SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostic Tests: Algorithm and Field Evaluation From the Near Patient Testing to the Automated Diagnostic Platform
Open Access
- 6 April 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Frontiers Media SA in Frontiers in Medicine
- Vol. 8, 650581
- https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.650581
Abstract
Introduction: Since the first wave of COVID-19 in Europe, new diagnostic tools using antigen detection and rapid molecular techniques have been developed. Our objective was to elaborate a diagnostic algorithm combining antigen rapid diagnostic tests, automated antigen dosing and rapid molecular tests and to assess its performance under routine conditions. Methods: An analytical performance evaluation of four antigen rapid tests, one automated antigen dosing and one molecular point-of-care test was performed on samples sent to our laboratory for a SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription PCR. We then established a diagnostic algorithm by approaching median viral loads in target populations and evaluated the limit of detection of each test using the PCR cycle threshold values. A field performance evaluation including a clinical validation and a user-friendliness assessment was then conducted on the antigen rapid tests in point-of-care settings (general practitioners and emergency rooms) for outpatients who were symptomatic for Results: Our diagnostic algorithm proposed to test recently symptomatic patients using rapid antigen tests, asymptomatic patients using automated tests, and patients requiring immediate admission using molecular point-of-care tests. Accordingly, the conventional reverse transcription PCR was kept as a second line tool. In this setting, antigen rapid tests yielded an overall sensitivity of 83.3% (not significantly different between the four assays) while the use of automated antigen dosing would have spared 93.5% of asymptomatic inpatient screening PCRs. Conclusion: Using tests not considered the “gold standard” for COVID-19 diagnosis on well-defined target populations allowed for the optimization of their intrinsic performances, widening the scale of our testing arsenal while sparing molecular resources for more seriously ill patients.This publication has 21 references indexed in Scilit:
- Rethinking Covid-19 Test Sensitivity — A Strategy for ContainmentThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2020
- Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infectionEmergencias, 2020
- Comparison of automated SARS-CoV-2 antigen test for COVID-19 infection with quantitative RT-PCR using 313 nasopharyngeal swabs, including from seven serially followed patientsInternational Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2020
- Clinical evaluation of the BioFire® Respiratory Panel 2.1 and detection of SARS-CoV-2Journal of Clinical Virology, 2020
- Evaluation of rapid antigen test for detection of SARS-CoV-2 virusJournal of Clinical Virology, 2020
- Low performance of rapid antigen detection test as frontline testing for COVID-19 diagnosisJournal of Clinical Virology, 2020
- To Interpret the SARS-CoV-2 Test, Consider the Cycle Threshold ValueClinical Infectious Diseases, 2020
- Development and Potential Usefulness of the COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip Diagnostic Assay in a Pandemic ContextFrontiers in Medicine, 2020
- Stability of SARS-CoV-2 in different environmental conditionsThe Lancet Microbe, 2020
- Bigger and Better? Representativeness of the Influenza A Surveillance Using One Consolidated Clinical Microbiology Laboratory Data Set as Compared to the Belgian Sentinel Network of LaboratoriesFrontiers in Public Health, 2019