Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 7, 2025
A Rapid, Multiplex Dual Reporter IgG and IgM SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Assay for a Multiplexed Bead-Based Flow Analysis System
Published on: April 6, 2021
Diagnostic Accuracy of a Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test Among People Experiencing Homelessness: A Prospective Cohort
Pasquale De Nardo1, Maela Tebon2, Alessia Savoldi2
1Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Diagnostics and Public Health, University of Verona, P.le L.A. Scuro 10, 37134, Verona, Italy. pasquale.denardo@univr.it.
Introduction:
Detection strategies in vulnerable populations such as people experiencing homelessness (PEH) need to be explored to promptly recognize severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreaks. This study investigated the diagnostic accuracy of a rapid SARS-CoV-2 Ag test in PEH during two pandemic waves compared with gold standard real-time multiplex reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rtRT-PCR).
Methods:
All PEH ≥ 18 years requesting residence at the available shelters in Verona, Italy, across two cold-weather emergency periods (November 2020-May 2021 and December 2021-April 2022) were prospectively screened for SARS-CoV-2 infection by means of a naso-pharyingeal swab. A lateral flow immunochromatographic assay (Biocredit® COVID-19 Ag) was used as antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT). The rtRT-PCR was performed with Allplex™ SARS-CoV-2 assay kit (Seegene). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated as measures for diagnostic accuracy.
Results:
Overall, 503 participants were enrolled during the two intervention periods for a total of 732 paired swabs collected: 541 swabs in the first period and 191 in the second. No significant differences in demographic and infection-related characteristics were observed in tested subjects in the study periods, except for the rate of previous infection (0.8% versus 8%; p < 0.001) and vaccination (6% versus 73%; p < 0.001). The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the cohort was 8% (58/732 swabs positive with rtRT-PCR). Seventeen swabs were collected from symptomatic patients (7%). Among them, the concordance between rtRT-PCR and Ag-RDT was 100%, 7 (41.2%) positive and 10 negative pairs. The overall sensitivity of Ag-RDT was 63.8% (95% CI 60.3-67.3) and specificity was 99.8% (95% CI 99.6-100). PPV and NPV were 97.5% and 96.8%, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity did not change substantially across the two periods (65.1% and 99.8% in 2020-2021 vs. 60% and 100% in 2021-2022).
Conclusions:
A periodic Ag-RDT-based screening approach for PEH at point of care could guide preventive measures, including prompt isolation, without referral to hospital-based laboratories for molecular test confirmation in case of positive detection even in individuals asymptomatic for COVID-19. This could help reduce the risk of outbreaks in shelter facilities.
