity for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen.
Study Design
Individuals aged ≥16 years attending UK community testing sites (February–May 2021) performed two successive LFD tests and provided a nose-and-throat sample for a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. Using the PCR result as the reference diagnosis, we assessed whether improvements could be achieved in sensitivity (by counting a positive result in either LFD as a positive overall test result) or specificity (by using LFD2 as confirmatory test).
Results
Overall, 2231 participants were included with 159 (7 %) having a positive PCR test. Of 2223 participants who completed both LFD tests, LFD results were highly concordant both with each other and with PCR tests (>97 %). The proportion of discord LFD results decreased significantly over the study period. Combined LFD usage achieved a sensitivity of 68.6 %, versus 67.1 % for either LFD individually. The specificity increased from 99.5 % to 99.8 % when using LFD2 as confirmatory test. Observed increases in sensitivity and specificity were not statistically significant. Void results were recorded for 31 (1.4 %) LFD1s, 19 (0.9 %) LFD2s and 6 (0.3 %) combined LFD tests.
Conclusions
LFD tests were highly reproducible even when they were performed by untrained users following only written instructions and without supervision. While performing two LFD tests of the same type in quick succession marginally increased sensitivity or specificity, statistically significant improvements were not detected in our study.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Virological Methods focuses on original, high quality research papers that describe novel and comprehensively tested methods which enhance human, animal, plant, bacterial or environmental virology and prions research and discovery.
The methods may include, but not limited to, the study of:
Viral components and morphology-
Virus isolation, propagation and development of viral vectors-
Viral pathogenesis, oncogenesis, vaccines and antivirals-
Virus replication, host-pathogen interactions and responses-
Virus transmission, prevention, control and treatment-
Viral metagenomics and virome-
Virus ecology, adaption and evolution-
Applied virology such as nanotechnology-
Viral diagnosis with novelty and comprehensive evaluation.
We seek articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and laboratory protocols that include comprehensive technical details with statistical confirmations that provide validations against current best practice, international standards or quality assurance programs and which advance knowledge in virology leading to improved medical, veterinary or agricultural practices and management.