Display options
Cite
Igloi Z, Velzing J, Huisman R, et al. Clinical evaluation of the SD Biosensor SARS-CoV-2 saliva antigen rapid test with symptomatic and asymptomatic, non-hospitalized patients. PLoS One. 2021;16(12):e0260894doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260894.
Igloi, Z., Velzing, J., Huisman, R., Geurtsvankessel, C., Comvalius, A., IJpelaar, J., van Beek, J., Ensing, R., Boelsums, T., Koopmans, M., & Molenkamp, R. (2021). Clinical evaluation of the SD Biosensor SARS-CoV-2 saliva antigen rapid test with symptomatic and asymptomatic, non-hospitalized patients. PloS one, 16(12), e0260894. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260894
Igloi, Zsofia, et al. "Clinical evaluation of the SD Biosensor SARS-CoV-2 saliva antigen rapid test with symptomatic and asymptomatic, non-hospitalized patients." PloS one vol. 16,12 (2021): e0260894. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260894
Igloi Z, Velzing J, Huisman R, Geurtsvankessel C, Comvalius A, IJpelaar J, van Beek J, Ensing R, Boelsums T, Koopmans M, Molenkamp R. Clinical evaluation of the SD Biosensor SARS-CoV-2 saliva antigen rapid test with symptomatic and asymptomatic, non-hospitalized patients. PLoS One. 2021 Dec 22;16(12):e0260894. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260894. eCollection 2021. PMID: 34936659; PMCID: PMC8694432.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

PLoS One. 2021 Dec 22;16(12):e0260894. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260894. eCollection 2021.

Clinical evaluation of the SD Biosensor SARS-CoV-2 saliva antigen rapid test with symptomatic and asymptomatic, non-hospitalized patients.

PloS one

Zsofia Igloi, Jans Velzing, Robin Huisman, Corine Geurtsvankessel, Anoushka Comvalius, Jeroen IJpelaar, Janko van Beek, Roel Ensing, Timo Boelsums, Marion Koopmans, Richard Molenkamp

Affiliations

  1. Department of Viroscience, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
  2. Public Health Service Rotterdam-Rijnmond, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

PMID: 34936659 PMCID: PMC8694432 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260894

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Performance of the SD Biosensor saliva antigen rapid test was evaluated at a large designated testing site in non-hospitalized patients, with or without symptoms.

METHOD: All eligible people over 18 years of age presenting for a booked appointment at the designated SARS-CoV-2 testing site were approached for inclusion and enrolled following verbal informed consent. One nasopharyngeal swab was taken to carry out the default antigen rapid test from which the results were reported back to the patient and one saliva sample was self-taken according to verbal instruction on site. This was used for the saliva antigen rapid test, the RT-PCR and for virus culture. Sensitivity of the saliva antigen rapid test was analyzed in two ways: i, compared to saliva RT-PCR; and ii, compared to virus culture of the saliva samples. Study participants were also asked to fill in a short questionnaire stating age, sex, date of symptom onset. Recommended time of ≥30mins since last meal, drink or cigarette if applicable was also recorded. The study was carried out in February-March 2021 for 4 weeks.

RESULTS: We could include 789 people with complete records and results. Compared to saliva RT-PCR, overall sensitivity and specificity of the saliva antigen rapid test was 66.1% and 99.6% which increased to 88.6% with Ct ≤30 cutoff. Analysis by days post onset did not result in higher sensitivities because the large majority of people were in the very early phase of disease ie <3 days post onset. When breaking down the data for symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, sensitivity ranged from 69.2% to 50% respectively, however the total number of RT-PCR positive asymptomatic participants was very low (n = 5). Importantly, almost all culture positive samples were detected by the rapid test.

CONCLUSION: Overall, the potential benefits of saliva antigen rapid test, could outweigh the lower sensitivity compared to nasopharyngeal antigen rapid test in a comprehensive testing strategy, especially for home/self-testing and in vulnerable populations like elderly, disabled or children where in intrusive testing is either not possible or causes unnecessary stress.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

  1. Sci Rep. 2021 May 18;11(1):10519 - PubMed
  2. Emerg Infect Dis. 2021 May;27(5):1323-1329 - PubMed
  3. Infect Dis (Lond). 2021 Nov-Dec;53(12):947-952 - PubMed
  4. Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 Sep;21(9):1233-1245 - PubMed
  5. Eur Respir J. 2021 Apr 15;57(4): - PubMed
  6. BMC Public Health. 2010 Nov 24;10:725 - PubMed
  7. J Prim Care Community Health. 2021 Jan-Dec;12:21501327211047782 - PubMed
  8. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021 Aug 4;: - PubMed
  9. Sex Health. 2013 Dec;10(6):553-8 - PubMed

Publication Types