Performance of a novel diagnostic assay for rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection in nasopharynx samples.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Liotti FM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7510559 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Performance of a novel diagnostic assay for rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection in nasopharynx samples.
Liotti Flora Marzia FM Menchinelli Giulia G Lalle Eleonora E Palucci Ivana I Marchetti Simona S Colavita Francesca F La Sorda Marilena M Sberna Giuseppe G Bordi Licia L Sanguinetti Maurizio M Cattani Paola P Capobianchi Maria Rosaria MR Posteraro Brunella B
Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 20200923 3
Similar Datasets
Project description:Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) transmission occurs even among fully vaccinated individuals; thus, prompt identification of infected patients is central to control viral circulation. Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are highly specific, but sensitivity is variable. Discordant RT-qPCR vs. Ag-RDT results are reported, raising the question of whether negative Ag-RDT in positive RT-qPCR samples could imply the absence of infectious viruses. To study the relationship between negative Ag-RDT results with virological, molecular, and serological parameters, we selected a cross-sectional and a follow-up dataset and analyzed virus culture, subgenomic RNA quantification, and sequencing to determine infectious viruses and mutations. We demonstrated that RT-qPCR positive while SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT negative discordant results correlate with the absence of infectious virus in nasopharyngeal samples. A decrease in sgRNA detection together with an expected increase in detectable anti-S and anti-N IgGs was also verified in these samples. The data clearly demonstrate that a negative Ag-RDT sample is less likely to harbor infectious SARS-CoV-2 and, consequently, has a lower transmissible potential.
| S-EPMC9364907 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDirect detection of SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins in nasopharyngeal swabs using lateral flow immunoassays is a simple, fast and cheap approach to diagnose the infection.Aims and methodsThe performance of 6 SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests has been assessed in 634 hospitalized patients or outpatients including 297 patients found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by means of RT-PCR and 337 patients presumed to be SARS-CoV-2 RNA-negative.ResultsThe specificity of SARS-CoV-2 RDTs was generally high (398.5%). One assay had a lower specificity of 93.2%. The overall sensitivity of the 6 RDTs was variable, from 32.3% to 61.7%. Sensitivity correlated with the delay of sampling after the onset of symptoms and the viral load estimated by the Ct value in RT-PCR. Four out of 6 RDTs tested achieved sensitivities 380% when clinical specimens were collected during the first 3 days following symptom onset or with a Ct value ≤25.ConclusionsThe present study shows that SARS-CoV-2 antigen can be easily and reliably detected by RDTs. These tests are easy and rapid to perform. However, the specificity and sensitivity of COVID-19 antigen RDTs may widely vary across different tests and must therefore be carefully evaluated before releasing these assays for realworld applications.
| S-EPMC8310570 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionEarly diagnosis and appropriate infection control are important to prevent the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In this study, we aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen detection (RAD) tests and the factors that cause nonspecific reactions.MethodsNasopharyngeal swab specimens (n = 100), sputum specimens (n = 10), and lithium-heparin plasma samples (n = 100) were collected. We evaluated Espline®SARS-CoV-2 (Espline) and SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test that also known as STANDARD Q® (STANDARD Q), with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and Lumipulse® Presto SARS-CoV-2 Ag as reference tests. In addition, we investigated the effects of inadequate pretreatment methods and five potential causes of nonspecific reactions.ResultsThe sensitivities of Espline and STANDARD Q were 60% and 57%, respectively, and their specificity was 100%. It was confirmed that the judgment line for the positive insufficiently mixed specimens was faint. A false-positive result was observed with STANDARD Q when sputum was used as a specimen to investigate judgment the effect of viscosity.ConclusionsEspline and STANDARD Q show good sensitivity for specimens with Ct values less than 25, but specimens collected within 9 days of symptom onset may still give false negatives. The test should be performed carefully, and the results should be judged comprehensively, taking into account clinical symptoms and patient background.
| S-EPMC9595385 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThere is a high demand for SARS-CoV-2 testing to identify COVID-19 cases. Real-time quantitative PCR (qRT-PCR) is the recommended diagnostic test but a number of constraints prevent its widespread implementation, including cost. The aim of this study was to evaluate a low cost and easy to use rapid antigen test for diagnosing COVID-19 at the point of care.MethodsNasopharyngeal swabs from suspected COVID-19 cases and low-risk volunteers were tested with the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test and the results were compared with the qRT-PCR results.ResultsIn total, 262 samples were collected, including 90 qRT-PCR positives. The majority of samples were from males (89%) with a mean age of 34 years and only 13 (14%) of the positives were mildly symptomatic. The sensitivity and specificity of the antigen test were 70.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 60-79) and 92% (95% CI: 87-96), respectively, and the diagnostic accuracy was 84% (95% CI: 79-88). The antigen test was more likely to be positive for samples with qRT-PCR Ct values ≤29, with a sensitivity of 92%.ConclusionsThe STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test performed less than optimally in this evaluation. However, the test may still have an important role to play early in infection when timely access to molecular testing is not available but the results should be confirmed by qRT-PCR.
| S-EPMC7836828 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRapid diagnostic testing for SARS-Cov-2 antigens is used to combat the ongoing pandemic. In this study we aimed to compare two RDTs, the SD Biosensor Q SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche) and the Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (Abbott), against rRT-PCR.MethodsWe included 2,215 all-comers at a diagnostic center between February 1 and March 31, 2021. rRT-PCR-positive samples were examined for SARS-CoV-2 variants.FindingsThree hundred and thirty eight participants (15%) were rRT-PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2. The sensitivities of Roche-RDT and Abbott-RDT were 60.4 and 56.8% (P < 0.0001) and specificities 99.7% and 99.8% (P = 0.076). Sensitivity inversely correlated with rRT-PCR-Ct values. The RDTs had higher sensitivities in individuals referred by treating physicians (79.5%, 78.7%) than in those referred by health departments (49.5%, 44.3%) or tested for other reasons (50%, 45.8%), in persons without any comorbidities (74.4%, 71%) compared to those with comorbidities (38.2%, 34.4%), in individuals with COVID-19 symptoms (75.2%, 74.3%) compared to those without (31.9%, 23.3%), and in the absence of SARS-CoV-2 variants (87.7%, 84%) compared to Alpha variant carriers (77.1%, 72.3%). If 10,000 symptomatic individuals are tested of which 500 are truly positive, the RDTs would generate 38 false-positive and 124 false-negative results. If 10,000 asymptomatic individuals are tested, including 50 true positives, 18 false-positives and 34 false-negatives would be generated.InterpretationThe sensitivities of the two RDTs for asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers are unsatisfactory. Their widespread use may not be effective in the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The virus genotype influences the sensitivity of the two RDTs. RDTs should be evaluated for different SARS-CoV-2 variants.
| S-EPMC8979030 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesAntigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) have been developed as reliable tools to control the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The objective of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of two Ag-RDTs.MethodsWe evaluated CerTest SARS-CoV-2 Ag One Step Card Test and Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device Ag-RDTs. We included 320 nasopharyngeal samples: 150 PCR negative samples to assess the specificity and 170 PCR positive samples to evaluate the sensitivity. We also evaluated their sensitivity according to cycle threshold (Ct) values and the time from the onset of symptoms. Tests were compared using the McNemar's test and agreement was evaluated using the kappa score (k).ResultsBoth Ag-RDTs showed a specificity of 100 %. Overall sensitivity was 53.5 % for CerTest and 60.0 % for Panbio. For samples with Ct≤ 25, sensitivity was 94.0 % for CerTest and 96.4 % for Panbio (p = 0.500). Regarding samples with Ct>25, sensitivity was 14.0 % for CerTest and 24.4 % for Panbio (p = 0.004). Sensitivity for samples within the first 5 days after the onset of symptoms were 84.8 % for CerTest and 91.3 % for Panbio (p = 0.250) and notably decreased for samples taken after the fifth day. Both Ag-RDTs showed an excellent agreement between them (agreement = 96.7 %, k = 0.920). Agreement with PCR was also excellent for high viral load samples (Ct<25) for CerTest (98.0 %, k = 0.954) and Panbio (98.8 %, k = 0.973).ConclusionsCerTest SARS-CoV-2 and Panbio COVID-19 Ag showed excellent performance and agreement results for samples with high viral loads (Ct ≤ 25) or samples taken within the first 5 days after the onset of symptoms.
| S-EPMC7897407 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We evaluated the performance of the Abbott BinaxNOW™ Covid-19 rapid antigen test to detect virus among persons, regardless of symptoms, at a public plaza site of ongoing community transmission. Titration with cultured clinical SARS-CoV-2 yielded a human observable threshold between 1.6×104-4.3×104 viral RNA copies (cycle threshold (Ct) of 30.3-28.8 in this assay). Among 878 subjects tested, 3% (26/878) were positive by RT-PCR, of which 15/26 had a Ct<30, indicating high viral load. 40% (6/15) of Ct<30 were asymptomatic. Using this Ct<30 threshold for Binax-CoV2 evaluation, the sensitivity of the Binax-CoV2 was 93.3% (14/15), 95% CI: 68.1-99.8%, and the specificity was 99.9% (855/856), 95% CI: 99.4-99.9%.
| S-EPMC7654907 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe ongoing spread of pandemic coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is of growing concern. Rapid diagnosis and management of SARS-CoV-2 are crucial for controlling the outbreak in the community. Here, we report the development of a first rapid-colorimetric assay capable of detecting SARS-CoV-2 in the human nasopharyngeal RNA sample in less than 30 min.MethodWe utilized a nanomaterial-based optical sensing platform to detect RNA-dependent RNA polymerase gene of SARS-CoV-2, where the formation of oligo probe-target hybrid led to salt-induced aggregation and change in gold-colloid color from pink to blue visibility range. Accordingly, we found a change in colloid color from pink to blue in assay containing nasopharyngeal RNA sample from the subject with clinically diagnosed COVID-19. The colloid retained pink color when the test includes samples from COVID-19 negative subjects or human papillomavirus-infected women.ResultsThe results were validated using nasopharyngeal RNA samples from positive COVID-19 subjects (n = 136). Using real-time polymerase chain reaction as gold standard, the assay was found to have 85.29% sensitivity and 94.12% specificity. The optimized method has detection limit as little as 0.5 ng of SARS-CoV-2 RNA.ConclusionWe found that the developed assay rapidly detects SARS-CoV-2 RNA in clinical samples in a cost-effective manner and would be useful in pandemic management by facilitating mass screening.
| S-EPMC9393769 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, which started in December 2019, has been posing significant challenges to the health care system worldwide. As the pandemic spreads with rapidly increasing number of positive cases, early diagnosis of infected patients is crucial to successfully limit the spread of the virus. Although the real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is the recommended laboratory method to diagnose COVID-19 infection, many factors such as availability of laboratory equipment, reagents and trained personnel affect the use of time-consuming molecular techniques. To facilitate on-the-spot diagnosis of COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests were developed by several different manufacturers. The evaluation of such rapid tests is particularly important due to the recent unanimous agreement by the European Commission Member States on a recommendation setting out a framework for the use of antigen rapid tests that contains a list of the mutually recognized assays and the basis of independent validation protocols. To evaluate the on-field performance of ten commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid tests (CLINITEST Rapid COVID-19 Antigen Test, GenBody COVID-19 Antigen Test, GENEDIA W COVID-19 Ag Test, Healgen Coronavirus Antigen Rapid Test, Humasis COVID-19 Ag Test, VivaDiag SARS-CoV-2 Ag Rapid Test, Helix i-SARS-CoV-2 Ag Rapid Test, Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test, Abbot COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test and Vazyme SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection Kit) and compare with RT-qPCR as a reference method, the Hungarian National Public Health Center provided 1,597 antigen rapid tests to the National Ambulance Service, COVID-testing trucks and two hospitals treating COVID-19 patients. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were determined by performing the rapid test directly from nasopharyngeal swab samples of symptomatic individuals. For strongly positive samples (Ct < 25) sensitivities ranged between 66.7% and 100%, while for positive samples (Ct < 30) they gave a maximum sensitivity of 87.5%. The specificity of the tests was ranging between 79% to 100%. The results presented here are of high importance to the European Commission and also help governmental decision-making regarding the application of the proper rapid tests for screening different at-risk populations. Nonetheless, SARS-Cov-2 rapid tests play an important role in early and on-the-spot diagnosis of potentially infected individuals.
| S-EPMC8843216 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a serious health problem worldwide. Early virus detection is essential for disease control and management. Viral antigen detection by ELISA is a cost-effective, rapid, and accurate antigen diagnostic assay which could facilitate early viral detection.MethodAn antigen-capture sandwich ELISA was developed using novel nucleocapsid (NP)-specific mouse monoclonal antibodies (MAbs). The clinical performance of the assay was assessed using 403 positive and 150 negative respiratory samples collected during different SARS-CoV-2 variants outbreaks in Iran.ResultsThe limit of detection of our ELISA assay was found to be 43.3 pg/ml for recombinant NP. The overall sensitivity and specificity of this assay were 70.72% (95% CI: 66.01-75.12) and 100% (95% CI: 97.57-100), respectively, regardless of Ct values and SARS-CoV-2 variants. There was no significant difference in our assay sensitivity for the detection of Omicron subvariants compared to Delta variant. Assay sensitivity for the BA.5 Omicron subvariant was calculated as 91.89% (95% CI: 85.17-96.23) for samples with Ct values < 25 and 82.70% (95% CI: 75.19-88.71) for samples with Ct values < 30.ConclusionOur newly developed ELISA method is reasonably sensitive and highly specific for detection of SARS-CoV-2 regardless of the variants and subvariants of the virus.
| S-EPMC9902293 | biostudies-literature