Back to Search Start Over

2620. Respiratory Syncytial Virus Rapid Antigen Detection Test, Can It Be Trusted?

Authors :
Titze, Nicole
Singh, Jasjit
Gornick, Wendi
Source :
Open Forum Infectious Diseases. 2019 Supplement, Vol. 6, pS912-S912. 1p.
Publication Year :
2019

Abstract

Background Many emergency departments and urgent care settings use the commonly available Respiratory Syncytial Virus Rapid Antigen Detection Test (RSV RADT) to diagnose children with RSV. We noted discordant results between RADT and definitive testing. Our study looked at the positive predictive value (PPV) and the false discovery rate (FDR) of the RSV RADT at our facility. Methods We pro- and retrospectively reviewed all patients with positive RSV RAPD tests from July 1, 2017 through March 31, 2019. The test utilized was the QuickVue® RSV Test Kit (QUIDEL Corp, CA, USA), which detects the viral fusion protein present in RSV. Of the tests performed, we chose patients who had definitive testing with either a direct fluorescent antibody (DFA) or a polymerase chain reaction (PCR). We then calculated the PPV as well as the FDR of the RSV RADT during the total interval period, as well as off-season periods (April 1 through October 31) and in-season periods (November 1 through March 31). Results During the study period there were 1128 RSV RADT tests performed, of which 232 had definitive testing with either DFA or PCR (Figures 1 and 2). We found the overall PPV during the study period was 63.3%. During the off-season 30 positive RSV RADT received definitive testing, of which 6 were positive, which yields a PPV of only 20%. In season, 202 RSV RADT received additional testing with 141 positive for RSV. The PPV was 69.8%. The FDR correlated with 36.7% throughout the entire studied period, 80% during the off-season and 30.2% during in-season. As expected, the PPV was higher during times of higher prevalence (Figure 3). Conclusion Based on our results, utilization of the RSV RADT during time of low prevalence yields a high false detection rate and should therefore be discouraged. The use during times of high prevalence yields only modest results and is unlikely to aid in clinical decision-making. Our results differ from those published by the manufacturer (PPV 84%), and may reflect differences in sample collection in the acute care setting. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
23288957
Volume :
6
Database :
Academic Search Index
Journal :
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
139394195
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.2298