Abstract
Background Several uses of Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) have been suggested. Analytical studies reported high specificity yet with lower sensitivity for detecting SARS-CoV-2 compared to qRT-PCR. Here, we present the use of these tests as a decision support tool in several settings.
Methods Samples were collected for both Ag-RDT and qRT-PCR in three different clinical settings; 1. Symptomatic patients presenting at the Emergency Departments 2. Asymptomatic patients screened upon hospitalization and 3. Health-care workers (HCW) following SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Positive percent agreement (PPA), negative percent agreement (NPA), positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. To estimate the association between Ct value, Ag-RDT and the number of days since SARS-CoV-2 exposure or symptomatic COVID-19, a mixed model was applied.
Results A total of 5172 samples were obtained from 4595 individuals, with Ag-RDT and qRT-PCR results. Of these, 485 samples were positive by qRT-PCR. The PPA of Ag-RDT was greater for lower Ct values, reaching 93% in cases where Ct value was lower than 25 and 85% where Ct value was lower than 30. PPA was similar between symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. The NPV and PPV were 96.8% and 99.1%, respectively. We observed a significant correlation between Ct value and time from infection onset (p<0.001). Lower Ct values were significantly associated with a positive Ag-RDT (p=0.01).
Conclusions Ag-RDT can be used as a decision support tool in various clinical settings and play a major role in early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals, highly specific and with high sensitivity to the infectious stage of disease, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding resources were available
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:
Sheba Medical Center IRB committee
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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 is available at Sheba Medical Center
