• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Five Antigen Tests for SARS-CoV-2: Virus Viability Matters

M. Homza, H. Zelena, J. Janosek, H. Tomaskova, E. Jezo, A. Kloudova, J. Mrazek, Z. Svagera, R. Prymula

. 2021 ; 13 (4) : . [pub] 20210415

Jazyk angličtina Země Švýcarsko

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc21018834

Antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 (AGT) is generally considered inferior to RT-PCR testing in terms of sensitivity. However, little is known about the infectiousness of RT-PCR positive patients who pass undetected by AGT. In a screening setting for mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic patients with high COVID-19 prevalence (30-40%), 1141 patients were tested using one of five AGTs and RT-PCR. Where the results differed, virus viability in the samples was tested on cell culture (CV-1 cells). The test battery included AGTs by JOYSBIO, Assure Tech, SD Biosensor, VivaChek Biotech and NDFOS. Sensitivities of the ATGs compared to RT-PCR ranged from 42% to 76%. The best test yielded a 76% sensitivity, 97% specificity, 92% positive, and 89% negative predictive values, respectively. However, in the best performing ATG tests, almost 90% of samples with "false negative" AGT results contained no viable virus. Corrected on the virus viability, sensitivities grew to 81-97% and, with one exception, the tests yielded high specificities >96%. Performance characteristics of the best test after adjustment were 96% sensitivity, 97% specificity, 92% positive, and 99% negative predictive values (high prevalence population). We, therefore, believe that virus viability should be considered when assessing the AGT performance. Also, our results indicate that a well-performing antigen test could in a high-prevalence setting serve as an excellent tool for identifying patients shedding viable virus. We also propose that the high proportion of RT-PCR-positive samples containing no viable virus in the group of "false negatives" of the antigen test should be further investigated with the aim of possibly preventing needless isolation of such patients.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc21018834
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20210830100421.0
007      
ta
008      
210728s2021 sz f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.3390/v13040684 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)33921164
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a sz
100    1_
$a Homza, Miroslav $u Hospital Karvina-Raj, Vydmuchov 399, 734 01 Karvina, Czech Republic $u Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Syllabova 19, 703 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic
245    10
$a Five Antigen Tests for SARS-CoV-2: Virus Viability Matters / $c M. Homza, H. Zelena, J. Janosek, H. Tomaskova, E. Jezo, A. Kloudova, J. Mrazek, Z. Svagera, R. Prymula
520    9_
$a Antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 (AGT) is generally considered inferior to RT-PCR testing in terms of sensitivity. However, little is known about the infectiousness of RT-PCR positive patients who pass undetected by AGT. In a screening setting for mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic patients with high COVID-19 prevalence (30-40%), 1141 patients were tested using one of five AGTs and RT-PCR. Where the results differed, virus viability in the samples was tested on cell culture (CV-1 cells). The test battery included AGTs by JOYSBIO, Assure Tech, SD Biosensor, VivaChek Biotech and NDFOS. Sensitivities of the ATGs compared to RT-PCR ranged from 42% to 76%. The best test yielded a 76% sensitivity, 97% specificity, 92% positive, and 89% negative predictive values, respectively. However, in the best performing ATG tests, almost 90% of samples with "false negative" AGT results contained no viable virus. Corrected on the virus viability, sensitivities grew to 81-97% and, with one exception, the tests yielded high specificities >96%. Performance characteristics of the best test after adjustment were 96% sensitivity, 97% specificity, 92% positive, and 99% negative predictive values (high prevalence population). We, therefore, believe that virus viability should be considered when assessing the AGT performance. Also, our results indicate that a well-performing antigen test could in a high-prevalence setting serve as an excellent tool for identifying patients shedding viable virus. We also propose that the high proportion of RT-PCR-positive samples containing no viable virus in the group of "false negatives" of the antigen test should be further investigated with the aim of possibly preventing needless isolation of such patients.
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a antigeny virové $x analýza $7 D000956
650    _2
$a COVID-19 $x diagnóza $x imunologie $7 D000086382
650    _2
$a testování na COVID-19 průkazem nukleové kyseliny $7 D000087123
650    _2
$a testování na COVID-19 $x metody $7 D000086742
650    _2
$a falešně negativní reakce $7 D005188
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a plošný screening $7 D008403
650    12
$a mikrobiální viabilita $7 D050296
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a SARS-CoV-2 $x imunologie $7 D000086402
650    _2
$a senzitivita a specificita $7 D012680
650    _2
$a sérologické testy $x metody $7 D012698
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Zelena, Hana $u Institute of Public Health Ostrava, Partyzánské Náměstí 7, 702 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic $u Department of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Syllabova 19, 703 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Janosek, Jaroslav $u Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Syllabova 19, 703 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Tomaskova, Hana $u Institute of Public Health Ostrava, Partyzánské Náměstí 7, 702 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic $u Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Syllabova 19, 703 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Jezo, Eduard $u Institute of Public Health Ostrava, Partyzánské Náměstí 7, 702 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Kloudova, Alena $u Institute of Public Health Ostrava, Partyzánské Náměstí 7, 702 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Mrazek, Jakub $u Institute of Public Health Ostrava, Partyzánské Náměstí 7, 702 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Svagera, Zdenek $u Department of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Syllabova 19, 703 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic $u Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Institute of Laboratory Medicine, University Hospital Ostrava, 17. Listopadu 1790/5, 708 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Prymula, Roman $u Faculty of Medicine Hradec Kralove, Charles University Prague, Simkova 870, 500 03 Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00177099 $t Viruses $x 1999-4915 $g Roč. 13, č. 4 (2021)
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33921164 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20210728 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20210830100421 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1689810 $s 1139280
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2021 $b 13 $c 4 $e 20210415 $i 1999-4915 $m Viruses $n Viruses $x MED00177099
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20210728

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace