Suppr超能文献

两种商业 SARS-CoV-2 抗原检测快速检测试剂在社区检测中心现场即时检测中的诊断准确性。

Diagnostic accuracy of two commercial SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid tests at the point of care in community-based testing centers.

机构信息

Division of Infectious Disease, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.

Geneva Centre for Emerging Viral Diseases, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 31;16(3):e0248921. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248921. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Determine the diagnostic accuracy of two antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) for SARS-CoV-2 at the point of care and define individuals' characteristics providing best performance.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, single-center, point of care validation of two Ag-RDT in comparison to RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs.

RESULTS

Between October 9th and 23rd, 2020, 1064 participants were enrolled. The PanbioTM Covid-19 Ag Rapid Test device (Abbott) was validated in 535 participants, with 106 positive Ag-RDT results out of 124 positive RT-PCR individuals, yielding a sensitivity of 85.5% (95% CI: 78.0-91.2). Specificity was 100.0% (95% CI: 99.1-100) in 411 RT-PCR negative individuals. The Standard Q Ag-RDT (SD Biosensor, Roche) was validated in 529 participants, with 170 positive Ag-RDT results out of 191 positive RT-PCR individuals, yielding a sensitivity of 89.0% (95%CI: 83.7-93.1). One false positive result was obtained in 338 RT-PCR negative individuals, yielding a specificity of 99.7% (95%CI: 98.4-100). For individuals presenting with fever 1-5 days post symptom onset, combined Ag-RDT sensitivity was above 95%. Lower sensitivity of 88.2% was seen on the same day of symptom development (day 0).

CONCLUSIONS

We provide an independent validation of two widely available commercial Ag-RDTs, both meeting WHO criteria of ≥80% sensitivity and ≥97% specificity. Although less sensitive than RT-PCR, these assays could be beneficial due to their rapid results, ease of use, and independence from existing laboratory structures. Testing criteria focusing on patients with typical symptoms in their early symptomatic period onset could further increase diagnostic value.

摘要

目的

确定两种即时检测抗原的快速诊断检测(Ag-RDT)在床边检测 SARS-CoV-2 的诊断准确性,并确定提供最佳性能的个体特征。

方法

我们进行了一项前瞻性、单中心、床边验证研究,比较了两种 Ag-RDT 与鼻咽拭子 RT-PCR 的检测结果。

结果

2020 年 10 月 9 日至 23 日期间,共纳入 1064 名参与者。PanbioTM Covid-19 Ag 快速检测设备(雅培)在 535 名参与者中得到验证,在 124 名 RT-PCR 阳性个体中,有 106 名 Ag-RDT 阳性,敏感性为 85.5%(95%CI:78.0-91.2)。在 411 名 RT-PCR 阴性个体中,特异性为 100.0%(95%CI:99.1-100)。在 529 名参与者中验证了 Standard Q Ag-RDT(SD Biosensor,罗氏),在 191 名 RT-PCR 阳性个体中,有 170 名 Ag-RDT 阳性,敏感性为 89.0%(95%CI:83.7-93.1)。在 338 名 RT-PCR 阴性个体中,出现 1 例假阳性,特异性为 99.7%(95%CI:98.4-100)。在症状出现后 1-5 天出现发热的个体中,联合 Ag-RDT 的敏感性超过 95%。在症状出现的同一天(第 0 天),敏感性较低,为 88.2%。

结论

我们对两种广泛使用的商业 Ag-RDT 进行了独立验证,这两种检测均符合 WHO 敏感性≥80%和特异性≥97%的标准。尽管这些检测的敏感性不如 RT-PCR,但由于其检测结果快速、易于使用,并且不依赖于现有的实验室结构,因此可能具有一定的临床应用价值。针对早期症状出现时具有典型症状的患者的检测标准可能会进一步提高诊断价值。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/976c/8011749/ff17c01b6882/pone.0248921.g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验