Clinical validation of point-of-care SARS-COV-2 BD Veritor antigen test by a single throat swab for rapid COVID-19 status on hospital patients predominantly without overt COVID symptoms
Bonde, J.; Ejegod, D. M.; Pedersen, H.; Smith, B.; Cortes, D.; Leding, C.; Thomsen, T.; Benfield, T.; Schnieder, U. V.; Tingleff, J.; Arbyn, M.; Lisby, G.; Andersen, O.
Show abstract
BACKGROUNDFast identification of severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infected individuals is a strategically vital task to ensure correct management and quarantine. Rapid antigen test could be a supplement to the standard-of-care Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT). The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of the BD Veritor SARS-CoV-2 antigen test as a screening instrument in a hospital setting. METHODSA cohort of prospective samples were collected from hospital staff and patients at the Emergency, Infectious Diseases and Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine departments at Hvidovre Hospital. All samples were collected using oropharyngeal swabs, and BD Veritor Antigen test results were paired with routine NAAT test results. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the antigen test were calculated using NAAT as reference. RESULTSOverall, 809 samples from 674 individuals were included (average age 45 years, range 0-98 years). Among all samples, 8% were SARS-CoV-2 positive by NAAT testing and 5.3% by BD Veritor. The sensitivity of the antigen test was 63.1% and specificity 99.7%. The positive predictive value was 95.3%. False-positive rate was 4%. The cycle threshold value was significantly higher among individuals with false negative antigen tests compared to true positives. CONCLUSIONThe sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values show that the BD Veritor antigen test from oropharyngeal collected specimens performs well. Antigen testing may be a supplement, but not substitute, to NAAT testing as the primary diagnostic modality in hospital settings where fast turnaround test results may assist in decisions regarding isolation and quarantine.
Matching journals
The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of the accuracy and ease-of-use of Abbott PanBio - A WHO emergency use listed, rapid, antigen-detecting point-of-care diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2 97%
- An optimized stepwise algorithm combining rapid antigen and RT-qPCR for screening of COVID-19 patients 97%
- Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Point of Care Devices in the Laboratory and Clinical Setting 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Handling and accuracy of four rapid antigen tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR 96%
- SARS-CoV-2 patient self-testing with an antigen-detecting rapid test: a head-to-head comparison with professional testing 94%
- 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 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation and modelling of the performance of an automated SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay according to sample type, target population and epidemic trends 94%
- Reducing the Cost of Rapid Antigen Tests through Swab Pooling and Extraction in a Device 93%
- Evaluation of commercial qPCR kits for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in pooled samples 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection in asymptomatic individuals using the Panbio™ COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test (Abbott) compared to RT-qPCR 94%
- Meta-Analysis of Robustness of COVID-19 Diagnostic Kits During Early Pandemic 94%
- SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing in a UK population: detectable IgG for up to 20 weeks post infection 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparison between mid-nasal swabs and buccal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection in mild COVID-19 patients 96%
- Performance characteristics of five antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) for SARS-CoV-2 asymptomatic infection: a head-to-head benchmark comparison 96%
- Clinical accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing in screening children and adolescents in comparison to RT-qPCR, November 2020 to September 2022 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.