{"title":"Limitations of point-of-care testing for low SARS CoV-2 loads: Insights for future pandemics.","authors":"Ivy Rukasha","doi":"10.4102/phcfm.v17i1.4671","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong> The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has seen a surge in the development of diagnostic assays. However, the performance of antigen point-of-care tests (Ag-POCTs) on samples with low viral load has not been evaluated.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong> To evaluate the accuracy of three World Health Organization (WHO) certified Ag-POCTs in comparison to the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) technique.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong> The study was conducted at Pietersburg Hospital Limpopo, South Africa between March 2020 and April 2023.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> A total of 371 SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal samples from the National Health Laboratory Service were tested using Ag-POCTs from Abbott Panbio, Roche RDT and SD Biosensor, following manufacturer instructions. All samples had RT-PCR results with Ct values between 13 and 45. Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction results were compared and correlated with Ag-POCT results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> Of the 371 samples, the SD Biosensor Standard Q test kit detected the most positive isolates 166 (44.7%), followed by the Abbott Panbio. A total of 153 (41.2%) positives, while the Roche SD detected 134 (36.1%) samples. High viral load (Ct 25) sensitivity and specificity exceeded 77%, while intermediate (Ct 25-35) and low viral load (Ct 35) sensitivity and sensitivity dropped to 32% and 7%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> The performance rapid antigen tests was low on samples with low viral load with results markedly different from the manufacturer's reported performance.Contribution: Rapid antigen tests should not be used alone for diagnosis, especially in samples with low viral load.</p>","PeriodicalId":47037,"journal":{"name":"African Journal of Primary Health Care & Family Medicine","volume":"17 1","pages":"e1-e7"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11966669/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Journal of Primary Health Care & Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/phcfm.v17i1.4671","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has seen a surge in the development of diagnostic assays. However, the performance of antigen point-of-care tests (Ag-POCTs) on samples with low viral load has not been evaluated.
Aim: To evaluate the accuracy of three World Health Organization (WHO) certified Ag-POCTs in comparison to the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) technique.
Setting: The study was conducted at Pietersburg Hospital Limpopo, South Africa between March 2020 and April 2023.
Methods: A total of 371 SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal samples from the National Health Laboratory Service were tested using Ag-POCTs from Abbott Panbio, Roche RDT and SD Biosensor, following manufacturer instructions. All samples had RT-PCR results with Ct values between 13 and 45. Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction results were compared and correlated with Ag-POCT results.
Results: Of the 371 samples, the SD Biosensor Standard Q test kit detected the most positive isolates 166 (44.7%), followed by the Abbott Panbio. A total of 153 (41.2%) positives, while the Roche SD detected 134 (36.1%) samples. High viral load (Ct 25) sensitivity and specificity exceeded 77%, while intermediate (Ct 25-35) and low viral load (Ct 35) sensitivity and sensitivity dropped to 32% and 7%, respectively.
Conclusion: The performance rapid antigen tests was low on samples with low viral load with results markedly different from the manufacturer's reported performance.Contribution: Rapid antigen tests should not be used alone for diagnosis, especially in samples with low viral load.