Experience with Panbio™ rapid antigens test device for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nursing homes

Fernández, Mercedes Domínguez; Rodríguez, María Fernanda Peña; Alfonsín, Fernando Lamelo; Arévalo, Germán Bou

doi:10.1016/j.eimce.2021.10.002

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the end of the data extraction process, 21 studies were still in preprint form [16, 17, 21, 47, 50, 55, 58, 65, 69, 74, 84, 100, 116, 121, 129, 160, 167, 168, 173, 174, 186]. All studies were written in English, except for 3 in Spanish [53, 62, 134], 1 in Turkish [95], and 1 in French [153]. Out of the 196 studies, 26 conducted a case-control study [21, 32, 34, 66, 67, 72, 81, 84, 88-90, 93, 94, 96, 103, 108, 135, 140, 144, 145, 151, 156, 166, 168, 182, 184], while the remaining 168 were cross-sectional or cohort studies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of rapid point-of-care antigen-based diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis with meta regression analyzing influencing factors

Brümmer

Katzenschlager

McGrath

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Comprehensive information about the accuracy of antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 is essential to guide public health decision makers in choosing the best tests and testing policies. In August 2021, we published a systematic review and meta-analysis about the accuracy of Ag-RDTs. We now update this work and analyze the factors influencing test sensitivity in further detail. Methods and findings We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix, bioRvix, and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 until August 31, 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing as a reference. To evaluate factors influencing test sensitivity, we performed 3 different analyses using multivariate mixed-effects meta-regression models. We included 194 studies with 221,878 Ag-RDTs performed. Overall, the pooled estimates of Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 72.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.8 to 74.2) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6 to 99.1), respectively. When manufacturer instructions were followed, sensitivity increased to 76.4% (95%CI 73.8 to 78.8). Sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values (sensitivity of 97.9% [95% CI 96.9 to 98.9] and 90.6% [95% CI 88.3 to 93.0] for Ct-values <20 and <25, compared to 54.4% [95% CI 47.3 to 61.5] and 18.7% [95% CI 13.9 to 23.4] for Ct-values ≥25 and ≥30) and was estimated to increase by 2.9 percentage points (95% CI 1.7 to 4.0) for every unit decrease in mean Ct-value when adjusting for testing procedure and patients symptom status. Concordantly, we found the mean Ct-value to be lower for true positive (22.2 [95% CI 21.5 to 22.8]) compared to false negative (30.4 [95% CI 29.7 to 31.1]) results. Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (81.9% [95% CI 77.7 to 85.5]) compared to testing after 1 week (51.8%, 95% CI 41.5 to 61.9). Similarly, sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (76.2% [95% CI 73.3 to 78.9]) compared to asymptomatic (56.8% [95% CI 50.9 to 62.4]) persons. However, both effects were mainly driven by the Ct-value of the sample. With regards to sample type, highest sensitivity was found for nasopharyngeal (NP) and combined NP/oropharyngeal samples (70.8% [95% CI 68.3 to 73.2]), as well as in anterior nasal/mid-turbinate samples (77.3% [95% CI 73.0 to 81.0]). Conclusion Ag-RDTs detect most of the individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2, and almost all when high viral loads are present (>90%). With viral load, as estimated by Ct-value, being the most influential factor on their sensitivity, they are especially useful to detect persons with high viral load who are most likely to transmit the virus. To further quantify the effects of other factors influencing test sensitivity, standardization of clinical accuracy studies and access to patient level Ct-values and duration of symptoms are needed.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of rapid point-of-care antigen-based diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis with meta regression analyzing influencing factors

Brümmer

Katzenschlager

McGrath

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…SUCRA Values of 3 Different methods for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR. List of studies included in the analysis, see [ 19 , 28 , 39 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 ,…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic Performance of Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests, Chest Computed Tomography, and Lung Point-of-Care-Ultrasonography for SARS-CoV-2 Compared with RT-PCR Testing: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(1) Background: The comparative performance of various diagnostic methods for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the comparison of the 3 index test performances of rapid antigen diagnostic tests (RDTs), chest computed tomography (CT), and lung point-of-care-ultrasonography (US) with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), the reference standard, to provide more evidence-based data on the appropriate use of these index tests. (2) Methods: We retrieved data from electronic literature searches of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE from 1 January 2020, to 1 April 2021. Diagnostic performance was examined using bivariate random-effects diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) models. (3) Results: Of the 3992 studies identified in our search, 118 including 69,445 participants met our selection criteria. Among these, 69 RDT, 38 CT, and 15 US studies in the pairwise meta-analysis were included for DTA with NMA. CT and US had high sensitivity of 0.852 (95% credible interval (CrI), 0.791–0.914) and 0.879 (95% CrI, 0.784–0.973), respectively. RDT had high specificity, 0.978 (95% CrI, 0.960–0.996). In accuracy assessment, RDT and CT had a relatively higher than US. However, there was no significant difference in accuracy between the 3 index tests. (4) Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that, compared with the reference standard RT-PCR, the 3 index tests (RDTs, chest CT, and lung US) had similar and complementary performances for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. To manage and control COVID-19 effectively, future large-scale prospective studies could be used to obtain an optimal timely diagnostic process that identifies the condition of the patient accurately.

show abstract

“…As recently pointed out by Domínguez Fernandez et al, 3 rapid antigen tests (RAT), with their reduced costs and turnaround times, 4 could significantly speed and scale up diagnoses, benefiting residents’ and workers’ safety. However, available evidence appears far more controversial.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We specifically performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on RAT in NHs according to PRISMA guidelines (see Annex 1A for the detailed search strategy), 5 being able to retrieve 5 studies ( Table 1 ), for a total of 1327 paired samples RAT vs. RT-qPCR from residents of NHs, three of them from Spain. 3 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… Sp. PPV PNV Accuracy Cohen's Kappa Paap et al, 2021 6 Three NHs organizations in the Netherlands; single swab (December 1st, 2020, to March 31st, 2021) Aptima® SARS-CoV-2 Assay + Lightcycler 480 from Roche diagnostics 461 27 25 26 383 50.9% 93.9% 51.9% 93.6% 88.9% 0.452 Escrivá et al, 2021 7 Seven NHs belonging to the Health Department of Consorcio Hospital General Universitario de Valencia (November–December, 2020) Panbio COVID-19 Rapid Test Device 448 99 0 18 331 84.6% 100% 100% 94.8% 96.0% 0.890 Diez Flecha et al, 2021 8 One NH from the Spanish State of Leon after the emergence of a single case (November 24–25th, 2020) Panbio COVID-19 Rapid Test Device 55 36 0 13 6 73.5% 100% 100% 31.6% 76.4% 0.377 Dominguez Fernández et al, 2022 3 One NH from the Spanish State of Galicia (September, 2020) Panbio COVID-19 Rapid Test Device 30 19 0 1 10 95.0% 100...…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic review on rapid antigen test devices for SARS-CoV-2 in nursing homes: Useful, but handle with care

Riccò¹

2022

Enfermedades infecciosas y microbiologia clinica (English ed.)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experience with Panbio™ rapid antigens test device for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nursing homes

Cited by 7 publications

References 4 publications

Accuracy of rapid point-of-care antigen-based diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis with meta regression analyzing influencing factors

Accuracy of rapid point-of-care antigen-based diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis with meta regression analyzing influencing factors

Diagnostic Performance of Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests, Chest Computed Tomography, and Lung Point-of-Care-Ultrasonography for SARS-CoV-2 Compared with RT-PCR Testing: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

A systematic review on rapid antigen test devices for SARS-CoV-2 in nursing homes: Useful, but handle with care

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About