• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Clin Exp Med . Usefulness of rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 screening of healthcare workers: a pilot study

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Clin Exp Med


. 2021 May 22.
doi: 10.1007/s10238-021-00722-y. Online ahead of print.
Usefulness of rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 screening of healthcare workers: a pilot study


Anja ?terbenc[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Viktorija Tomi?[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Ur?ka Bidovec Stojkovi?[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Katja Vrankar[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Ale? Rozman[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Mihaela Zidarn[SUP] 3 4 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Background: Identification of infected healthcare workers (HCWs) is an important step in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission control. Rapid antigen tests (RATs) are considered an important addition to molecular tests in diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), mainly because of their fast turnaround time, easier analytical procedure and lower price. However, real-life studies on the usefulness of such testing for screening of HCWs are limited.
Methods: Physicians, nurses and hospital attendants currently working at the University Clinic of Respiratory and Allergic Diseases Golnik were invited to participate in the pilot study. Nasopharyngeal swabs were obtained three times per week for two consecutive weeks and tested with a point-of-care RAT and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Serum samples were obtained at the beginning of the study and 2 weeks after the last swab was collected to evaluate the serological status.
Results: A total of 191 nasopharyngeal swabs from 36 HCWs were obtained. None of the samples tested was positive for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antigen, whereas two HCWs tested positive on RT-PCR. Of these, one HCW had a newly identified SARS-CoV-2 infection, whereas RT-PCR probably detected a previous but recent infection in the other HCW.
Conclusion: Based on the results of this pilot study, it is unlikely that RAT will reliably detect novel SARS-CoV-2 infections among asymptomatic HCWs despite serial sampling. Although RT-PCR-based screening of HCWs may not be feasible due to high sample volume, molecular methods may identify SARS-CoV-2-infected HCWs already during the presymptomatic stage. Trial registration number NCT04716088, 19.1.2021, retrospectively registered.

Keywords: Healthcare workers; RT-PCR; Rapid antigen test; SARS-CoV-2; Screening.
 
Back
Top Bottom