The sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests in the view of large-scale testing
Drevinek, P.; Hurych, J.; Kepka, Z.; Briksi, A.; Kulich, M.; Zajac, M.; Hubacek, P.
Show abstract
ObjectivesAntigen 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. MethodsWe 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. ResultsWhile 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. ConclusionsLow 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.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Prospective analytical performance evaluation of the QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag for asymptomatic individuals 97%
- The evaluation of a newly developed antigen test (QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag) for SARS-CoV-2: A prospective observational study in Japan 97%
- Evaluation and clinical implications of the time to a positive results of antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 97%
Similar papers in this journal
- Performance of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test compared with real-time RT-PCR in asymptomatic individuals 97%
- Self-collected oral, nasal and saliva samples yield sensitivity comparable to professional-collected oro-nasopharyngeal swabs in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis 96%
- Age significantly influences the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antibody assays 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of three rapid lateral flow antigen detection tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection 96%
- Handling and accuracy of four rapid antigen tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR 96%
- Direct comparison of clinical diagnostic sensitivity of saliva from buccal swabs versus combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 Omicron 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Real-life performance of a novel antigen detection test on nasopharyngeal specimens for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis: a prospective study 97%
- Clinical evaluation of an automated, rapid mariPOC ® antigen test in screening of symptomatics and asymptomatics for SARS-CoV-2 infections 96%
- Validation and Performance Comparison of Three SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Assays 95%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.