Rapid point-of-care testing for SARS-CoV-2 in a community screening setting shows low sensitivity

Rapid point-of-care testing for SARS-CoV-2 in a community screening setting shows low sensitivity
复制标题

DOI:
10.1016/j.puhe.2020.04.009
复制
发表时间:
2020-05-01
期刊:
影响因子:
5.2
通讯作者:
Streeck, H.
Streeck, H.
中科院分区:
医学3区
文献类型:
--
作者:
Doehla, M.;Boesecke, C.;Streeck, H.

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

目的:随着目前SARS-CoV 2的爆发,需要对潜在的有症状的个人、接触者和旅行者进行无数的检测。金标准是基于定量聚合酶链反应(qPCR)的系统,需要数小时才能确认阳性。对于有效的公共卫生遏制措施来说,这一时间跨度太长。研究设计:在COVID-19筛查中心随机选择39名个体,通过qPCR和快速检测同时进行检测。10个先前诊断的个人与已知的SARS-CoV-2 infection也analyzed.Methods:评估的快速测试是一个IgG/IgM为基础的测试SARS-CoV-2的时间为20分钟。两滴血是需要测试performance.Results:49个人,22个测试阳性的重复qPCR。相比之下,快速检测仅正确检测出8例阳性(灵敏度:36.4%)。在27个qPCR阴性个体中,24个被正确检测(特异性:88.9%)。结论:鉴于灵敏度低,我们建议不要依赖于基于抗体的快速检测公共卫生措施,如社区筛查。(C)2020年皇家公共卫生学会。由爱思唯尔有限公司出版。保留所有权利。
Objective: With the current SARS-CoV2 outbreak, countless tests need to be performed on potential symptomatic individuals, contacts and travellers. The gold standard is a quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR)-based system taking several hours to confirm positivity. For effective public health containment measures, this time span is too long. We therefore evaluated a rapid test in a high-prevalence community setting.Study design: Thirty-nine randomly selected individuals at a COVID-19 screening centre were simultaneously tested via qPCR and a rapid test. Ten previously diagnosed individuals with known SARS-CoV-2 infection were also analysed.Methods: The evaluated rapid test is an IgG/IgM-based test for SARS-CoV-2 with a time to result of 20 min. Two drops of blood are needed for the test performance.Results: Of 49 individuals, 22 tested positive by repeated qPCR. In contrast, the rapid test detected only eight of those positive correctly (sensitivity: 36.4%). Of the 27 qPCR-negative individuals, 24 were detected correctly (specificity: 88.9%).Conclusion: Given the low sensitivity, we recommend not to rely on an antibody-based rapid test for public health measures such as community screenings. (C) 2020 The Royal Society for Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.