Performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic adults: a single-center evaluation

BACKGROUND

Antigen testing offers rapid and inexpensive testing for SARS-CoV-2 but concerns regarding performance, especially sensitivity, remain. Limited data exists for use of antigen testing in asymptomatic patients; thus, performance and reliability of antigen testing remains unclear.

METHODS

148 symptomatic and 144 asymptomatic adults were included. A nasal swab was collected for testing by Quidel Sofia SARS IFA (Sofia) as point of care. A nasopharyngeal swab was also collected and transported to the laboratory for testing by Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV RT-PCR (Cepheid).

RESULTS

Overall, Sofia had good agreement with Cepheid (> 95%) in adults, however was less sensitive. Sofia had a sensitivity of 87.8% and 33.3% for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, respectively. Among symptomatic patients, testing > 5 days post symptom onset resulted in lower sensitivity (82%) when compared with testing within 5 days of symptom onset (90%). Of the four Sofia false-negative results in the asymptomatic cohort, 50% went on to develop COVID-19 disease within 5 days of testing. Specificity in both symptomatic and asymptomatic cohorts was 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

Sofia has acceptable performance in symptomatic adults when tested < 5 days of symptom onset. Caution should be taken when testing patients with ≥ 5 days of symptoms. The combination of low prevalence and reduced sensitivity results in relatively poor performance of in asymptomatic patients. NAAT-based diagnostic assays should be considered in when antigen testing is unreliable, particularly in symptomatic patients with > 5 days of symptom onset and asymptomatic patients.

Performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic adults: a single-center evaluation

Background

Antigen testing offers rapid and inexpensive testing for SARS-CoV-2 but concerns regarding performance, especially sensitivity, remain. Limited data exists for use of antigen testing in asymptomatic patients; thus, performance and reliability of antigen testing remains unclear.

Methods

148 symptomatic and 144 asymptomatic adults were included. A nasal swab was collected for testing by Quidel Sofia SARS IFA (Sofia) as point of care. A nasopharyngeal swab was also collected and transported to the laboratory for testing by Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV RT-PCR (Cepheid).

Results

Overall, Sofia had good agreement with Cepheid (> 95%) in adults, however was less sensitive. Sofia had a sensitivity of 87.8% and 33.3% for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, respectively. Among symptomatic patients, testing > 5 days post symptom onset resulted in lower sensitivity (82%) when compared with testing within 5 days of symptom onset (90%). Of the four Sofia false-negative results in the asymptomatic cohort, 50% went on to develop COVID-19 disease within 5 days of testing. Specificity in both symptomatic and asymptomatic cohorts was 100%.

Conclusions

Sofia has acceptable performance in symptomatic adults when tested < 5 days of symptom onset. Caution should be taken when testing patients with ≥ 5 days of symptoms. The combination of low prevalence and reduced sensitivity results in relatively poor performance of in asymptomatic patients. NAAT-based diagnostic assays should be considered in when antigen testing is unreliable, particularly in symptomatic patients with > 5 days of symptom onset and asymptomatic patients.

Comparison of Two Screening Strategies for Gestational Diabetes (GDM2) Trial: Design and rationale

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) affects approximately 5 to 7% of pregnancies and is associated with increased risk for fetal overgrowth, cesarean delivery, birth trauma, and pre-eclampsia. GDM is commonly diagnosed in the US using a two-step screening and confirmatory approach, whereas a one-step approach is commonly used outside the US. Recent guidelines have suggested that the one-step approach should be used to diagnose GDM, although concern that this may increase the prevalence of GDM to approximately 18%-as well as the lack of clinical trials-based evidence regarding the difference in perinatal outcomes-has led to skepticism about adopting the one-step approach. The Comparison of Two Screening Strategies for Gestational Diabetes (GDM2) Trial is a single-center, parallel-arm, comparative effectiveness trial of one-step versus two-step GDM screening strategies on the rate of adverse perinatal outcomes including: large-for-gestational age (LGA) deliveries (primary outcome), small-for-gestational age (SGA), macrosomia, cesarean delivery, fetal growth and body composition, and maternal and neonatal composite outcomes. This paper describes the design and analysis plan of the GDM2 Trial as well as overall challenges in assessing the impact of screening and diagnosis strategy on adverse pregnancy outcomes. We will also assess whether the additional women diagnosed with the one-step approach benefit from treatment as assessed by metabolic profiles at one year postpartum. Ultimately, this study will provide the necessary evidence for establishing universal guidelines for GDM diagnosis and implementation into clinical care.

Adequacy of prescribing positive airway pressure therapy by mask for sleep apnea on the basis of a partial-night trial

We tested the hypothesis that a prescription for positive-pressure therapy (including pressure level, patient-device interface, and positive-pressure modality, e.g., CPAP or BiPAP) for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) can be developed on the same night as the polysomnographic (PSG) diagnosis is made. Fifty consecutive patients with OSA in whom a partial-night PSG diagnosis was made (PSGD) underwent a therapeutic trial of positive-pressure therapy during the remainder of the night (PSG-PPP). The average apnea index during PSGD was 54.96 +/- 36.3 (mean +/- SD). On a subsequent full-night PSG (PSG-PPF), the prescription was tested. Thirty-one of the 50 patients were satisfactorily treated with CPAP, without variation of the interface during both PSG-PPP and PSG-PPF. In these patients the average pressure prescription while receiving PSG-PPF was statistically higher than during PSG-PPP (11.77 +/- 3.6 versus 10.56 +/- 3.6 cm H2O, respectively, p = 0.002). In 14 of these 31 patients (45%) some alteration in pressure requirement was necessary during PSG-PPF. Eleven patients required 2.5 cm H2O higher pressure and three patients required 5 cm H2O higher pressure during PSG-PPF than during PSG-PPP. There was a change of interface across the two therapeutic trials in 15 patients.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)