从大规模检测的角度看严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒2型抗原检测的敏感性

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q4 MICROBIOLOGY
Pavel Drevinek, Jakub Hurych, Z. Kepka, A. Briksí, Michal Kulich, M. Zajac, Petr Hubacek
{"title":"从大规模检测的角度看严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒2型抗原检测的敏感性","authors":"Pavel Drevinek, Jakub Hurych, Z. Kepka, A. Briksí, Michal Kulich, M. Zajac, Petr Hubacek","doi":"10.1101/2020.11.23.20237198","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: Antigen tests have recently emerged as an interesting alternative to SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic PCR, thought to be valuable especially for the screening of bigger communities. To check appropriateness of the antigen based testing, we determined sensitivity of two point-of-care antigen tests when applied to a cohort of COVID-19 symptomatic, COVID-19 asymptomatic and healthy persons. Methods: We examined nasopharyngeal swabs with antigen test 1 (Panbio Covid-19 Ag Rapid Test, Abbott) and antigen test 2 (Standard F Covid-19 Ag FIA, SD Biosensor). An additional nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab of the same individual was checked with PCR (Allplex SARS-nCoV-2, Seegene). Within a 4-day period in October 2020, we collected specimens from 591 subjects. Of them, 290 had COVID-19 associated symptoms. Results: While PCR positivity was detected in 223 cases, antigen test 1 and antigen test 2 were found positive in 148 (sensitivity 0.664, 95% CI 0.599 - 0.722) and 141 (sensitivity 0.623, 95% CI 0.558 - 0.684) patients, respectively. When only symptomatic patients were analysed, sensitivity increased to 0.738 (95% CI 0.667 - 0.799) for the antigen test 1 and to 0.685 (95% CI 0.611 - 0.750) for the antigen test 2. The substantial drop in sensitivity to 12.9% (95% CI 0.067 - 0.234) was observed for samples with the PCR threshold cycle above > 30. Conclusions: Low sensitivity of antigen tests leads to the considerable risk of false negativity. It is advisable to implement repeated testing with high enough frequency if the antigen test is used as a frontline screening tool.","PeriodicalId":54374,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologie Mikrobiologie Imunologie","volume":"70 3 1","pages":"156-160"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"21","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests in the view of large-scale testing\",\"authors\":\"Pavel Drevinek, Jakub Hurych, Z. Kepka, A. Briksí, Michal Kulich, M. Zajac, Petr Hubacek\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2020.11.23.20237198\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives: Antigen tests have recently emerged as an interesting alternative to SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic PCR, thought to be valuable especially for the screening of bigger communities. To check appropriateness of the antigen based testing, we determined sensitivity of two point-of-care antigen tests when applied to a cohort of COVID-19 symptomatic, COVID-19 asymptomatic and healthy persons. Methods: We examined nasopharyngeal swabs with antigen test 1 (Panbio Covid-19 Ag Rapid Test, Abbott) and antigen test 2 (Standard F Covid-19 Ag FIA, SD Biosensor). An additional nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab of the same individual was checked with PCR (Allplex SARS-nCoV-2, Seegene). Within a 4-day period in October 2020, we collected specimens from 591 subjects. Of them, 290 had COVID-19 associated symptoms. Results: While PCR positivity was detected in 223 cases, antigen test 1 and antigen test 2 were found positive in 148 (sensitivity 0.664, 95% CI 0.599 - 0.722) and 141 (sensitivity 0.623, 95% CI 0.558 - 0.684) patients, respectively. When only symptomatic patients were analysed, sensitivity increased to 0.738 (95% CI 0.667 - 0.799) for the antigen test 1 and to 0.685 (95% CI 0.611 - 0.750) for the antigen test 2. The substantial drop in sensitivity to 12.9% (95% CI 0.067 - 0.234) was observed for samples with the PCR threshold cycle above > 30. Conclusions: Low sensitivity of antigen tests leads to the considerable risk of false negativity. It is advisable to implement repeated testing with high enough frequency if the antigen test is used as a frontline screening tool.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54374,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Epidemiologie Mikrobiologie Imunologie\",\"volume\":\"70 3 1\",\"pages\":\"156-160\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"21\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Epidemiologie Mikrobiologie Imunologie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.23.20237198\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiologie Mikrobiologie Imunologie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.23.20237198","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

摘要

目的:抗原检测最近成为严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒2型诊断性聚合酶链式反应的一种有趣的替代方法,被认为特别对更大社区的筛查有价值。为了检查基于抗原的检测的适当性,我们确定了两种护理点抗原检测在应用于新冠肺炎有症状、新冠肺炎无症状和健康人群时的敏感性。方法:用抗原检测1(Panbio新冠肺炎Ag快速检测,Abbott)和抗原检测2(Standard F新冠肺炎Ag FIA,SD Biosensor)检测鼻咽拭子。用PCR(Allplex SARS-nCoV-2,Seegene)检查同一个体的另一个鼻咽和口咽拭子。在2020年10月的4天时间里,我们收集了591名受试者的标本。其中290人出现新冠肺炎相关症状。结果:223例患者检测到PCR阳性,148例(敏感性0.664,95%CI 0.599-0.722)和141例(敏感性0.623,95%CI 0.558-0.684)患者检测到抗原检测1和抗原检测2阳性。当只分析有症状的患者时,抗原测试1的敏感性增加到0.738(95%CI 0.667-0.799),抗原测试2的敏感性增加至0.685(95%CI 0.621-0.750)。对于PCR阈值周期大于30的样本,观察到灵敏度显著下降至12.9%(95%CI 0.067-0.234)。结论:抗原检测的低灵敏度会导致相当大的假阴性风险。如果抗原检测被用作一线筛查工具,建议以足够高的频率进行重复检测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests in the view of large-scale testing
Objectives: Antigen tests have recently emerged as an interesting alternative to SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic PCR, thought to be valuable especially for the screening of bigger communities. To check appropriateness of the antigen based testing, we determined sensitivity of two point-of-care antigen tests when applied to a cohort of COVID-19 symptomatic, COVID-19 asymptomatic and healthy persons. Methods: We examined nasopharyngeal swabs with antigen test 1 (Panbio Covid-19 Ag Rapid Test, Abbott) and antigen test 2 (Standard F Covid-19 Ag FIA, SD Biosensor). An additional nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab of the same individual was checked with PCR (Allplex SARS-nCoV-2, Seegene). Within a 4-day period in October 2020, we collected specimens from 591 subjects. Of them, 290 had COVID-19 associated symptoms. Results: While PCR positivity was detected in 223 cases, antigen test 1 and antigen test 2 were found positive in 148 (sensitivity 0.664, 95% CI 0.599 - 0.722) and 141 (sensitivity 0.623, 95% CI 0.558 - 0.684) patients, respectively. When only symptomatic patients were analysed, sensitivity increased to 0.738 (95% CI 0.667 - 0.799) for the antigen test 1 and to 0.685 (95% CI 0.611 - 0.750) for the antigen test 2. The substantial drop in sensitivity to 12.9% (95% CI 0.067 - 0.234) was observed for samples with the PCR threshold cycle above > 30. Conclusions: Low sensitivity of antigen tests leads to the considerable risk of false negativity. It is advisable to implement repeated testing with high enough frequency if the antigen test is used as a frontline screening tool.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Epidemiologie Mikrobiologie Imunologie
Epidemiologie Mikrobiologie Imunologie Medicine-Immunology and Allergy
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: The journal publishes original papers, information from practice, reviews on epidemiological and microbiological subjects. Sufficient space is devoted to diagnostic methods from medical microbiology, parasitology, immunology, and to general aspects and discussions pertaining to preventive medicine. It also brings translations and book reviews useful for medical doctors and research workers and professionals in public health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信