2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Usefulness of the Lumiradx™ SARS-COV-2 antigen test in nursing home Translated title: Utilidad del test de antígenos SARS-COV-2 de LumiraDx™ en centros residenciales

      case-report

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The detection of viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the reference method for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, but its high price and the overburdening of many laboratories made it necessary to implement techniques that offer fast and reliable results outside the laboratory, such as rapid antigen tests. Their approval for the diagnosis of this infection has meant a change in the strategy against COVID-19 1 due to their great usefulness in detecting infectious individuals and reducing the spread of the virus 1 . Their speed and simplicity, as well as it being it possible to perform them at the point of care, have led to them playing an important role in centres outside the hospital environment, such as nursing homes. The LumiraDx™ SARS-CoV-2 antigen test is a rapid microfluidic immunofluorescence assay that, through the use of test strips, allows direct and qualitative detection of the viral nucleocapsid protein in nasal and nasopharyngeal samples. The usefulness of this technique is based on its high sensitivity and specificity (97.6% and 96.6%, respectively) 2 . In addition, in symptomatic patients, the concordance with RT-PCR in the first 12 days after the onset of symptoms is 100%. The time to result of this test is about 12 min and the result is interpreted by a reading instrument, eliminating the inter-individual interpretation bias of the observer. The objective of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the LumiraDx™ antigen test in care homes. To do this, a nasal sample was collected from each participant with symptoms compatible with COVID-19 or who were close contacts of patients with COVID-19 in order to perform the LumiraDx™ antigen test (LumiraDx™ Limited, London, United Kingdom) and a nasopharyngeal sample was collected to perform an RT-PCR test, using Allplex™ SARS-CoV-2 reagents (Seegene, Seoul, South Korea). In order to assess whether the negative results obtained using this technique can be used as a criterion when discontinuing isolation, samples were collected from asymptomatic patients already diagnosed with COVID-19 and who had completed the isolation period. In 46 cases, the antigen test was used for diagnostic purposes. Its sensitivity and specificity were 87.5% and 100%, respectively, with a positive predictive value of 100% and a negative predictive value of 88%. In the symptomatic cases, the sensitivity was 93.33%. In the three cases in which there was discordance (positive RT-PCR and negative antigen), the RT-PCRs showed cycle threshold (Ct) values >33 (Table 1 ). Previous studies have shown a sensitivity of antigen tests of between 82.2% and 97.6%3, 4, 5, 6, 7, figures similar to those reported by the test analysed in this study. In addition, a recent study indicates the LumiraDx™ antigen test to be one of the most sensitive antigen tests 3 . Table 1 LumiraDx™ rapid antigen test compared with RT-PCR for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 according to the reason for performing the test. Table 1 RT-PCR TOTAL Positive Negative Symptomatic Close contact Symptomatic Close contact LumiraDx™ Ag Positive 14 7 0 0 21 Negative 1 2 4 18 25 TOTAL 15 9 4 18 46 In our study, this test was used in a small sample (24 cases) to assess its usefulness in deciding to end isolation. The sensitivity was 52.63% and the specificity 100%. Both tests coincided in 15 cases: 10 positive and five negative. In the nine cases in which there was disagreement, RT-PCR showed a Ct value >31 after a mean of 16.66 days of infection. Although its sensitivity was low, it should be noted that the antigen test was negative when the RT-PCR showed an elevated Ct value, which, according to the available evidence, would be equivalent to a non-infectious viral load1, 8. Therefore, a negative result could support the end of isolation together with compliance with the days of isolation and the absence of symptoms in this vulnerable group, in which access to molecular tests is more difficult. In short, the LumiraDx™ rapid antigen test has high specificity and good sensitivity in nasal samples from symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. It is an optimal diagnostic tool for SARS-CoV-2 infection and it may be interesting to assess its use in other situations in subsequent studies, such as when deciding to end isolation. Funding No funding was received for this study. Conflicts of interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

          Related collections

          Most cited references7

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Evaluation of novel antigen-based rapid detection test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples

          Highlights • Due to the rapidly emerging SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and its tremendous public health challenges worldwide, there is a critical demand for rapid and easy to perform diagnostic assays. • The evaluated rapid antigen detection test had a high diagnostic sensitivity and specificity in respiratory samples obtained from patients who mainly presented during the first week of Covid-19. • Rapid antigen detection has the potential to become an important tool for the early diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, particularly in situations with limited access to molecular methods.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The Comparative Clinical Performance of Four SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Tests and Their Correlation to Infectivity In Vitro

            Due to globally rising numbers of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections, resources for real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR)-based testing have been exhausted. In order to meet the demands of testing and reduce transmission, SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are being considered. These tests are fast, inexpensive, and simple to use, but whether they detect potentially infectious cases has not been well studied. We evaluated three lateral flow assays (RIDA®QUICK SARS-CoV-2 Antigen (R-Biopharm), SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche)), and NADAL® COVID-19 Ag Test (Nal von Minden GmbH, Regensburg, Germany) and one microfluidic immunofluorescence assay (SARS-CoV-2 Ag Test (LumiraDx GmbH, Cologne, Germany)) using 100 clinical samples. Diagnostic rRT-PCR and cell culture testing as a marker for infectivity were performed in parallel. The overall Ag-RDT sensitivity for rRT-PCR-positive samples ranged from 24.3% to 50%. However, for samples with a viral load of more than 6 log10 RNA copies/mL (22/100), typically seen in infectious individuals, Ag-RDT positivity was between 81.8% and 100%. Only 51.6% (33/64) of the rRT-PCR-positive samples were infectious in cell culture. In contrast, three Ag-RDTs demonstrated a more significant correlation with cell culture infectivity (61.8–82.4%). Our findings suggest that large-scale SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT-based testing can be considered for detecting potentially infective individuals and reducing the virus spread.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Comparison of the SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test to the Real Star Sars-CoV-2 RT PCR Kit

              Highlights • The sensitivity and specificity of the new Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test was evaluated. • We found a specificity of 96%. • The assay’s sensitivity with samples with a cycle threshold of  = 35. • The new test might be useful to rapidly identify contagious individuals.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin (Engl Ed)
                Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin (Engl Ed)
                Enfermedades Infecciosas Y Microbiologia Clinica (English Ed.)
                Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. on behalf of Sociedad Española de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica.
                2529-993X
                7 May 2022
                7 May 2022
                Affiliations
                [a ]Unidad de Coordinación y Apoyo Asistencial a Residencias Sociosanitarias del Área Sanitaria de A Coruña y Cee, Hospitalización a domicilio, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain
                [b ]Servicio de Microbiología, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author.
                Article
                S2529-993X(22)00080-6
                10.1016/j.eimce.2022.04.008
                9078346
                35537994
                88795453-8c6e-4de1-9ff1-8b5790901748
                © 2022 Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. on behalf of Sociedad Española de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                Categories
                Scientific Letter

                Comments

                Comment on this article