Multicenter Diagnostic Evaluation of OnSite COVID-19 Rapid Test (CTK Biotech) among Symptomatic Individuals in Brazil and the United Kingdom

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_THOMPSON_Multicenter_Diagnostic_Evaluation_of_OnSite_COVID19_Rapid_Test_2023.PDF (278.4 KB)
Citações na Scopus
0
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2023
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
Autores
THOMPSON, Caitlin
KONTOGIANNI, Konstantina
BYRNE, Rachel
ANDRADE, Pamela S.
Citação
MICROBIOLOGY SPECTRUM, v.11, n.3, 2023
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Evaluating rapid diagnostic tests in diverse populations is essential to improving diagnostic responses as it gives an indication of the accuracy in real-world scenarios. In the case of rapid diagnostic testing within this pandemic, lateral flow tests that meet the minimum requirements for sensitivity and specificity can play a key role in increasing testing capacity, allowing timely clinical management of those infected, and protecting health care systems. The COVID-19 pandemic has given rise to numerous commercially available antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs). To generate and to share accurate and independent data with the global community requires multisite prospective diagnostic evaluations of Ag-RDTs. This report describes the clinical evaluation of the OnSite COVID-19 rapid test (CTK Biotech, CA, USA) in Brazil and the United Kingdom. A total of 496 paired nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs were collected from symptomatic health care workers at Hospital das Clinicas in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and 211 NP swabs were collected from symptomatic participants at a COVID-19 drive-through testing site in Liverpool, United Kingdom. Swabs were analyzed by Ag-RDT, and results were compared to quantitative reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-qPCR). The clinical sensitivity of the OnSite COVID-19 rapid test in Brazil was 90.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.1 to 96.7%) and in the United Kingdom was 75.3% (95% CI, 64.6 to 83.6%). The clinical specificity in Brazil was 99.4% (95% CI, 98.1 to 99.8%) and in the United Kingdom was 95.5% (95% CI, 90.6 to 97.9%). Concurrently, analytical evaluation of the Ag-RDT was assessed using direct culture supernatant of SARS-CoV-2 strains from wild-type (WT), Alpha, Delta, Gamma, and Omicron lineages. This study provides comparative performance of an Ag-RDT across two different settings, geographical areas, and populations. Overall, the OnSite Ag-RDT demonstrated a lower clinical sensitivity than claimed by the manufacturer. The sensitivity and specificity from the Brazil study fulfilled the performance criteria determined by the World Health Organization, but the performance obtained from the UK study failed to do. Further evaluation of Ag-RDTs should include harmonized protocols between laboratories to facilitate comparison between settings.IMPORTANCE Evaluating rapid diagnostic tests in diverse populations is essential to improving diagnostic responses as it gives an indication of the accuracy in real-world scenarios. In the case of rapid diagnostic testing within this pandemic, lateral flow tests that meet the minimum requirements for sensitivity and specificity can play a key role in increasing testing capacity, allowing timely clinical management of those infected, and protecting health care systems. This is particularly valuable in settings where access to the test gold standard is often restricted.
Palavras-chave
COVID-19, RDT, diagnostics
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/56098
Referências
  1. Ashford F, 2022, J CLIN MICROBIOL, V60, DOI 10.1128/jcm.02408-21
  2. Berti L., 2022, PATIENTS SAO PAULO W
  3. Brümmer LE, 2022, PLOS MED, V19, DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004011
  4. Castro GM, 2022, FRONT MED-LAUSANNE, V9, DOI 10.3389/fmed.2022.851861
  5. Corman VM, 2020, EUROSURVEILLANCE, V25, P23, DOI 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045
  6. Coronavirus Brazil, 2022, PAIN COR AT
  7. Cubas-Atienzar AI, 2021, SCI REP-UK, V11, DOI 10.1038/s41598-021-97489-9
  8. Dinnes J, 2020, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD013705
  9. Edwards T., 2021, MEDRXIV
  10. Evans D, 2022, CLIN CHEM, V68, P153, DOI 10.1093/clinchem/hvab219
  11. FIND, 2022, TEST DIR
  12. Gokulan CG, 2021, J BIOSCIENCES, V46, DOI 10.1007/s12038-021-00216-9
  13. Jacobs J, 2020, FRONT MED-LAUSANNE, V7, DOI 10.3389/fmed.2020.557797
  14. Kameda K, 2021, CAD SAUDE PUBLICA, V37, DOI 10.1590/0102-311X00277420
  15. Krüger LJ, 2022, EBIOMEDICINE, V75, DOI 10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103774
  16. Leeflang MMG, 2013, CAN MED ASSOC J, V185, pE537, DOI 10.1503/cmaj.121286
  17. Leeflang MMG, 2009, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V62, P5, DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.04.007
  18. Mathieu E, 2021, NAT HUM BEHAV, V5, P947, DOI 10.1038/s41562-021-01122-8
  19. Milo R., 2015, GARLAND SCI
  20. Moreira RD, 2022, BMC INFECT DIS, V22, DOI 10.1186/s12879-022-07449-5
  21. Neopane P, 2021, INFECT DRUG RESIST, V14, P4471, DOI 10.2147/IDR.S335583
  22. Nextstrain, 2022, GEN EP NOV COR GLOB
  23. Our World in Data, 2022, SARS COV 2 VAR AN SE
  24. Parvu V, 2021, FRONT MICROBIOL, V12, DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2021.714242
  25. Peeling RW, 2022, LANCET, V399, P757, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02346-1
  26. Pilkington V, 2022, FRONT PUBLIC HEALTH, V10, DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2022.821117
  27. Sohni Y, 2021, LAB MED, V52, P107, DOI 10.1093/labmed/lmaa103
  28. WHO, 2020, COVID 19 TARG PROD P
  29. World Health Organization, 2022, TRACK SARS COV 2 VA
  30. World Health Organization, 2021, REC NAT SARS COV 2 T
  31. World Health Organization, 2020, 86 WHO

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MIP
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - COVID-19
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/49
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - ODS/03