Screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection in asymptomatic individuals using the Panbio COVID-19 antigen rapid test (Abbott) compared with RT-PCR: a prospective cohort study

  1. Beatrice Winkel
  2. Emma Schram
  3. Hendrik Gremmels
  4. Sylvia Debast
  5. Rob Schuurman
  6. Annemarie Wensing
  7. Marc Bonten
  8. Edwin Goedhart
  9. Marije Hofstra

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Antigen-based point-of-care tests for identification of SARS-CoV-2 may markedly enhance effectiveness of population-based controlling strategies. Previous studies have demonstrated >70% sensitivity and high specificity compared with reverse transcriptase real-time PCR (RT-PCR) in symptomatic individuals, but test performance for asymptomatic individuals is unknown.

Methods

Test performance of the Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (Abbott) was compared with RT-PCR in a longitudinal cohort study of asymptomatic football players and staff members of professional football clubs. Based on timing of symptoms and prior and subsequent test results, positive RT-PCR tests were categorised as presymptomatic, early or late infection, or persistent RNA shedding.

Findings

2425 tests were performed in 824 individuals, of which 52 (6.3%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive based on RT-PCR. There were 2406 paired sets from asymptomatic subjects for analysis. Sixteen Panbio tests were inconclusive, for which sensitivity analyses were performed (considering results as either positive or negative or being excluded). Sensitivity of Panbio for screening of asymptomatic individuals ranged from 80.0% (61.4–92.3) to 86.67% (69.2–96.2) and specificity from 99.53% (95% CI 99.2 to 99.8) to 100% (95% CI 99.8 to 100). Sensitivity of Panbio to detect subjects with presymptomatic/early infection (n=42) ranged from 81.82% (95% CI 67.3 to 91.8) to 90.91% (95% CI 78.3 to 97.5) with specificity always above 99%.

Interpretation

The Panbio COVID-19 Ag rapid test identifies 81%–90% of presymptomatic and early asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections with high specificity. This test may therefore be adopted in testing strategies such as targeted screening of specific populations where prevalence is low.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048206
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.03.20243311: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: Ethical Approval: The medical research ethics committee (MREC) of Utrecht decided the study is not subject to the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) and did not require full review by an accredited MREC.
    Consent: All participants have provided written informed consent.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.12.03.20243311v1 on medRxiv