Dataset Information

Comparison between nucleic acid amplification tests, antigen immunofluorescence assay, and in vitro infectivity in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.

ABSTRACT: The number of SARS-CoV-2 detection tests requested to the laboratories has dramatically increased together with an urgent need to release reliable responses in a very short time. The two options taken into consideration and analyzed in the current study were the point-of-care test (POCT) based on the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) and the Antigen (Ag) rapid test. The POCT-NAAT-based assay was compared with a rapid antigen test of nasopharyngeal swab samples. If the specimen tested positive, it was followed by viral load quantification and by the functional assessment of the residual infectivity. When the initial cycle threshold (Ct) was below 20 (100%), and in the range of 20-25 (92%) and of 25-30 (88%), a great concordance between the POCT-NAAT and the Ag test was observed. Moreover, the positivity of the antigen test was well correlated to a successful infection in vitro (78%), with greater concordance when the initial Ct below 20 or above 35 (100%) and in the range 20-25 (83%). Our findings showed that most of the swabs which tested positive using the antigen test were able to infect the cells in vitro, suggesting that probably only these samples hold residual infectivity and therefore an increased risk of virus transmission at the moment of being tested.

SUBMITTER: Zupin L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9022615 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison between nucleic acid amplification tests, antigen immunofluorescence assay, and in vitro infectivity in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.

Zupin Luisa L Fontana Francesco F Clemente Libera L Ruscio Maurizio M Crovella Sergio S

Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] 20220421 3

The number of SARS-CoV-2 detection tests requested to the laboratories has dramatically increased together with an urgent need to release reliable responses in a very short time. The two options taken into consideration and analyzed in the current study were the point-of-care test (POCT) based on the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) and the Antigen (Ag) rapid test. The POCT-NAAT-based assay was compared with a rapid antigen test of nasopharyngeal swab samples. If the specimen tested positi ...[more]

PMID: 35446012

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundManagement and control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) relies on reliable diagnostic testing.ObjectivesTo evaluate the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for the diagnosis of coronavirus infections.Data sourcesPubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Open Grey and conference proceeding until May 2019. PubMed and medRxiv were updated for COVID-19 on 31st August 2020.Study eligibilityStudies were eligible if they reported on agreement rates between different NAATs using clinical samples.ParticipantsSymptomatic patients with suspected upper or lower respiratory tract coronavirus infection.MethodsThe new NAAT was defined as the index test and the existing NAAT as reference standard. Data were extracted independently in duplicate. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Confidence regions (CRs) surrounding summary sensitivity/specificity pooled by bivariate meta-analysis are reported. Heterogeneity was assessed using meta-regression.ResultsFifty-one studies were included, 22 of which included 10 181 persons before COVID-19 and 29 including 8742 persons diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The overall summary sensitivity was 89.1% (95%CR 84.0-92.7%) and specificity 98.9% (95%CR 98.0-99.4%). Nearly all the studies evaluated different PCRs as both index and reference standards. Real-time RT PCR assays resulted in significantly higher sensitivity than other tests. Reference standards at high risk of bias possibly exaggerated specificity. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of studies evaluating SARS-COV-2 were 90.4% (95%CR 83.7-94.5%) and 98.1% (95%CR 95.9-99.2), respectively. SARS-COV-2 studies using samples from the lower respiratory tract, real-time RT-PCR, and tests targeting the N or S gene or more than one gene showed higher sensitivity, and assays based on reverse transcriptase loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), especially when targeting only the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) gene, showed significantly lower sensitivity compared to other studies.ConclusionsPooling all studies to date shows that on average 10% of patients with coronavirus infections might be missed with PCR tests. Variables affecting sensitivity and specificity can be used for test selection and development.

Dataset Information

Comparison between nucleic acid amplification tests, antigen immunofluorescence assay, and in vitro infectivity in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.

Publications

Comparison between nucleic acid amplification tests, antigen immunofluorescence assay, and in vitro infectivity in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets