Abstract
Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been especially dangerous for elderly people. To reduce the risk of transmission from healthcare workers to elderly people, it is of utmost importance to detect possible severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positive healthcare workers as early as possible. We aimed to determine whether the Abbott Panbio™ COVID-19 antigen detection rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) could be used as an alternative to reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). The second aim was to compare the cycle threshold (Ct) in RT-qPCR with the results of the Ag-RDT.
Methods A prospective diagnostic evaluation of the Abbott Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag-RDT among healthcare workers across three elderly care facilities as well as home-based elderly care workers who met clinical criteria for COVID-19 during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Per healthcare worker, the first nasopharyngeal swab was obtained to perform the Ag-RDT and the second swab for RT-qPCR. A Ct-value of < 40 was interpreted as positive, ≥ 40 as negative.
Results A total of 683 healthcare workers with COVID-19 symptoms were sampled for detection of SARS-CoV-2 by both Ag-RDT and RT-qPCR. Sixty-three healthcare workers (9.2%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR. The overall sensitivity of Ag-RDT was 81.0% sensitivity (95%CI: 69.6-88.8%) and 100% specificity (95%CI: 99.4-100%). Using a cut-off Ct-value of 32, the sensitivity increased to 92.7% (95% CI: 82.7-97.1%). Negative Ag-RDT results were moderately associated with higher Ct-values (r = 0.62) compared to positive Ag-RDT results.
Conclusion The Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag-RDT can be used to quickly detect positive SARS-CoV-2 healthcare workers. Negative Ag-RDT should be confirmed by RT-qPCR. In case of severe understaffing and with careful consideration, fully vaccinated healthcare workers with Ag-RDT negative results could work with a mask pending PCR results.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
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:
The study was reviewed (File number CMO: 2020-7083) by the ethics committee of the Radboud University Medical Centre, which decided that the study is not subject to the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act and did not require full review by an accredited Medical Research Ethics Committee.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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 relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
