Lauren Cooper , Karen Eckert , Joseph Mann , Rossmeri Montalvo , Luis Castillo , Dwan Fellows , Stephen Young
{"title":"抗原检测严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒2型检测的准确性,使用自身和提供者收集的样本进行视觉解释,并使用BD Veritor™ Plus分析仪","authors":"Lauren Cooper , Karen Eckert , Joseph Mann , Rossmeri Montalvo , Luis Castillo , Dwan Fellows , Stephen Young","doi":"10.1016/j.jcvp.2023.100140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests (RATs) are in high demand for reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Reduced involvement from health care professionals (HCPs) for collection and interpretation could significantly foster the wide-spread implementation of RATs, but data evaluating RATs, when used by lay people, is limited.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To valuate agreement between BD Veritor test results for self- and HCP-collected specimens, and visually- and analyzer-interpreted results.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Individuals with onset of COVID-19 symptoms within five days of enrollment had three nasal swabs collected; one self-collected and the other two HCP-collected. One HCP-collected swab was stored for future testing while the order of the other two (self and HCP) was randomized before testing. with the BD Veritor System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2. Results were first assessed visually, followed by interpretation with the analyzer.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>When self-collection was compared to HCP collection for SARS-CoV-2 detection, interpretation by analyzer resulted in positive percent agreement (PPA) of 94.7% (95% CI 82.7, 98.5) and negative percent agreement (NPA) of 99.0% (95% CI 97.5, 99.6). When visual interpretation was compared to analyzer-read results, collection by HCPs had a PPA of 97.4% (95% CI 86.5, 99.5) and NPA of 99.8% (95% CI 98.6, 100.0) while self-collection resulted in PPA of 94.9% (95% CI 83.1, 98.6) and NPA of 99.8% (95% CI 98.6, 100).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Similar PPA and NPA were observed for self- and HCP-collected specimens as well as visually- and analyzer-interpreted tests. The equivalence in performance supports the use of expanded collection and testing methods.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73673,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical virology plus","volume":"3 1","pages":"Article 100140"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9846876/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of an antigen-detecting SARS-CoV-2 assay with self- and provider-collected specimens interpreted visually and with BD Veritor™ Plus analyzer\",\"authors\":\"Lauren Cooper , Karen Eckert , Joseph Mann , Rossmeri Montalvo , Luis Castillo , Dwan Fellows , Stephen Young\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcvp.2023.100140\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests (RATs) are in high demand for reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Reduced involvement from health care professionals (HCPs) for collection and interpretation could significantly foster the wide-spread implementation of RATs, but data evaluating RATs, when used by lay people, is limited.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To valuate agreement between BD Veritor test results for self- and HCP-collected specimens, and visually- and analyzer-interpreted results.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Individuals with onset of COVID-19 symptoms within five days of enrollment had three nasal swabs collected; one self-collected and the other two HCP-collected. One HCP-collected swab was stored for future testing while the order of the other two (self and HCP) was randomized before testing. with the BD Veritor System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2. Results were first assessed visually, followed by interpretation with the analyzer.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>When self-collection was compared to HCP collection for SARS-CoV-2 detection, interpretation by analyzer resulted in positive percent agreement (PPA) of 94.7% (95% CI 82.7, 98.5) and negative percent agreement (NPA) of 99.0% (95% CI 97.5, 99.6). When visual interpretation was compared to analyzer-read results, collection by HCPs had a PPA of 97.4% (95% CI 86.5, 99.5) and NPA of 99.8% (95% CI 98.6, 100.0) while self-collection resulted in PPA of 94.9% (95% CI 83.1, 98.6) and NPA of 99.8% (95% CI 98.6, 100).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Similar PPA and NPA were observed for self- and HCP-collected specimens as well as visually- and analyzer-interpreted tests. The equivalence in performance supports the use of expanded collection and testing methods.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73673,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical virology plus\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"Article 100140\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9846876/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical virology plus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667038023000078\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical virology plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667038023000078","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Accuracy of an antigen-detecting SARS-CoV-2 assay with self- and provider-collected specimens interpreted visually and with BD Veritor™ Plus analyzer
Background
SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests (RATs) are in high demand for reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Reduced involvement from health care professionals (HCPs) for collection and interpretation could significantly foster the wide-spread implementation of RATs, but data evaluating RATs, when used by lay people, is limited.
Objective
To valuate agreement between BD Veritor test results for self- and HCP-collected specimens, and visually- and analyzer-interpreted results.
Methods
Individuals with onset of COVID-19 symptoms within five days of enrollment had three nasal swabs collected; one self-collected and the other two HCP-collected. One HCP-collected swab was stored for future testing while the order of the other two (self and HCP) was randomized before testing. with the BD Veritor System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2. Results were first assessed visually, followed by interpretation with the analyzer.
Results
When self-collection was compared to HCP collection for SARS-CoV-2 detection, interpretation by analyzer resulted in positive percent agreement (PPA) of 94.7% (95% CI 82.7, 98.5) and negative percent agreement (NPA) of 99.0% (95% CI 97.5, 99.6). When visual interpretation was compared to analyzer-read results, collection by HCPs had a PPA of 97.4% (95% CI 86.5, 99.5) and NPA of 99.8% (95% CI 98.6, 100.0) while self-collection resulted in PPA of 94.9% (95% CI 83.1, 98.6) and NPA of 99.8% (95% CI 98.6, 100).
Conclusions
Similar PPA and NPA were observed for self- and HCP-collected specimens as well as visually- and analyzer-interpreted tests. The equivalence in performance supports the use of expanded collection and testing methods.