Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (2)
Document Type
- Article (2) (remove)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2) (remove)
Keywords
- Point-of-care testing (2) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
Background: Testing for COVID-19 with quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) may result in delayed detection of disease. Antigen detection via lateral flow testing (LFT) is faster and amenable to population-wide testing strategies. Our study assesses the diagnostic accuracy of LFT compared to RT-PCR on the same primarycare patients in Austria. Methods: Patients with mild to moderate flu-like symptoms attending a general practice network in an Austrian district (October 22 to November 30, 2020) received clinical assessment including LFT. All suspected COVID-19 cases obtained additional RT-PCR and were divided into two groups: Group 1 (true reactive): suspected cases with reactive LFT and positive RT-PCR; and Group 2 (false non-reactive): suspected cases with a non-reactive LFT but positive RT-PCR. Findings: Of the 2,562 symptomatic patients, 1,037 were suspected of COVID-19 and 826 (79.7%) patients tested RT-PCR positive. Among patients with positive RT-PCR, 788/826 tested LFT reactive (Group 1) and 38 (4.6%) non-reactive (Group 2). Overall sensitivity was 95.4% (95%CI: [94%,96.8%]), specificity 89.1% (95%CI: [86.3%, 91.9%]), positive predictive value 97.3% (95%CI:[95.9%, 98.7%]) and negative predictive value 82.5% (95%CI:[79.8%, 85.2%]). Reactive LFT and positive RT-PCR were positively correlated (r = 0.968,95CI=[0.952,0.985] and κ=0.823, 95%CI=[0.773,0.866]). Reactive LFT was negatively correlated with Ct-value (r = -0.2999,p < 0.001) and pre-test symptom duration (r = -0.1299,p = 0.0043) while Ct-value was positively correlated with pre-test symptom duration (r = 0.3733),p < 0.001). Interpretation: We show that LFT is an accurate alternative to RT-PCR testing in primary care. We note the importance of administering LFT properly, here combined with clinical assessment in symptomatic patients.
Background: Acute bleeding requires fast and targeted therapy. Therefore, knowledge of the patient's potential to form a clot is crucial. Point-of-care testing (POCT) provides fast and reliable information on coagulation. Structural circumstances, such as person-bound sample transport, can prolong the reporting of the results. The aim of the present study was to investigate the diagnostic quality and accuracy between POCT INR diagnostics and standard laboratory analysis (SLA) as well as the time advantage between a pneumatic tube and a personal-based transport system. Methods: Two groups of haemorrhagic patients (EG: emergency department; OG: delivery room; each n = 12) were examined in the context of bleeding emergencies using POCT and SLA. Samples were transported via a pneumatic tube system or by a personal transport service. Results: INR results between POCT and SLA showed a high and significant correlation (EG: p < 0.001; OG: p < 0.001). POCT results were reported significantly more quickly (EG: 1.1 vs. 39.6 min; OG: 2.0 vs. 75.0 min; p < 0.001) and required less time for analysis (EG: 0.3 vs. 24.0 min; OG: 0.5 vs. 45.0 min; p < 0.001) compared to SLA. The time for transportation with the pneumatic tube was significantly shorter (8.0 vs. 18.5 min; p < 0.001) than with the personal-based transport system. Conclusion: The results of the present study suggest that POCT may be a suitable method for the emergency diagnosis and may be used as prognostic diagnostic elements in haemotherapy algorithms to initiate targeted haemotherapy at an early point in time.