Literature DB >> 33139420

Evaluation of the Panbio COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Detection Test Device for the Screening of Patients with COVID-19.

Florence Fenollar1,2, Amar Bouam1, Mehdi Ballouche1, Léa Fuster1,3, Elsa Prudent1, Philippe Colson1,2, Hervé Tissot-Dupont1,2, Matthieu Million1,2, Michel Drancourt1,2, Didier Raoult1,2, Pierre-Edouard Fournier4,3.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Keywords:  COVID-19; RT-PCR; SARS-CoV-2; antigen assay; diagnosis; rapid antigenic device; rapid diagnosis; sensitivity

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33139420      PMCID: PMC8111145          DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02589-20

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Microbiol        ISSN: 0095-1137            Impact factor:   5.948


× No keyword cloud information.

LETTER

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), declared a pandemic by the WHO on 11 March 2020 (1), requires an early diagnosis to optimize patient management and limit further transmission. Currently, the gold standard and most commonly used diagnostic method in clinical microbiology laboratories is real-time PCR (RT-PCR) detecting the viral RNA in nasopharyngeal specimens (2). However, RT-PCR requires specialized instruments and personnel. In contrast, rapid antigen (Ag) detection (RAD) tests, which are widely used to diagnose viral diseases other than COVID-19, not only are rapid (15 to 30 min) but are less laborious and require only a comparatively short training period. However, to date, several commercialized RAD tests have been evaluated and most have demonstrated a lack of sensitivity (see Table S1 in the supplemental material). In the present study, we evaluated the performance of the Panbio COVID-19 Ag rapid test device assay (Abbott) in comparison to that of the VitaPCR severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) assay (Credo Diagnostics, Singapore) on nasopharyngeal specimens. Both systems provide results within 20 min. The former is an immunochromatographic assay detecting the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein and requiring no specialized instruments. This device is distributed worldwide except in the United States, where its equivalent, the BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag card (Abbott), is FDA approved. Using 10-fold dilutions of a quantified suspension of Vero E6 cell-cultured SARS-CoV-2 (IHUMI3 strain), as previously described (3), from 780 × 106 copies/ml at a dilution of 10−1 to 1,484 copies/ml at a dilution of 10−6, we found that the RT-PCR assay was positive for all tested virus dilutions, with cycle threshold (C) values of 16 and 34 for the most concentrated (10−1) and most dilute (10−6) solutions, respectively. In contrast, the RAD test was positive for all dilutions except 10−5 and 10−6. Two further replicates of this evaluation confirmed these results for both assays. Then, we tested prospectively, from 21 September to 2 October 2020, nasopharyngeal samples from 341 patients and subjects who presented at our institute for COVID-19 testing using the two methods. Of these, 182 were symptomatic patients and 159 were asymptomatic subjects who had had contact with patients. For each patient, two nasopharyngeal samples were collected, from one nostril each, with a specific swab according to the assay used. All tests were performed within 1 h after specimen collection. All of the 182 symptomatic patients but only 22 of the 159 asymptomatic patients were PCR positive (median C values, 25 and 30.5, respectively, P < 10−2, Table 1), for a total of 204 PCR positives (Table S2). The Panbio COVID-19 Ag rapid test detected 154 of the 204 PCR-positive samples (sensitivity, 75.5%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 69.5 to 81.5), including 144/182 symptomatic patients (79.1%), but only 10/22 asymptomatic patients (45.4%). However, the test result was positive in 7 of the 137 PCR-negative samples, all of which had been collected from asymptomatic patients (specificity, 94.9%; 95% CI, 91.2 to 98.6). Among the individuals diagnosed (n = 204) or not diagnosed (n = 137) with COVID-19, positive and negative predictive values were 95.6% (154/161) and 72.2% (130/180), respectively.
TABLE 1

Sensitivity of the Panbio COVID-19 Ag rapid test (Abbott) according to the C values

CT rangeSensitivity of the Panbio COVID-19 Ag rapid test in the present study
No. of positive patients% of positive patients
<101100
10–151995
16–2038100
21–254994.2
26–303973.6
31–34820
Sensitivity of the Panbio COVID-19 Ag rapid test (Abbott) according to the C values We acknowledge the fact that our study population may not be representative of the general population of Marseille as symptomatic patients also came from other cities from southern France and were thus overrepresented. However, our study showed that the Panbio COVID-19 Ag rapid test had a good specificity for SARS-CoV-2 detection in nasopharynx swab samples but a good sensitivity only for samples with C values lower than 25 (corresponding to viral loads higher than 106 copies/ml, which has been proposed as threshold of transmissibility [4, 5]). In our study, all 10 asymptomatic patients, as well as 57/144 symptomatic patients, exhibited C values of ≥25 (Table S2). In this population, the Panbio COVID-19 Ag rapid test may miss about 40% of diagnoses. However, as the clinical performance of RAD tests largely depends on the setting in which they are used, we believe that the Panbio COVID-19 Ag rapid test may be a useful mass screening test when RT-PCR assays are not or are insufficiently available, in particular, in symptomatic patients. The patients gave informed consent for this study.
  4 in total

1.  Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019.

Authors:  Roman Wölfel; Victor M Corman; Wolfgang Guggemos; Michael Seilmaier; Sabine Zange; Marcel A Müller; Daniela Niemeyer; Terry C Jones; Patrick Vollmar; Camilla Rothe; Michael Hoelscher; Tobias Bleicker; Sebastian Brünink; Julia Schneider; Rosina Ehmann; Katrin Zwirglmaier; Christian Drosten; Clemens Wendtner
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Viral RNA load as determined by cell culture as a management tool for discharge of SARS-CoV-2 patients from infectious disease wards.

Authors:  Bernard La Scola; Marion Le Bideau; Julien Andreani; Van Thuan Hoang; Clio Grimaldier; Philippe Colson; Philippe Gautret; Didier Raoult
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2020-04-27       Impact factor: 3.267

3.  The relative transmissibility of asymptomatic COVID-19 infections among close contacts.

Authors:  Daihai He; Shi Zhao; Qianying Lin; Zian Zhuang; Peihua Cao; Maggie H Wang; Lin Yang
Journal:  Int J Infect Dis       Date:  2020-04-18       Impact factor: 3.623

4.  Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR.

Authors:  Victor M Corman; Olfert Landt; Marco Kaiser; Richard Molenkamp; Adam Meijer; Daniel Kw Chu; Tobias Bleicker; Sebastian Brünink; Julia Schneider; Marie Luisa Schmidt; Daphne Gjc Mulders; Bart L Haagmans; Bas van der Veer; Sharon van den Brink; Lisa Wijsman; Gabriel Goderski; Jean-Louis Romette; Joanna Ellis; Maria Zambon; Malik Peiris; Herman Goossens; Chantal Reusken; Marion Pg Koopmans; Christian Drosten
Journal:  Euro Surveill       Date:  2020-01
  4 in total
  46 in total

Review 1.  Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Authors:  Jacqueline Dinnes; Pawana Sharma; Sarah Berhane; Susanna S van Wyk; Nicholas Nyaaba; Julie Domen; Melissa Taylor; Jane Cunningham; Clare Davenport; Sabine Dittrich; Devy Emperador; Lotty Hooft; Mariska Mg Leeflang; Matthew Df McInnes; René Spijker; Jan Y Verbakel; Yemisi Takwoingi; Sian Taylor-Phillips; Ann Van den Bruel; Jonathan J Deeks
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2022-07-22

2.  Multi-branch fusion auxiliary learning for the detection of pneumonia from chest X-ray images.

Authors:  Jia Liu; Jing Qi; Wei Chen; Yongjian Nian
Journal:  Comput Biol Med       Date:  2022-06-15       Impact factor: 6.698

Review 3.  Lessons for improved COVID-19 surveillance from the scale-up of malaria testing strategies.

Authors:  Genevieve Kerr; Leanne J Robinson; Tanya L Russell; Joanne Macdonald
Journal:  Malar J       Date:  2022-07-20       Impact factor: 3.469

Review 4.  Performance of Antigen Detection Tests for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Anastasia Tapari; Georgia G Braliou; Maria Papaefthimiou; Helen Mavriki; Panagiota I Kontou; Georgios K Nikolopoulos; Pantelis G Bagos
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-04

5.  Antigen Detection Tests for SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis on real world data.

Authors:  Matteo Riccò; Silvia Ranzieri; Simona Peruzzi; Marina Valente; Federico Marchesi; Nicola Luigi Bragazzi; Davide Donelli; Federica Balzarini; Pietro Ferraro; Vincenza Gianfredi; Carlo Signorelli
Journal:  Acta Biomed       Date:  2022-05-11

6.  Accuracy of rapid point-of-care antigen-based diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression analyzing influencing factors.

Authors:  Lukas E Brümmer; Stephan Katzenschlager; Sean McGrath; Stephani Schmitz; Mary Gaeddert; Christian Erdmann; Marc Bota; Maurizio Grilli; Jan Larmann; Markus A Weigand; Nira R Pollock; Aurélien Macé; Berra Erkosar; Sergio Carmona; Jilian A Sacks; Stefano Ongarello; Claudia M Denkinger
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2022-05-26       Impact factor: 11.613

7.  Comparative evaluation of Panbio and SD Biosensor antigen rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 diagnosis.

Authors:  Felipe Pérez-García; Juan Romanyk; Helena Moya Gutiérrez; Andrea Labrador Ballestero; Inés Pérez Ranz; Javier González Arroyo; Victoria González Ventosa; Ramón Pérez-Tanoira; Concepción Domingo Cruz; Juan Cuadros-González
Journal:  J Med Virol       Date:  2021-05-31       Impact factor: 20.693

8.  Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Authors:  Jacqueline Dinnes; Jonathan J Deeks; Sarah Berhane; Melissa Taylor; Ada Adriano; Clare Davenport; Sabine Dittrich; Devy Emperador; Yemisi Takwoingi; Jane Cunningham; Sophie Beese; Julie Domen; Janine Dretzke; Lavinia Ferrante di Ruffano; Isobel M Harris; Malcolm J Price; Sian Taylor-Phillips; Lotty Hooft; Mariska Mg Leeflang; Matthew Df McInnes; René Spijker; Ann Van den Bruel
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-03-24

9.  Unveiling the Potential Role of Nanozymes in Combating the COVID-19 Outbreak.

Authors:  Jafar Ali; Saira Naveed Elahi; Asghar Ali; Hassan Waseem; Rameesha Abid; Mohamed M Mohamed
Journal:  Nanomaterials (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 5.076

10.  The evaluation of a novel digital immunochromatographic assay with silver amplification to detect SARS-CoV-2.

Authors:  Yoko Kurihara; Yoshihiko Kiyasu; Yusaku Akashi; Yuto Takeuchi; Kenji Narahara; Sunao Mori; Tomonori Takeshige; Shigeyuki Notake; Atsuo Ueda; Koji Nakamura; Hiroichi Ishikawa; Hiromichi Suzuki
Journal:  J Infect Chemother       Date:  2021-07-13       Impact factor: 2.211

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.