Volume 27, Number 6—June 2021
Research Letter
Rapid Antigen Test for Postmortem Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Carriage
Martin Zacharias
, Verena Stangl, Andrea Thüringer, Martina Loibner, Philipp Wurm, Stella Wolfgruber, Kurt Zatloukal, Karl Kashofer, and Gregor Gorkiewicz
, Verena Stangl, Andrea Thüringer, Martina Loibner, Philipp Wurm, Stella Wolfgruber, Kurt Zatloukal, Karl Kashofer, and Gregor Gorkiewicz
Table
Patient characteristics and postmortem data for investigation of rapid antigen test for postmortem evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 carriage, Graz, Austria*
| Characteristic | RAT cohort, n = 30 | Culture cohort, n = 11 |
|---|---|---|
| Age, y, median (range) |
78 (62–93) |
79 (65–93) |
| Sex, no. (%) | ||
| M | 14 (47.7) | 6 (56) |
| F |
16 (53.3) |
5 (45.4) |
| Disease duration,† d, median (range) | 12 (1–43) | 9 (3–34) |
| Postmortem interval‡, h, median (range) |
22 (8–124) |
25 (14–68) |
| qRT-PCR positive, no. (%) |
24 (80) |
11 (100) |
| Ct value, median (range) | ||
| E gene | 22.8 (14.1–37.3) | 19.9 (13.7–36.0) |
| N gene |
26.9 (18.0–34.6) |
24.6 (17.3–33.7) |
| Cultivation positive, no. (%) |
NA |
7 (63.6) |
| RAT positive, no. (%) |
17 (56.7%) |
NA |
| Total RAT specificity (95% CI§), n = 30 |
100% (61%–100%) |
NA |
| RAT sensitivity (95% CI§), n = 30 | 70.8% (50.8%–85.1%) | NA |
| Total, n = 30 | ||
| Ct <35,¶ n = 23 | 73.9% (53.5%–87.5%) | NA |
| Ct <30,¶ n = 18 | 94.4% (74.2%–99.7%) | NA |
| Ct <25,¶ n = 16 | 100% (80.6%–100%) | NA |
*Ct, cycle threshold; E, envelope; N, nucleocapsid; NA, not applicable; qRT-PCR, quantitative reverse transcription PCR: RAT, rapid antigen test; SARS-CoV-2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. †Interval from first positive (antemortem) SARS-CoV-2 PCR to death. ‡Interval from death to specimen sampling. §Determined via the hybrid Wilson/Brown method (10). ¶Determined via E gene qRT-PCR.
References
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim guidance for antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 [cited 2021 Mar 27]. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/resources/antigen-tests-guidelines.html
- Dinnes J, Deeks JJ, Berhane S, Taylor M, Adriano A, Davenport C, et al.; Cochrane COVID-19 Diagnostic Test Accuracy Group. Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;3:
CD013705 .PubMedGoogle Scholar - Albert E, Torres I, Bueno F, Huntley D, Molla E, Fernández-Fuentes MÁ, et al. Field evaluation of a rapid antigen test (Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device) for COVID-19 diagnosis in primary healthcare centres. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021;27:472.e7–10. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Iglὁi Z, Velzing J, van Beek J, van de Vijver D, Aron G, Ensing R, et al. Clinical evaluation of Roche SD Biosensor rapid antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 in municipal health service testing site, the Netherlands. Emerg Infect Dis. 2021;27. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Collection and submission of postmortem specimens from deceased persons with confirmed or suspected COVID-19: postmortem guidance [cited 2021 Mar 27]. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/guidance-postmortem-specimens.html
- Singanayagam A, Patel M, Charlett A, Lopez Bernal J, Saliba V, Ellis J, et al. Duration of infectiousness and correlation with RT-PCR cycle threshold values in cases of COVID-19, England, January to May 2020. Euro Surveill. 2020;25:
2001483 . DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar - Puelles VG, Lütgehetmann M, Lindenmeyer MT, Sperhake JP, Wong MN, Allweiss L, et al. Multiorgan and renal tropism of SARS-CoV-2. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:590–2. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Jefferson T, Spencer EA, Brassey J, Heneghan C. Viral cultures for COVID-19 infectious potential assessment—a systematic review. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Dec 20 [Epub ahead of print]. DOIGoogle Scholar
- Loibner M, Langner C, Regitnig P, Gorkiewicz G, Zatloukal K. Biosafety requirements for autopsies of patients with COVID-19: example of a BSL-3 autopsy facility designed for highly pathogenic agents. Pathobiology. 2021;88:37–45. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Brown LD, Cai TT, DasGupta A. Interval estimation for a binomial proportion. Stat Sci. 2001;16:101–33. DOIGoogle Scholar
Page created: April 05, 2021
Page updated: May 18, 2021
Page reviewed: May 18, 2021
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.