tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
PLoS One
. 2022 Sep 27;17(9):e0269329.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269329. eCollection 2022.
Laboratory and field evaluation of the STANDARD Q and Panbio™ SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid test in Namibia using nasopharyngeal samples
Iyaloo Konstantinus[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Douglas Chiwara[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Emmy-Else Ndevaetela[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Victoria Ndarukwa-Phiri[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Nathalia Garus-Oas[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Ndahafa Frans[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Pentikainen Ndumbu[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Andreas Shiningavamwe[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Gerhard van Rooyen[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Ferlin Schiceya[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Lindile Hlahla[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Pendapala Namundjebo[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Ifeoma Ndozi-Okia[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Francis Chikuse[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Sirak Hailu Bantiewalu[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Kapena Tjombonde[SUP] 1 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Abstract
Background: As new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern emerge, there is a need to scale up testing to minimize transmission of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Many countries especially those in the developing world continue to struggle with scaling up reverse transcriptase polymerase reaction (RT-PCR) to detect SARS-CoV-2 due to scarcity of resources. Alternatives such as antigen rapid diagnostics tests (Ag-RDTs) may provide a solution to enable countries scale up testing.
Methods: In this study, we evaluated the Panbio™ and STANDARD Q Ag-RDTs in the laboratory using 80 COVID-19 RT-PCR confirmed and 80 negative nasopharyngeal swabs. The STANDARD Q was further evaluated in the field on 112 symptomatic and 61 asymptomatic participants.
Results: For the laboratory evaluation, both tests had a sensitivity above 80% (Panbio™ = 86% vs STANDARD Q = 88%). The specificity of the Panbio™ was 100%, while that of the STANDARD Q was 99%. When evaluated in the field, the STANDARD Q maintained a high specificity of 99%, however the sensitivity was reduced to 56%.
Conclusion: Using Ag-RDTs in low resource settings will be helpful in scaling-up SARS-CoV-2 testing, however, negative results should be confirmed by RT-PCR where possible to rule out COVID-19 infection.
. 2022 Sep 27;17(9):e0269329.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269329. eCollection 2022.
Laboratory and field evaluation of the STANDARD Q and Panbio™ SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid test in Namibia using nasopharyngeal samples
Iyaloo Konstantinus[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Douglas Chiwara[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Emmy-Else Ndevaetela[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Victoria Ndarukwa-Phiri[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Nathalia Garus-Oas[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Ndahafa Frans[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Pentikainen Ndumbu[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Andreas Shiningavamwe[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Gerhard van Rooyen[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Ferlin Schiceya[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Lindile Hlahla[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Pendapala Namundjebo[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Ifeoma Ndozi-Okia[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Francis Chikuse[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Sirak Hailu Bantiewalu[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Kapena Tjombonde[SUP] 1 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 36166414
- DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269329
Abstract
Background: As new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern emerge, there is a need to scale up testing to minimize transmission of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Many countries especially those in the developing world continue to struggle with scaling up reverse transcriptase polymerase reaction (RT-PCR) to detect SARS-CoV-2 due to scarcity of resources. Alternatives such as antigen rapid diagnostics tests (Ag-RDTs) may provide a solution to enable countries scale up testing.
Methods: In this study, we evaluated the Panbio™ and STANDARD Q Ag-RDTs in the laboratory using 80 COVID-19 RT-PCR confirmed and 80 negative nasopharyngeal swabs. The STANDARD Q was further evaluated in the field on 112 symptomatic and 61 asymptomatic participants.
Results: For the laboratory evaluation, both tests had a sensitivity above 80% (Panbio™ = 86% vs STANDARD Q = 88%). The specificity of the Panbio™ was 100%, while that of the STANDARD Q was 99%. When evaluated in the field, the STANDARD Q maintained a high specificity of 99%, however the sensitivity was reduced to 56%.
Conclusion: Using Ag-RDTs in low resource settings will be helpful in scaling-up SARS-CoV-2 testing, however, negative results should be confirmed by RT-PCR where possible to rule out COVID-19 infection.