Alghounaim Mohammad, Bastaki Hamad, Bin Essa Farah, Motlagh Hoda, Al-Sabah Salman
Department of Pediatrics, Amiri Hospital, Ministry of Health, Kuwait City, Kuwait.
COVID-19 Research Team, Jaber Alahmad Hospital, Ministry of Health, Kuwait City, Kuwait.
Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Dec 23;8:797109. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.797109. eCollection 2021.
SARS-CoV-2 antigen assays offer a rapid mean to diagnose and isolate infected individuals. However, their utility in population-level screening is unknown. The performance of two antigen tests in detecting SARS-CoV-2 was assessed among individuals randomly selected in the community. A prospective study that performed head-to-head comparison of two SARS-CoV-2 antigen assays. Individuals were recruited during community SARS-CoV-2 screening over 10 working days. Demographic and clinical data were collected. Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test, a point-of-care chromatographic assay, was conducted immediately, and then the sample was transported to the virology laboratory to perform PCR and the LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 Ag chemiluminesence immunoassay. respiratory samples from 991 individuals were collected, and 62 were positive by PCR. Inconclusive PCR results were observed in 19 samples and were excluded. The median age of participants was 40.2 years (IQR 32.3-47.8), and 932 (94%) were males. Most (77.4%) of infections were asymptomatic. The sensitivity and the specificity of the LIAISON assay were 43.3% (95%CI 30.6-56.8) and 99.9% (95%CI 99.3-100). The Standard Q assay had lower sensitivity (30.6%, 95%CI 19.6-43.7) but similar specificity (98.8%, 95%CI, 97.8-99.4). Similarly, the LIAISON assay had higher positive predictive value (96.3%, 95%CI 81-99.9% vs. 63.3%, 95%CI, 43.9-80.1%). Both assays performed better in symptomatic patients and among samples with a low-cycle threshold (Ct < 25). In our setting of random community surveillance, rapid antigen testing of nasopharyngeal swabs by either LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 Ag (DiaSorin) or Standard Q COVID-19 Ag (SD Biosensor) was less sensitive to detecting SARS-CoV-2 than the TaqPath COVID-19 RT-PCR.
严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2(SARS-CoV-2)抗原检测为诊断和隔离感染者提供了一种快速手段。然而,其在人群层面筛查中的效用尚不清楚。在社区随机选取的个体中评估了两种抗原检测在检测SARS-CoV-2方面的性能。这是一项对两种SARS-CoV-2抗原检测进行直接比较的前瞻性研究。在10个工作日的社区SARS-CoV-2筛查期间招募个体。收集人口统计学和临床数据。立即进行标准Q COVID-19抗原检测(一种即时检测色谱分析),然后将样本运送到病毒学实验室进行聚合酶链反应(PCR)和LIAISON SARS-CoV-2抗原化学发光免疫分析。收集了991名个体的呼吸道样本,其中62份经PCR检测呈阳性。在19份样本中观察到PCR结果不确定,予以排除。参与者的年龄中位数为40.2岁(四分位距32.3 - 47.8),932名(94%)为男性。大多数(77.4%)感染无症状。LIAISON检测的敏感性和特异性分别为43.3%(95%置信区间30.6 - 56.8)和99.9%(95%置信区间99.3 - 100)。标准Q检测的敏感性较低(30.6%,95%置信区间19.6 - 43.7),但特异性相似(98.8%,95%置信区间97.8 - 99.4)。同样,LIAISON检测的阳性预测值更高(96.3%,95%置信区间81 - 99.9%对63.3%,95%置信区间43.9 - 80.1%)。两种检测在有症状患者和低循环阈值(Ct < 25)的样本中表现更好。在我们的随机社区监测环境中,使用LIAISON SARS-CoV-2抗原(DiaSorin)或标准Q COVID-19抗原(SD Biosensor)对鼻咽拭子进行快速抗原检测,在检测SARS-CoV-2方面比TaqPath COVID-19逆转录PCR敏感性更低。