Abstract
Early diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 is essential to limiting the spread of the virus and managing infected patients during hospitalization. The sensitivity of RT-qPCR is contested by the fact that it is time-consuming, executed by trained technicians in proper environment for material extraction. Here, we evaluated the first SARS-CoV-2 antigen test recommended by the World Health Organization at September, 2020 as an alternative for immediate diagnosis of symptomatic and suspected patients at a hospital in Brazil during the epidemic peak. All patients were submitted to RT-qPCR and rapid antigen test using nasopharyngeal swabs rigorously collected at the same time. Demographics, baseline comorbidities, symptoms and outcomes were considered. Prediction analysis revealed that previous stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, desaturation and tachypnea were the most relevant determinants of the death of COVID-19 patients. Comparison between the rapid antigen test and RT-qPCR revealed an overall PPV of 97%, extended to 100% when performed between 4 and 15 days of symptoms, with an accuracy of 90-91% from days 1 to 7 and a ‘Substantial’ agreement. The rapid antigen test presented no inconclusive result. Among the discordant results and RT-qPCR inconclusives, 72% presented bilateral multifocal ground-glass opacities on imaging and other exams alterations. The median time to obtain RT-qPCR results was 83.6 hours, against 15 minutes for the rapid test, precious time for deciding on patient isolation and management. Knowledge of the risk factors and a rapid diagnosis upon patient admission is critical to reduce mortality of COVID-19 patients, hospital internal costs and in-hospital transmission.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
Conep 30428720.3.0000.5091
Funding Statement
Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (to RFQG and scholarships to CC, RA, LC, NC), The Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) (scholarships to AO, DM, SG), Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) (scholarships to NA, JA), The Minas Gerais Research Funding Foundation (FAPEMIG) (scholarship to PF).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Written informed consent was obtained from each enrolled patient at the Hospital da Baleia. This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethical in Human Research Committee of Oswaldo Cruz Foundation and the National Brazilian Ethical Board (CONEP N. 30428720.3.0000.5091).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I 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).
Yes
I 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.
Yes
Data Availability
All data referred in this paper are available at Oswaldo Cruz Foundation.
