RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Performance of Various Lateral Flow SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Self Testing Methods in Healthcare Workers: a Multicenter Study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.01.28.22269783
DO 10.1101/2022.01.28.22269783
A1 Zwart, V.F.
A1 van der Moeren, N.
A1 Stohr, J.J.J.M.
A1 Feltkamp, M.C.W.
A1 Bentvelsen, R.G.
A1 Diederen, B.M.W.
A1 de Laat, A.C.
A1 Mascini, E.M.
A1 Schilders, I.G.P.
A1 Vlassak, H.T.M.
A1 Wertheim, H.F.L.
A1 Murk, J.L.A.N.
A1 Kluytmans, J.A.J.W.
A1 van den Bijllaardt, W.
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/29/2022.01.28.22269783.abstract
AB Introduction Rapid antigen detection tests (RDT) are suitable for large-scale testing for SARS-CoV-2 among the population and recent studies have shown that self-testing with RDT in the general population is feasible and yields acceptable sensitivities with high specificity. We aimed to determine the accuracy of two different RDT’s, with two different sample collection methods for one of the RDT’s among healthcare workers (HCW). Secondary objectives were to determine the accuracy of RDT using a viral load cut-off as proxy of infectiousness and to identify predictors for a false negative RDT.Methods Centers that participated were secondary care hospitals, academic teaching hospitals, and long-term care facilities. All HCW that met inclusion criteria were asked to perform a RDT self-test next to a regular SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT). Three study groups were created. Study group 1; Veritor(tm) System, Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, USA (BD-RDT) with combined oropharyngeal - mid-turbinate nasal sampling, group 2; BD-RDT with mid-turbinate nasal sampling only and group 3; SD Biosensor SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test, Roche, Basel, Switzerland (Roche-RDT) with combined oropharyngeal - mid-turbinate nasal sampling. RDT accuracy was calculated using NAAT as reference standard. For samples processed in the cobas® 6800/8800 platform (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland), established cycle threshold values (Ct-values) could be converted into viral loads. A viral load cut-off of ≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E gene copies/ml was used as proxy of infectiousness. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors for a false negative RDT.Results In total, 7,196 HCW were included. Calculated sensitivities were 61.5% (95%CI 56.6%-66.3%), 50.3% (95%CI 42.8%-57.7%) and 74.2% (95%CI 66.4%-80.9%) for study groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. After application of a viral load cut-off as a proxy for infectiousness for samples processed in the cobas® 6800/8800 platform sensitivities increased to 82.2% (95%CI 76.6-86.9%), 61.9% (95%CI 48.8%-73.9%) and 90.2% (95%CI 76.9%-97.3%) for group 1, group 2 and group 3, respectively. Multivariable regression analysis showed that use of Roche-RDT (p <0.01), combined oropharyngeal - mid-turbinate nasal sampling (p <0.05) and the presence of COVID-19 like symptoms at the time of testing (p <0.01) significantly reduced the likeliness of a false-negative RDT result.Conclusion SARS-CoV-2 RDT has proven able to identify infectious individuals, especially when upper respiratory specimen is collected through combined oropharyngeal - mid-turbinate sampling. Reliability of self-testing with RDT among HCW seems to depend on the type of RDT, the sampling method and the presence of COVID-19 like symptoms at the time of testing.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementBecton Dickinson and Roche Diagnostics were not actively involved in the design, execution, analysis or result interpretation of the study. The RDT for this study were provided by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS).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 study protocol was reviewed by the Dutch Medical research Ethics Committees United (MEC-U) and was judged to be beyond the scope of the Dutch medical scientific research act (WMO) (MEC-U subject: W20.250). A waiver of written informed consent was granted as handling of documents obtained from possibly infectious participants was considered a potential safety hazard.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.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).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.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.