RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Multi-centre post-implementation evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-based point of care tests used for asymptomatic screening of continuing care healthcare workers
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.06.22.21259345
DO 10.1101/2021.06.22.21259345
A1 Jamil N Kanji
A1 Dustin T Proctor
A1 William Stokes
A1 Byron M Berenger
A1 James Silvius
A1 Graham Tipples
A1 A Mark Joffe
A1 Allison A Venner
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/25/2021.06.22.21259345.abstract
AB OBJECTIVES Frequent screening of SARS-CoV-2 among asymptomatic populations using antigen-based point of care tests (APOCT) is occurring globally with limited clinical performance data. The positive predictive value (PPV) of two APOCT used in the asymptomatic screening of SARS-CoV-2 among healthcare workers (HCW) at continuing care (CC) sites across Alberta, Canada was evaluated.METHODS Between February 22 and May 2, 2021, CC sites implemented SARS-CoV-2 voluntary screening of their asymptomatic HCW. Onsite testing with Abbott Panbio or BD Veritor occurred on a weekly or twice weekly basis. Positive APOCT were confirmed with a real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) reference method.RESULTS A total of 71,847 APOCT (17,689 Veritor and 54,158 Panbio) were performed among 369 CC sites. Eighty-seven (0.12%) APOCT were positive, of which 39 (0.05%) confirmed as true positives using rRT-PCR. Use of the Veritor and Panbio resulted in a 76.6% and 30.0% false positive detection, respectively (p<0.001). This corresponded to a 23.4% and 70.0% PPV for the Veritor and Panbio, respectively.CONCLUSIONS Frequent screening of SARS-CoV-2 among asymptomatic HCW in CC, using APOCT, resulted in a very low detection rate and a high detection of false positives. Careful assessment between the risks vs benefits of APOCT programs in this population needs to be thoroughly considered before implementation.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Tests were purchased by the government of Canada and distributed to provinces to aid in the COVID-19 response. All other resources used internal funds.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Presentation of the data contained in this report has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Board at the University of Alberta (study identifier Pro00110831).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesDue to confidentiality issues, data is available upon reasonable request.