1. Diagnostic Performance of an Antigen Test with RT-PCR for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a Hospital Setting — Los Angeles County, California, June–August 2020
- Author
-
Nava Yeganeh, Auguste Brihn, Jamie Chang, Zach Rubin, Kelsey OYong, Sharon Balter, and Dawn Terashita
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,Emergency Use Authorization ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Health (social science) ,Isolation (health care) ,Adolescent ,Epidemiology ,Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis ,01 natural sciences ,Asymptomatic ,Sensitivity and Specificity ,03 medical and health sciences ,Young Adult ,0302 clinical medicine ,Health Information Management ,Antigen ,Internal medicine ,Medicine ,Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests ,Infection control ,Humans ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Full Report ,0101 mathematics ,Young adult ,Antigens, Viral ,Aged ,Aged, 80 and over ,Cross Infection ,business.industry ,SARS-CoV-2 ,010102 general mathematics ,COVID-19 ,General Medicine ,Middle Aged ,Los Angeles ,Confidence interval ,Hospitals ,COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing ,Female ,medicine.symptom ,business - Abstract
Prompt and accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has been important during public health responses for containing the spread of COVID-19, including in hospital settings (1-3). In vitro diagnostic nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT), such as real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) can be expensive, have relatively long turnaround times, and require experienced laboratory personnel.* Antigen detection tests can be rapidly and more easily performed and are less expensive. The performance of antigen detection tests, compared with that of NAATs, is an area of interest for the rapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The Quidel Sofia 2 SARS Antigen Fluorescent Immunoassay (FIA) (Quidel Corporation) received Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization for use in symptomatic patients within 5 days of symptom onset (4). The reported test positive percentage agreement§ between this test and an RT-PCR test result is 96.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 83.3%-99.4%), and the negative percentage agreement is 100.0% (95% CI = 97.9%-100.0%) in symptomatic patients.¶ However, performance in asymptomatic persons in a university setting has shown lower sensitivity (5); assessment of performance in a clinical setting is ongoing. Data collected during June 30-August 31, 2020, were analyzed to compare antigen test performance with that of RT-PCR in a hospital setting. Among 1,732 paired samples from asymptomatic patients, the antigen test sensitivity was 60.5%, and specificity was 99.5% when compared with RT-PCR. Among 307 symptomatic persons, sensitivity and specificity were 72.1% and 98.7%, respectively. Health care providers must remain aware of the lower sensitivity of this test among asymptomatic and symptomatic persons and consider confirmatory NAAT testing in high-prevalence settings because a false-negative result might lead to failures in infection control and prevention practices and cause delays in diagnosis, isolation, and treatment.
- Published
- 2021