Comparative performance of SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow antigen tests and association with detection of infectious virus in clinical specimens: a single-centre laboratory evaluation study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Pickering S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8245061 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Comparative performance of SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow antigen tests and association with detection of infectious virus in clinical specimens: a single-centre laboratory evaluation study.
Pickering Suzanne S Batra Rahul R Merrick Blair B Snell Luke B LB Nebbia Gaia G Douthwaite Sam S Reid Fiona F Patel Amita A Kia Ik Mark Tan MT Patel Bindi B Charalampous Themoula T Alcolea-Medina Adela A Lista Maria Jose MJ Cliff Penelope R PR Cunningham Emma E Mullen Jane J Doores Katie J KJ Edgeworth Jonathan D JD Malim Michael H MH Neil Stuart J D SJD Galão Rui Pedro RP
The Lancet. Microbe 20210630 9
<h4>Background</h4>Lateral flow devices (LFDs) for rapid antigen testing are set to become a cornerstone of SARS-CoV-2 mass community testing, although their reduced sensitivity compared with PCR has raised questions of how well they identify infectious cases. Understanding their capabilities and limitations is, therefore, essential for successful implementation. We evaluated six commercial LFDs and assessed their correlation with infectious virus culture and PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values.<h4> ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the proportion of lateral flow tests (LFTs) that produce negative results in those with a high risk of infectiousness from SARS-CoV-2, to investigate the impact of the stage and severity of disease, and to compare predictions made by influential mathematical models with findings of empirical studies.DesignLinked data analysis combining empirical evidence of the accuracy of the Innova LFT, the probability of positive viral culture or transmission to secondary cases, and the distribution of viral loads of SARS-CoV-2 in individuals in different settings.SettingTesting of individuals with symptoms attending NHS Test-and-Trace centres across the UK, residents without symptoms attending municipal mass testing centres in Liverpool, and students without symptoms screened at the University of Birmingham.ParticipantsEvidence for the sensitivity of the Innova LFT, based on 70 individuals with SARS-CoV-2 and LFT results. Infectiousness was based on viral culture rates on 246 samples (176 people with SARS-CoV-2) and secondary cases among 2 474 066 contacts; distributions of cycle threshold (Ct) values from 231 497 index individuals attending NHS Test-and-Trace centres; 70 people with SARS-CoV-2 detected in Liverpool and 62 people with SARS-CoV-2 in Birmingham (54 imputed).Main outcome measuresThe predicted proportions who were missed by LFT and viral culture positive and missed by LFT and sources of secondary cases, in each of the three settings. Predictions were compared with those made by mathematical models.ResultsThe analysis predicted that of those with a viral culture positive result, Innova would miss 20% attending an NHS Test-and-Trace centre, 29% without symptoms attending municipal mass testing, and 81% attending university screen testing without symptoms, along with 38%, 47%, and 90% of sources of secondary cases. In comparison, two mathematical models underestimated the numbers of missed infectious individuals (8%, 10%, and 32% in the three settings for one model, whereas the assumptions from the second model made it impossible to miss an infectious individual). Owing to the paucity of usable data, the inputs to the analyses are from limited sources.ConclusionsThe proportion of infectious people with SARS-CoV-2 missed by LFTs is substantial enough to be of clinical importance. The proportion missed varied between settings because of different viral load distributions and is likely to be highest in those without symptoms. Key models have substantially overestimated the sensitivity of LFTs compared with empirical data. An urgent need exists for additional robust well designed and reported empirical studies from intended use settings to inform evidence based policy.
| S-EPMC8864475 | biostudies-literature
Project description:During the COVID-19 pandemic, lateral flow tests (LFTs) were used to regulate access to work, education, social activities, and travel. However, falsification of home LFT results was a concern. Falsification of test results during an ongoing pandemic is a sensitive issue. Consequently, respondents may not answer truthfully to questions about LFT falsification behaviours (FBs) when asked directly. Indirect questioning techniques such as the Extended Crosswise model (ECWM) can provide more reliable prevalence estimates of sensitive behaviors than direct questioning. Here we report the prevalence of LFT FBs in a representative sample in England (n = 1577) using direct questioning (DQ) and the ECWM. We examine the role of demographic and psychological variables as predictors of LFT FBs. We show that the prevalence estimates of the FBs in the DQ condition were significantly lower than the ECWM estimates, e.g., reporting a negative result without conducting a test: 5.7% DQ vs 18.4% ECWM. Moral norms, subjective norms, anticipated regret, perception of risk to self, and trust in government predicted some of the FBs. Indirect questioning techniques can help provide more realistic and higher quality data about compliance with behavioural regulations to government and public health agencies.
| S-EPMC10858045 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLateral flow tests (LFTs) have been used to screen for SARS-CoV2 in Wales since January 2021. Between May and August 2021, adult care home staff policy was for biweekly Innova LFT and weekly Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) testing while asymptomatic. We estimated test performance of LFTs conducted in adult care home staff using PCR tests as a reference standard.MethodsTest results from surveillance data were matched by individual where both LFT and PCR were taken on the same day. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and agreement using Matthew's correlation coefficient. Ct values of positive PCR results were compared by matched LFT result. Analysis was conducted using R v4.1.3.ResultsWe analysed 115,593 test pairs, 499 (0.43%) of which were PCR positive. Median age was 48 (IQR: 22) and 85.00% of the study population were female. Test result agreement was 99.59% (95%CI 99.55-99.63; MCC: 0.38, p<0.001). Sensitivity and specificity were 25.65% (95%CI 22.02-29.67) and 99.91% (95%CI 99.89-99.93), respectively. PPV was 55.90% (95%CI 49.42-62.17) and NPV was 99.68% (95%CI 99.64-99.71). Crude Ct values were significantly lower in positive PCR tests matched to a positive LFT compared to a negative LFT.ConclusionsSpecificity and negative predictive value were high in an asymptomatic population of care home staff indicating this test is an effective tool for identifying cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection during periods of high prevalence where transmission is likely, due to the presence of high viral loads. Positive predictive value results are lower than existing literature yet should be considered in light of the asymptomatic study population and low prevalence (under 1%) at the time most of these tests were conducted. Performance improved at times of higher prevalence during the study. These results suggest that whilst lateral flow tests are effective for identifying SARS-COV-2 infections with high viral loads, they are not effective at identifying cases with a low viral load. When an LFT provides a negative result, false negatives should be considered and additional diagnostic tests performed.
| S-EPMC10446167 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBrucellosis is a world-wide extended zoonosis that causes a grave problem in developing economies. Animal vaccination and diagnosis are essential to control brucellosis, and the need for accurate but also simple and low-cost tests that can be implemented in low-infrastructure laboratories has been emphasized.MethodologyWe evaluated bovine, sheep, goat and swine lateral flow immunochromatography assay kits (LFA), the Rose Bengal test (RBT) and a well-validated protein G indirect ELISA (iELISA) using sera of Brucella culture-positive and unvaccinated brucellosis free livestock. Sera from cattle vaccinated with S19 and RB51 brucellosis vaccines were also tested. Finally, we compared RBT and LFA using sera of white Fulani cattle of unknown bacteriological status from a brucellosis endemic area of Nigeria.Results and conclusionsAlthough differences were not statistically significant, RBT showed the highest values for diagnostic sensitivity/specificity in cattle (LFA, 96.6/98.8; RBT, 98.9/100; and iELISA, 96.6/100) and the iELISA yielded highest values in sheep (LFA, 94.0/100; RBT, 92.0/100; iELISA, 100/100), goats (LFA, 95.7/96.2; RBT, 97.8/100; iELISA, 100/100) and pigs (LFA, 92.3/100; RBT, 92.3/100; iELISA, 100/100). Vaccine S19 administered subcutaneously interfered in all tests but conjunctival application minimized the problem. Although designed not to interfere in serodiagnosis, vaccine RB51 interfered in LFA and iELISA but not in the RBT. We found closely similar apparent prevalence results when testing the Nigerian Fulani cattle by RBT and LFA. Although both RBT and LFA (showing similar diagnostic performance) are suitable for small laboratories in resource-limited areas, RBT has the advantage that a single reagent is useful in all animal species. Considering these advantages, its low cost and that it is also useful for human brucellosis diagnosis, RBT might be a good choice for resource-limited laboratories.
| S-EPMC6602290 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe gold standard for diagnosing an infection with SARS-CoV-2 is detection of viral RNA by nucleic acid amplification techniques. Test capacities, however, are limited. Therefore, numerous easy-to-use rapid antigen tests based on lateral flow technology have been developed. Manufacturer-reported performance data seem convincing, but real-world data are missing.MethodsWe retrospectively analysed all prospectively collected antigen tests results performed between 23.06.2020 and 26.11.2020, generated by non-laboratory personnel at the point-of-care from oro- or nasopharyngeal swab samples at the University Hospital Augsburg and compared them to concomitantly (within 24 h.) generated results from molecular tests.ResultsFor a total of 3630 antigen tests, 3110 NAAT results were available. Overall, sensitivity, specificity, NPV and PPV of antigen testing were 59.4%, 99.0%, 98.7% and 64.8%, respectively. Sensitivity and PPV were lower in asymptomatic patients (47.6% and 44.4%, respectively) and only slightly higher in patients with clinical symptoms (66.7% and 85.0%, respectively). Some samples with very low Ct-values (minimum Ct 13) were not detected by antigen testing. 31 false positive results occurred. ROC curve analysis showed that reducing the COI cut-off from 1, as suggested by the manufacturer, to 0.9 is optimal, albeit with an AUC of only 0.66.ConclusionIn real life, performance of lateral-flow-based antigen tests are well below the manufacturer's specifications, irrespective of patient's symptoms. Their use for detection of individual patients infected with SARS-CoV2 should be discouraged. This does not preclude their usefulness in large-scale screening programs to reduce transmission events on a population-wide scale.
| S-EPMC8354301 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite the widespread application of point-of-care lateral flow tests, the viscosity dependence of these assay results remains a significant challenge. Here, we employ centrifugal microfluidic flow control through the nitrocellulose membrane of the strip to eliminate the viscosity bias. The key feature is the balancing of the sample flow into the cassette of the lateral flow test with the air flow out of the cassette. A viscosity-independent flow rate of 3.01 ± 0.18 µl/min (±6%) is demonstrated for samples with viscosities ranging from 1.1 mPas to 24 mPas, a factor greater than 20. In a model human IgG lateral flow assay, signal-intensity shifts caused by varying the sample viscosity from 1.1 mPas to 2.3 mPas could be reduced by more than 84%.
| S-EPMC8433459 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAntigen point-of-care tests (AgPOCTs) can accelerate SARS-CoV-2 testing. As some AgPOCTs have become available, interest is growing in their utility and performance. Here we aimed to compare the analytical sensitivity and specificity of seven commercially available AgPOCT devices.MethodsIn a single-centre, laboratory evaluation study, we compared AgPOCT products from seven suppliers: the Abbott Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test, the RapiGEN BIOCREDIT COVID-19 Ag, the Healgen Coronavirus Ag Rapid Test Cassette (Swab), the Coris BioConcept COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip, the R-Biopharm RIDA QUICK SARS-CoV-2 Antigen, the nal von minden NADAL COVID-19 Ag Test, and the Roche-SD Biosensor SARS-CoV Rapid Antigen Test. Tests were evaluated on recombinant SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein, cultured endemic and emerging coronaviruses, stored respiratory samples with known SARS-CoV-2 viral loads, stored samples from patients with respiratory pathogens other than SARS-CoV-2, and self-sampled swabs from healthy volunteers. We estimated analytical sensitivity in terms of approximate viral concentrations (quantified by real-time RT-PCR) that yielded positive AgPOCT results, and specificity in terms of propensity to generate false-positive results.FindingsIn 138 clinical samples with quantified SARS-CoV-2 viral load, the 95% limit of detection (concentration at which 95% of test results were positive) in six of seven AgPOCT products ranged between 2·07 × 106 and 2·86 × 107 copies per swab, with an outlier (RapiGEN) at 1·57 × 1010 copies per swab. The assays showed no cross-reactivity towards cell culture or tissue culture supernatants containing any of the four endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV‑229E, HCoV‑NL63, HCoV‑OC43, or HCoV‑HKU1) or MERS-CoV, with the exception of the Healgen assay in one repeat test on HCoV-HKU1 supernatant. SARS-CoV was cross-detected by all assays. Cumulative specificities among stored clinical samples with non-SARS-CoV-2 infections (n=100) and self-samples from healthy volunteers (n=35; cumulative sample n=135) ranged between 98·5% (95% CI 94·2-99·7) and 100·0% (97·2-100·0) in five products, with two outliers at 94·8% (89·2-97·7; R-Biopharm) and 88·9% (82·1-93·4; Healgen). False-positive results did not appear to be associated with any specific respiratory pathogen.InterpretationThe sensitivity range of most AgPOCTs overlaps with SARS-CoV-2 viral loads typically observed in the first week of symptoms, which marks the infectious period in most patients. The AgPOCTs with limit of detections that approximate virus concentrations at which patients are infectious might enable shortcuts in decision making in various areas of health care and public health.FundingEU's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, German Ministry of Research, German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, German Ministry of Health, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
| S-EPMC8026170 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLateral flow immunoassays are widely used as diagnostic tests in many applications in human and other diagnostic areas. Assays for human applications have been commercially available since the 1980s and initially were primarily used to identify pregnancy by measuring human chorionic gonadotropin in urine and serum/plasma.ContentThe first infectious disease lateral flow assays were commercialized in the late 1980s identifying the presence of Group A Streptococcus pyogenes collected with throat swabs; innumerable other applications followed in the intervening decades. The severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has brought a vast number of new assays for which emergency use authorization (EUA) has been requested in the USA. These assays have been designed for detection of the antibody response to an infection and viral antigens in respiratory samples. In view of the onslaught of new tests, this review will focus on the use of rapid lateral flow immunoassays for infectious diseases. Principles of lateral flow assays and approaches to the production of high-sensitivity point-of-care assays are presented. Market trends, customer requirements, and future directions of lateral flow assay technology and its applications in the infectious disease diagnostic space are discussed.SummaryLateral flow immunoassays play an important role in infectious disease diagnostics. Advancements in technology have led to improved performance of these assays and acceptance by professional users. With the advent of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the market has reached new levels requiring hundreds of millions of tests per year for professional and even home use.
| S-EPMC9383164 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8164512 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCryptococcal lateral flow antigen assays (CLFAs) have been assessed in comparison to the latex cryptococcal antigen agglutination test but their clinical performance is unknown.ObjectiveDetermine clinical performance of IMMY CLFA (Immuno-Mycologics Inc, Oklahoma) using patients with and without cryptococcosis as the reference standard.AnimalsOne-hundred ninety-seven serum samples from client-owned dogs and cats.MethodsReview of medical records of a referral population of dogs and cats that had CLFA performed between 2012 and 2020. Animals were classified as cryptococcosis positive (Cr+) or negative (Cr-) based on clinical information. Clinical diagnosis was used to calculate positive and negative percent agreement of the CLFA.ResultsTwelve specimens (4 canine, 8 feline) were obtained from Cr+ animals and had positive CLFA results. One-hundred eighty-five specimens (139 canine, 46 feline) were collected from Cr- animals. Negative CLFA results were recorded in 129 canine and 44 feline Cr- samples. Positive CLFA results were noted for 10 canine and 2 feline Cr- samples. Positive percent agreement of CLFA was 100% (confidence interval [CI], 39.8%-100% dogs; 63.1%-100% cats). Negative percent agreements were 92.8% (CI, 87.2%-96.5%) for dogs and 95.7% (CI, 85.2%-99.5%) for cats.Conclusions and clinical importanceA negative IMMY CLFA result enables reliable exclusion of cryptococcal infection in dogs and cats. By contrast, a positive result must be interpreted cautiously and further testing should be performed to verify a diagnosis of cryptococcosis.
| S-EPMC9708421 | biostudies-literature