Suppr超能文献

一项比较 SARS-CoV-2 家庭诊断检测的系统评价:药剂实践要点,包括监管信息。

A systematic review comparing at-home diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2: Key points for pharmacy practice, including regulatory information.

出版信息

J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2021 Nov-Dec;61(6):666-677.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.japh.2021.06.012. Epub 2021 Jun 12.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Home-based rapid diagnostic testing can play an integral role in controlling the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to identify and compare at-home diagnostic tests that have been granted Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) and convey details about COVID-19 diagnostic tests, including regulatory information, pertinent to pharmacy practice.

METHODS

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) online resources pertaining to COVID-19 tests, EUAs, and medical devices were consulted, as were linked resources from FDA's webpages. Homepages of the 9 COVID-19 home tests with EUAs were comprehensively reviewed. PubMed literature searches were performed, most recently in May 2021, to locate literature about the identified home tests, as were searches of Google Scholar, medRxiv, and bioRxiv. Studies were included if they were performed at home or if subjects self-tested at study sites. Samples were collected by a parent or guardian for patients under 18 years of age. Positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) for the clinical diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus was evaluated.

RESULTS

Limited data have been published for these home tests given that they are available through EUAs that do not require clinical trials. Fifteen studies were located from searching the literature, but only 2 met the inclusion criteria. Review of the home tests' websites yielded a single study for each test, with the 3 BinaxNOW platforms using the same study for their EUAs. The 9 COVID-19 home tests with EUAs as of May 7, 2021, include 3 molecular tests and 6 antigen tests. These tests had similar performance on the basis of PPA ranging from 83.5% to 97.4% and NPA ranging from 97% to 100%.

CONCLUSION

The 9 SARS-CoV-2 home tests demonstrated satisfactory performance in comparison with laboratory real time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction tests. The convenience and ease of use of these tests make them well-suited for home-based rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing.

摘要

背景

家庭快速诊断检测可在控制 2019 年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)传播方面发挥重要作用。

目的

本综述旨在识别和比较已获得紧急使用授权(EUA)的家用诊断检测,并提供有关 COVID-19 诊断检测的详细信息,包括与药学实践相关的监管信息。

方法

检索了食品和药物管理局(FDA)有关 COVID-19 检测、EUA 和医疗器械的在线资源,并查阅了 FDA 网页上的相关链接资源。全面审查了具有 EUA 的 9 种 COVID-19 家用检测试剂盒的主页。进行了文献检索,最近一次检索时间为 2021 年 5 月,以查找已确定的家用检测试剂盒的文献,还在 Google Scholar、medRxiv 和 bioRxiv 上进行了检索。如果研究是在家庭中进行的,或者受试者在研究地点进行自我检测,则将这些研究纳入。对于 18 岁以下的患者,由父母或监护人采集样本。评估了严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒 2(SARS-CoV-2)病毒临床诊断的阳性百分率(PPA)和阴性百分率(NPA)。

结果

由于这些家用检测试剂盒是通过不需要临床试验的 EUA 提供的,因此相关数据有限。通过文献检索共找到了 15 项研究,但只有 2 项符合纳入标准。对家用检测试剂盒网站的审查为每个检测试剂盒提供了一项研究,3 个 BinaxNOW 平台均使用同一项研究获得 EUA。截至 2021 年 5 月 7 日,具有 EUA 的 9 种 COVID-19 家用检测试剂盒包括 3 种分子检测试剂盒和 6 种抗原检测试剂盒。根据 PPA(范围为 83.5%至 97.4%)和 NPA(范围为 97%至 100%)的比较,这些检测试剂盒的性能相似。

结论

与实验室实时逆转录聚合酶链反应检测相比,这 9 种 SARS-CoV-2 家用检测试剂盒的性能令人满意。这些检测试剂盒的便利性和易用性使其非常适合家庭快速 SARS-CoV-2 检测。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7817/8196235/8192274853ef/gr1_lrg.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验