PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Caruana, Giorgia AU - Croxatto, Antony AU - Kampouri, Eleftheria AU - Kritikos, Antonios AU - Opota, Onya AU - Foerster, Marylin AU - Brouillet, René AU - Senn, Laurence AU - Lienhard, Reto AU - Egli, Adrian AU - Pantaleo, Giuseppe AU - Carron, Pierre-Nicolas AU - Greub, Gilbert TI - ImplemeNting SARS-CoV-2 Rapid antigen testing in the Emergency wArd of a Swiss univErsity hospital: the INCREASE study AID - 10.1101/2021.02.10.21250915 DP - 2021 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2021.02.10.21250915 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/12/2021.02.10.21250915.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/12/2021.02.10.21250915.full AB - Background While facing a second wave in SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, in November 2020 the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) authorized the use of rapid antigen tests (RATs) in addition to the gold-standard reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR).Methods We implemented the use of RAT in the emergency ward of our university hospital for rapid patients’ triaging and compared performances of four different antigen tests. All results were compared to SARS-CoV-2 specific RT-PCR (reference standard).Results Triaging patients using RAT in association with RT-PCR allowed us to isolate promptly positive patients and to save resources, in a context of rapid RT-PCR reagents shortage. Among 532 patients with valid results, overall sensitivities were 48.3% for One Step Exdia and 41.2% for Standard Q®, Panbio−and BD Veritor. All four antigen tests exhibited specificity above 99%. Sensitivity increased up to 74.6%, 66.2%, 66.2% and 64.8% for One Step Exdia, Standard Q, Panbio, and BD Veritor respectively, when considering viral loads above 105copies/ml, up to 100%, 97.8%, 96.6% and 95.6% for viral loads above 106 copies/ml and 100% (for all tests) when considering viral loads above 107 copies/ml. Sensitivity was significantly higher for patients presenting with symptoms onset within 4 days (74.3%, 69.2%, 69.2% and 64%, respectively) versus patients with evolution of symptoms for more than 4 days (36.8%, 21.1%, 21.1% and 23.7%, respectively). Sensitivities of all RAT assays were of only 33% among hospitalized patients without COVID-19 symptoms.Conclusion RAT might represent a useful epidemiological resource in selected clinical settings as a complementary tool to the molecular tests for rapid patients triaging, but the lower sensitivity compared to RT-PCR, especially in late presenters and subjects without COVID-19 symptoms, must be taken into account in order to correctly use RAT for triaging.Competing Interest StatementAll the authors declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; Dr Croxatto reports grants from Becton Dickinson outside the submitted work; Prof. Greub reports grants from Resistell and Nittobo, outside the submitted work and he is the co-director of JeuPro, a start-up distributing the game Krobs, a card game about microbes' transmission; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.Funding StatementThe authors did not receive any financial support for this work.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:The fact to use the antigen test and the Rt-PCR sequentially was not a research project, but corresponded to good clinical practices that followed the recommendations of the Swiss Society of Microbiology (https://www.swissmicrobiology.ch/en/sars-cov-2-antigen-tests). Regarding antigen tests comparison on left over of the viral transport medium, Professor Dominique Sprumont, the president of the ethical committee of the Vaud canton (CER-VD), proposed to use the following sentence: 'The data on the fiability of the different antigen assays were obtained during a quality enhancement project at our institution (CHUV, Lausanne). According to national law (Swiss Federal Act on Human Research), the performance and publishing the results of such a project can be done without asking the permission of the competent research ethics committee.'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.YesThe data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available due to privacy restrictions.