4.6 Article

A pilot surveillance report of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test results among volunteers in Germany, 1st week of July 2022

Journal

INFECTION
Volume 51, Issue 2, Pages 465-469

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s15010-022-01931-7

Keywords

SARS-CoV-2; Point prevalence; Surveillance; Pandemic preparedness; Self-testing; Rapid antigen test

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A prevalence investigation using rapid antigen testing found a more than twofold higher prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to governmental reports in Germany. Out of 419 valid test results, 7 (1.67%) were positive, and three positive individuals were not included in the governmental statistics as they did not have a PCR test.
Purpose We hypothesized that SARS-CoV-2 infection numbers reported by governmental institutions are underestimated due to high dark figures as only results from polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests are incorporated in governmental statistics and testing capacities were further restricted as of July, 2022. Methods A point prevalence investigation was piloted by rapid antigen testing (RAT) among participants of the VACCELERATE volunteer registry. 2400 volunteers were contacted, of which 500 received a RAT including instructions for self-testing in the first week of July, 2022. Results were self-reported via e-mail. Results 419 valid RAT results were collected until July 7th, 2022. Between July-1 and July-7, 2022, 7/419 (1.67%) tests were positive. Compared to reports of the German Federal Government, our results suggest a more than twofold higher prevalence. Three out of seven positive individuals did not have a PCR test and are therefore likely not to be displayed in governmental statistics. Conclusion Our findings imply that the actual prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 may be higher than detected by current surveillance systems, so that current pandemic surveillance and testing strategies may be adapted.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available