Sabat J, Subhadra S, Rath S, Ho LM, Satpathy T, Pattnaik D, Pati S, Turuk J. A comparison of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing with realtime RT-PCR among symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals.
BMC Infect Dis 2023;
23:87. [PMID:
36759762 PMCID:
PMC9909630 DOI:
10.1186/s12879-022-07969-0]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/13/2021] [Accepted: 12/23/2022] [Indexed: 02/11/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Identification of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients with rapid and cost-effective test methods is the key for isolating infected individuals, interrupting the transmission chain, and thus, containment of the CoVID-19 disease. In this regard, Rapid Antigen Test (RAT) plays an important role at point of care testing but the low sensitivity attributing towards escape of positive cases is reported as a major disadvantage of RAT which led us to evaluate a RAT kit among symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals suspected of CoVID-19.
METHODS
We analyzed 329 parallel nasopharyngeal swabs for RAT (Zydus Cadila, India) at the point of collection in a hospital-based facility and RealTime RT-PCR in the laboratory. The performance parameters were analyzed by evaluating the specificity, sensitivity, Negative Predictive Value (NPV), Positive Predictive Value (PPV), and Kappa coefficient.
RESULTS
The sensitivity and specificity were found to be 75.17% and 98.89% respectively. Positive Predictive value was 98.25% and the negative predictive value was 82.79%. The accuracy between the two techniques was found to be 88.14% with a kappa coefficient of 0.756 (SE: 0.036 and CI at 95%: 0.686 to 0.826) with a good strength of agreement (0.61-0.80) between the two testing techniques. Among the false-negative cases, 22 (59.5%) were asymptomatic having the Cycle Threshold (Ct) range 27 to 32.9 including 12 cases with a history of close contact with the known positive cases (i.e. household contact). The remaining 15 cases (40.5%) were symptomatic having low to moderate Ct values.
CONCLUSION
It is observed from the results that the false negative result for symptomatic individuals is a matter of concern as it was noted in 4 cases of our study subjects who required hospitalisation later. Also the positives among asymptomatic contacts are important from epidemiological point of view for isolation and curtailing the infection from spreading in a community. These results support the fact that RAT showing sensitivity below 80% can be used for mass screening purposes with provision for additional testing in case of false negative with symptomatic individuals. Also false-negative results should be interpreted cautiously considering the epidemiological link as well as the clinical condition of the patients.
Collapse