Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1942/40724
Title: Validation of a rapid SARS-CoV-2 antibody test in general practice
Authors: Domen, Julie
Verbakel, Jan Yvan Jos
Adriaenssens, Niels
Scholtes, Beatrice
Peeters, Bart
BRUYNDONCKX, Robin 
De Sutter, An
Heytens, Stefan
van den Bruel, Ann
Desombere, Isabelle
Van Damme, Pierre
Goossens, Herman
Buret, Laetitia
Duysburgh, Els
Coenen , Samuel
Issue Date: 2023
Publisher: BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
Source: BMJ Open, 13 (5) (Art N° e069997)
Abstract: 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.
Notes: Domen, J (corresponding author), Univ Antwerp, Ctr Gen Practice, Dept Family Med & Populat Hlth FAMPOP, Antwerp, Belgium.
julie.domen@uantwerpen.be
Keywords: COVID-19;infectious diseases;primary care;Humans;SARS-CoV-2;Cohort Studies;Prospective Studies;Seroepidemiologic Studies;Antibodies, Viral;COVID-19 Testing;General Practice
Document URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1942/40724
ISSN: 2044-6055
e-ISSN: 2044-6055
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069997
ISI #: 001001783700051
Rights: Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Category: A1
Type: Journal Contribution
Appears in Collections:Research publications

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
e069997.full.pdfPublished version1.07 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.