Usefulness of rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 screening of healthcare workers: a pilot study

Anja Šterbenc, Viktorija Tomič, Urška Bidovec Stojković, Katja Vrankar, Aleš Rozman, Mihaela Zidarn, Anja Šterbenc, Viktorija Tomič, Urška Bidovec Stojković, Katja Vrankar, Aleš Rozman, Mihaela Zidarn

Abstract

Background: Identification of infected healthcare workers (HCWs) is an important step in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission control. Rapid antigen tests (RATs) are considered an important addition to molecular tests in diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), mainly because of their fast turnaround time, easier analytical procedure and lower price. However, real-life studies on the usefulness of such testing for screening of HCWs are limited.

Methods: Physicians, nurses and hospital attendants currently working at the University Clinic of Respiratory and Allergic Diseases Golnik were invited to participate in the pilot study. Nasopharyngeal swabs were obtained three times per week for two consecutive weeks and tested with a point-of-care RAT and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Serum samples were obtained at the beginning of the study and 2 weeks after the last swab was collected to evaluate the serological status.

Results: A total of 191 nasopharyngeal swabs from 36 HCWs were obtained. None of the samples tested was positive for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antigen, whereas two HCWs tested positive on RT-PCR. Of these, one HCW had a newly identified SARS-CoV-2 infection, whereas RT-PCR probably detected a previous but recent infection in the other HCW.

Conclusion: Based on the results of this pilot study, it is unlikely that RAT will reliably detect novel SARS-CoV-2 infections among asymptomatic HCWs despite serial sampling. Although RT-PCR-based screening of HCWs may not be feasible due to high sample volume, molecular methods may identify SARS-CoV-2-infected HCWs already during the presymptomatic stage. Trial registration number NCT04716088, 19.1.2021, retrospectively registered.

Keywords: Healthcare workers; RT-PCR; Rapid antigen test; SARS-CoV-2; Screening.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Nasopharyngeal swab and serology testing. Days on which swabs were obtained for an individual healthcare worker (HCW) are marked with a blue X. All samples tested using rapid antigen test (RAT) were negative. Samples that were RT-PCR positive are marked with a red X. Serology was performed on the day of the first swab and two weeks after the last swab: POS = positive, NEG = negative, EQU = equivocal

References

    1. Mina MJ, Parker R, Larremore DB. Rethinking Covid-19 test sensitivity: a strategy for containment. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:e120. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2025631.
    1. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Options for the use of rapid antigen tests for COVID-19 in the EU/EEA and the UK. ECDC: Stockholm; 2020. . Accessed 24 Dec 2020.
    1. Vabret N, Britton GJ, Gruber C, et al. Immunology of COVID-19: current state of the science. Immunity. 2020;52:910–941. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2020.05.002.
    1. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Options for the use of rapid antigen tests for COVID-19 in the EU/EEA and the UK. 19 November 2020. ECDC: Stockholm; 2020.
    1. Salvagno GL, Gianfilippi G, Bragantini D, et al. Clinical assessment of the Roche SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test. Diagnosis. 2021 doi: 10.1515/dx-2020-0154.
    1. Zhou B, She J, Wang Y, Ma X. Duration of viral shedding of discharged patients with severe COVID-19. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71:2240–2242. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa451.
    1. Noh JY, Yoon JG, Seong H, et al. Asymptomatic infection and atypical manifestations of COVID-19: Comparison of viral shedding duration. J Infect. 2020;81:816–846. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.05.035.
    1. Gniazdowski V, Morris CP, Wohl S, et al. Repeat COVID-19 molecular testing: correlation of SARS-CoV-2 culture with molecular assays and cycle thresholds. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1616.
    1. Wang H, Ai J, Loeffelholz MJ, et al. Meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of serology tests for COVID-19: impact of assay design and post-symptom-onset intervals. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020;9:2200–2211. doi: 10.1080/22221751.2020.1826362.
    1. Azzi L, Carcano G, Gianfagna F, Grossi P, Gasperina DD, Genoni A, Fasano M, Sessa F, Tettamanti L, Carinci F, Maurino V, Rossi A, Tagliabue A, Baj A. Saliva is a reliable tool to detect SARS-CoV-2. J Infect. 2020;81(1):e45–e50. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.04.005.
    1. Maricic T, Nickel O, Aximu-Petri A, Essel E, Gansauge M, Kanis P, Macak D, Richter J, Riesenberg S, Bokelmann L, Zeberg H, Meyer M, Borte S, Pääbo S. A direct RT-qPCR approach to test large numbers of individuals for SARS-CoV-2. PLoS One. 2020;15(12):e0244824. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244824.
    1. Malecki M, Lüsebrink J, Teves S, Wendel AF. Pharynx gargle samples are suitable for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic use and save personal protective equipment and swabs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2020 doi: 10.1017/ice.2020.229.
    1. Lindner AK, Nikolai O, Kausch F, et al. Head-to-head comparison of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test with self-collected anterior nasal swab versus professional-collected nasopharyngeal swab. Eur Respir J. 2020 doi: 10.1183/13993003.03961-2020.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する