The aim of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of two antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag‐RDTs) to diagnose severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection. We ...evaluated Panbio and SD‐Biosensor Ag‐RDTs. We employed 186 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) negative samples to evaluate the specificity and 170 PCR positive samples to assess the sensitivity. We evaluated their sensitivity according to Cycle threshold (C
t) values and days post onset of symptoms (d.p.o.). Tests were compared using the McNemar's test. Agreement was evaluated using the kappa score. Specificity was 100% for Panbio and 97.3% for SD‐Biosensor. Sensitivity for samples with C
t ≤ 20 was 100% for both assays and for samples with C
t = 20–25 was 93.0% (Panbio) and 95.3% (SD‐Biosensor) (p = 1.000). Sensitivity decreased for samples wit C
t = 25–30 (Panbio: 41.3%, SD‐Biosensor: 52.2%, p = 0.125) and samples with C
t ≥ 30 (Panbio: 5.0%, SD‐Biosensor: 17.5%, p = 0.063). Sensitivity within seven d.p.o. was 87.7% for Panbio and 90.4% for SD‐Biosensor and notably decreased after seven d.p.o. Agreement with PCR was excellent for high viral load samples (C
t ≤ 25): Panbio, 98.9%, kappa = 0.974; SD‐Biosensor, 97.4%, kappa = 0.940. Agreement between Ag‐RDTs was excellent (94.9%, kappa = 0.882). Panbio and SD‐Biosensor Ag‐RDTs showed excellent agreement and diagnostic performance results for samples with high viral loads (C
t ≤ 25) or samples within seven d.p.o.
Highlights
Panbio and SD‐Biosensor Ag‐RDTs are reliable to diagnose SARS‐CoV‐2 infection.
They showed high specificity: 100% (Panbio) and 97.3% (SD‐Biosensor).
Sensitivity for samples with Ct ≤ 20 was 100% and for samples with Ct ≤ 25 was over 93%.
Their sensitivity was over 87% within 7 days after symptoms onset. Agreement between them was excellent (agreement = 94.9%, kappa = 0.882).
•CerTest and Panbio Ag-RDTs are reliable to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection.•Their sensitivity was over 90 % for samples with a Ct≤25.•Their sensitivity was over 84 % within 5 days after the onset of ...symptoms.•Specificity of both assays was 100 %. Agreement between them was excellent.•Agreement with PCR was also excellent for samples with Ct≤25.
Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) have been developed as reliable tools to control the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The objective of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of two Ag-RDTs.
We evaluated CerTest SARS-CoV-2 Ag One Step Card Test and Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device Ag-RDTs. We included 320 nasopharyngeal samples: 150 PCR negative samples to assess the specificity and 170 PCR positive samples to evaluate the sensitivity. We also evaluated their sensitivity according to cycle threshold (Ct) values and the time from the onset of symptoms. Tests were compared using the McNemar’s test and agreement was evaluated using the kappa score (k).
Both Ag-RDTs showed a specificity of 100 %. Overall sensitivity was 53.5 % for CerTest and 60.0 % for Panbio. For samples with Ct≤ 25, sensitivity was 94.0 % for CerTest and 96.4 % for Panbio (p = 0.500). Regarding samples with Ct>25, sensitivity was 14.0 % for CerTest and 24.4 % for Panbio (p = 0.004). Sensitivity for samples within the first 5 days after the onset of symptoms were 84.8 % for CerTest and 91.3 % for Panbio (p = 0.250) and notably decreased for samples taken after the fifth day. Both Ag-RDTs showed an excellent agreement between them (agreement = 96.7 %, k = 0.920). Agreement with PCR was also excellent for high viral load samples (Ct<25) for CerTest (98.0 %, k = 0.954) and Panbio (98.8 %, k = 0.973).
CerTest SARS-CoV-2 and Panbio COVID-19 Ag showed excellent performance and agreement results for samples with high viral loads (Ct ≤ 25) or samples taken within the first 5 days after the onset of symptoms.
Background. It is unclear whether metabolic or body composition effects differ between protease inhibitorbased regimens recommended for initial treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) ...infection. Methods. ATADAR is a phase 4, open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Stable antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected adults were randomly assigned to atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg or darunavir/ritonavir 800/100 mg in combination with tenofovir/emtricitabine daily. Predefined endpoints were treatment or virological failure, drug discontinuation due to adverse effects, and laboratory and body composition changes at 96 weeks. Results. At 96 weeks, 56 (62%) atazanavir/ritonavir and 62 (71%) darunavir/ritonavir patients remained free of treatment failure (estimated difference 8.2%; 95% confidence interval CI, –.6 to 21.6) and 71 (79%) atazanavir/ritonavir and 75 (85%) darunavir/ritonavir patients remained free of virological failure (estimated difference 6.3%; 95% CI, –.5 to 17.6). Seven patients discontinued atazanavir/ritonavir and 5 discontinued darunavir/ritonavir due to adverse effects. Total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol similarly increased in both arms, but there was a greater increase in triglycerides in the atazanavir/ritonavir arm. At 96 weeks, body fat (estimated difference 2862.2 gr; 95% CI, 726.7 to 4997.7; P = .0090), limb fat (estimated difference 1403.3 gr; 95% CI, 388.4 to 2418.2; P = .0071), and subcutaneous abdominal adipose tissue (estimated difference 28.4 cm2; 95% CI, 1.9 to 55.0; P = .0362) increased more in the atazanavir/ritonavir arm than in darunavir/ritonavir arm. Body fat changes in the atazanavir/ritonavir arm were associated with higher insulin resistance. Conclusions. We found no major differences between atazanavir/ritonavir and darunavir/ritonavir in efficacy, clinically relevant side effects, or plasma cholesterol fractions. However, atazanavir/ritonavir led to higher triglycerides and more total and subcutaneous fat than darunavir/ritonavir. Also, fat gains with atazanavir/ritonavir were associated with insulin resistance.
PDF
