Validation of a rapid SARS-CoV-2 antibody test in general practice

Domen, J; Verbakel, JYJ; Adriaenssens, N; Scholtes, B; Peeters, B; Bruyndonckx, R; De Sutter, A; Heytens, S; Van den Bruel, A; Desombere, I; Van Damme, P; Goossens, H; Buret, L; Duysburgh, E; Coenen, S

COVID-19 Collection

Journal article

Validation of a rapid SARS-CoV-2 antibody test in general practice

Abstract:: peer reviewed[en] OBJECTIVES: To validate a rapid serological test (RST) for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies used in seroprevalence studies in healthcare providers, including primary healthcare providers (PHCPs) in Belgium. DESIGN: A phase III validation study of the RST (OrientGene) within a prospective cohort study. SETTING: Primary care in Belgium. PARTICIPANTS: Any general practitioner (GP) working in primary care in Belgium and any other PHCP from the same GP practice who physically manages patients were eligible in the seroprevalence study. For the validation study, all participants who tested positive (376) on the RST at the first testing timepoint (T1) and a random sample of those who tested negative (790) and unclear (24) were included. INTERVENTION: At T2, 4 weeks later, PHCPs performed the RST with fingerprick blood (index test) immediately after providing a serum sample to be analysed for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G antibodies using a two-out-of-three assay (reference test). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The RST accuracy was estimated using inverse probability weighting to correct for missing reference test data, and considering unclear RST results as negative for the sensitivity and positive for the specificity. Using these conservative estimates, the true seroprevalence was estimated both for T2 and RST-based prevalence values found in a cohort study with PHCPs in Belgium. RESULTS: 1073 paired tests (403 positive on the reference test) were included. A sensitivity of 73% (a specificity of 92%) was found considering unclear RST results as negative (positive). For an RST-based prevalence at T1 (13.9), T2 (24.9) and T7 (70.21), the true prevalence was estimated to be 9.1%, 25.9% and 95.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The RST sensitivity (73%) and specificity (92%) make an RST-based seroprevalence below (above) 23% overestimate (underestimate) the true seroprevalence. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04779424

Publication status:: Published

Peer review status:: Peer reviewed

Actions

Email

Email this record

Send the bibliographic details of this record to your email address.

Your Email
Please enter the email address that the record information will be sent to.

-
Your message (optional)
Please add any additional information to be included within the email.
Share
Cite

Cite this record

APA Style

Domen, J., Verbakel, J. Y. J., Adriaenssens, N., Scholtes, B., Peeters, B., Bruyndonckx, R., De Sutter, A., Heytens, S., Van den Bruel, A., Desombere, I., Van Damme, P., Goossens, H., Buret, L., Duysburgh, E., & Coenen, S. (2023). Validation of a rapid SARS-CoV-2 antibody test in general practice. BMJ Open, 13(5), e069997–e069997.

MLA Style

Domen, J, et al. “Validation of a Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test in General Practice.” BMJ Open, vol. 13, no. 5, 2023, pp. e069997–e069997.

Chicago Style

Domen, J, JYJ Verbakel, N Adriaenssens, et al. 2023. “Validation of a Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test in General Practice.” BMJ Open 13 (5): e069997–e069997.
Print