Evaluation of eleven rapid tests for detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2

Objectives: SARS-CoV-2, causing COVID-19, has emerged to cause a human pandemic. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples by using PCR is the standard laboratory diagnostic tool. Our aim was to perform a limited evaluation of the diagnostic performance and user-friendliness of eleven rapid tests for detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Methods: All participants were tested with PCR against SARS-CoV-2 at a clinical microbiology laboratory. Comparing with results from PCR tests, we evaluated the rapid tests’ performances in three arms; 1) 20 hospitalized patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19, 2) 23 recovered outpatients with former PCR-confirmed COVID-19, and 3) 49 participants with suspected COVID-19 presenting at a primary care emergency room. Results: All eleven tests detected antibodies in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, though with varying sensitivities. In former outpatients recovered from COVID-19, there were differences between tests in the immunoglobulin type G (IgG) sensitivity, with five tests having a sensitivity below 65%. In participants with suspected COVID-19 infection, the rapid tests had very low sensitivities. Most rapid tests were easy to perform and interpret. Conclusions: Rapid tests were not suited as stand-alone tests to detect present infection in a Norwegian primary care emergency room population. All the rapid tests were able to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, although sensitivities varied and were generally higher in the study arm of more severely affected participants. Rapid tests with high IgG sensitivity (and specificity) may be useful for confirmation of past infection. An independent evaluation should be performed in the intended population before introducing a rapid test.publishedVersio

Performance and user-friendliness of the rapid antigen detection tests QuickVue Dipstick Strep A test and DIAQUICK Strep A Blue Dipstick for pharyngotonsillitis caused by Streptococcus pyogenes in primary health care

Sensitivity and specificity of rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) for detection of group A hemolytic streptococcus (GAS) vary. The purpose is to present the first SKUP (Scandinavian evaluation of laboratory equipment for point of care testing) evaluations concerning the assessment of the diagnostic performance and user-friendliness of two RADTs for detection of GAS when used under real-life conditions in primary health care. Throat samples were collected in duplicates at primary health care centers (PHCCs) from patients with symptoms of pharyngitis. The performance of QuickVue Dipstick Strep A test (307 samples) and DIAQUICK Strep A Blue Dipstick (348 samples) was evaluated using culture results at a clinical microbiology laboratory as comparison. The user-friendliness was evaluated using a questionnaire. The diagnostic sensitivity was 92% (90% confidence interval (CI) 87–96%) and 72% (90% CI 65–79%), while the diagnostic specificity was 86% (90% CI 81–90%) and 98% (90% CI 96–99%) for QuickVue Dipstick Strep A test and DIAQUICK Strep A Blue Dipstick, respectively. Both RADTs obtained acceptable assessments for user-friendliness and fulfilled SKUP’s quality goal for user-friendliness. The diagnostic sensitivity for QuickVue Dipstick Strep A test and the diagnostic specificity for DIAQUICK Strep A Blue Dipstick in this objective and supplier-independent evaluation were higher compared with previous meta-analyses of RADTs. However, the diagnostic specificity for QuickVue Dipstick Strep A test and the diagnostic sensitivity for DIAQUICK Strep A Blue Dipstick were lower compared with previous meta-analyses of RADTs.publishedVersio