Dataset Information

Evaluation of Rapid Antigen Detection Kits for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529

ABSTRACT:

Background

Currently, there is a lack of studies evaluating rapid antigen detection (RAD) kits to detect SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529.

Objective

To evaluate the analytical sensitivity of seven RAD kits to detect SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529.

Study design

The analytical sensitivity was determined by means of limit of detection (LOD). A dilution set using a respiratory specimen collected from a COVID-19 patient infected with SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 was prepared. RT-PCR was used as a reference method.

Results

The LOD results showed that all seven RAD kits had comparable analytical sensitivity for detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529.

Conclusions

The RAD kits selected in the current study may be used for first-line screening of the recently emerged SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529.

SUBMITTER: Mak G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9153237 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently finally determined in laboratory settings by real-time reverse-transcription polymerase-chain-reaction (rt-PCR). However, simple testing with immediately available results are crucial to gain control over COVID-19. The aim was to evaluate such a point-of-care antigen rapid test (AG-rt) device in its performance compared to laboratory-based rt-PCR testing in COVID-19 suspected, symptomatic patients.MethodsFor this prospective study, two specimens each of 541 symptomatic female (54.7%) and male (45.3%) patients aged between 18 and 95 years tested at five emergency departments (ED, n = 296) and four primary healthcare centres (PHC, n = 245), were compared, using AG-rt (positive/negative/invalid) and rt-PCR (positive/negative and cycle threshold, Ct) to diagnose SARS-CoV-2. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and likelihood ratios (LR+/-) of the AG-rt were assessed.ResultsDifferences between ED and PHC were detected regarding gender, age, symptoms, disease prevalence, and diagnostic performance. Overall, 174 (32.2%) were tested positive on AG-rt and 213 (39.4%) on rt-PCR. AG correctly classified 91.7% of all rt-PCR positive cases with a sensitivity of 80.3%, specificity of 99.1%, PPV of 98.3, NPV of 88.6%, LR(+) of 87.8, and LR(-) of 0.20. The highest sensitivities and specificities of AG-rt were detected in PHC (sensitivity: 84.4%, specificity: 100.0%), when using Ct of 30 as cut-off (sensitivity: 92.5%, specificity: 97.8%), and when symptom onset was within the first three days (sensitivity: 82.9%, specificity: 99.6%).ConclusionsThe highest sensitivity was detected with a high viral load. Our findings suggest that AG-rt are comparable to rt-PCR to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 suspected symptomatic patients presenting both at emergency departments and primary health care centres.

Project description:BackgroundDengue virus (DENV) infection is one of the biggest challenges for human health in the world. In addition, a secondary DENV infection sometimes causes dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF), which frequently leads to death. For this reason, accurate diagnosis record management is useful for prediction of DHF. Therefore, the demand for DENV rapid diagnosis tests (RDTs) is increasing because these tests are easy and rapid to use. However, commercially available RDTs often show low sensitivity for DENV and cross-reactivity against other flaviviruses, especially Zika virus (ZIKV).MethodsWe developed two types of novel DENV non-structural protein 1 (NS1) detection RDTs, designated TKK-1st and TKK-2nd kits. Specificities of the monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) used in these kits were confirmed by enzyme-linked immuno-sorbent assay (ELISA), dot blot, and western blot using recombinant NS1 proteins and synthetic peptides. For evaluation of sensitivity, specificity, and cross-reactivity of the novel DENV NS1 RDTs, we first used cultured DENV and other flaviviruses, ZIKV and Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV). We then used clinical specimens obtained in Bangladesh in 2017 for further evaluation of kit sensitivity and specificity in comparison with commercially available RDTs. In addition, RNA extracted from sera were used for viral genome sequencing and genotyping.ResultsEpitopes of three out of four MAbs used in the two novel RDTs were located in amino acid positions 100 to 122 in the NS1 protein, a region that shows low levels of homology with other flaviviruses. Our new kits showed high levels of sensitivity against various serotypes and genotypes of DENV and exhibited high levels of specificity without cross-reactivity against ZIKV and JEV. In clinical specimens, our RDTs showed sensitivities of 96.0% (145/151, TKK-1st kit) and 96.7% (146/151, TKK-2nd kit), and specificities of 98.0% (98/100, TKK-1st kit and TKK-2nd kit). On the other hand, in the case of the commercially available SD Bioline RDT, sensitivity was 83.4% (126/151) and specificity was 99.0% (99/100) against the same clinical specimens.ConclusionsOur novel DENV NS1-targeting RDTs demonstrated high levels of sensitivity and lacked cross-reactivity against ZIKV and JEV compared with commercially available RDTs.

Project description:BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 is a newly emerged coronavirus, causing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in December, 2019. As drugs and vaccines of COVID-19 remain in development, accurate virus detection plays a crucial role in the current public health crisis. Quantitative real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) kits have been reliably used for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, whereas isothermal nucleic acid amplification-based point-of-care automated kits have also been considered as a simpler and rapid alternative. However, as these kits have only been developed and applied clinically within a short timeframe, their clinical performance has not been adequately evaluated to date. We describe a comparative study between a newly developed cross-priming isothermal amplification (CPA) kit (Kit A) and five RT-qPCR kits (Kits B-F) to evaluate their sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and accuracy.MethodsFifty-two clinical samples were used including throat swabs (n = 30), nasal swabs (n = 7), nasopharyngeal swabs (n = 7) and sputum specimens (n = 8), comprising confirmed (n = 26) and negative cases (n = 26). SARS-CoV-2 detection was simultaneously performed on each sample using six nucleic acid amplification kits. The sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive values (PPV/NPV) and the accuracy for each kit were assessed using clinical manifestation and molecular diagnoses as the reference standard. Reproducibility for RT-qPCR kits was evaluated in triplicate by three different operators using a SARS-CoV-2 RNA-positive sample. On the basis of the six kits' evaluation results, CPA kit (Kit A) and two RT-qPCR Kits (Kit B and F) were applied to the SARS-CoV-2 detection in close-contacts of COVID-19 patients.ResultsFor Kit A, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV/NPV and accuracy were 100%. Among the five RT-qPCR kits, Kits B, C and F had good agreement with the clinical diagnostic reports (Kappa ≥ 0.75); Kits D and E were less congruent (0.4 ≤ Kappa < 0.75). Differences between all kits were statistically significant (P < 0.001). The reproducibility of RT-qPCR kits was determined using a coefficients of variation (CV) between 0.95% and 2.57%, indicating good reproducibility.ConclusionsThis is the first comparative study to evaluate CPA and RT-qPCR kits' specificity and sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and could serve as a reference for clinical laboratories, thus informing testing protocols amid the rapidly progressing COVID-19 pandemic.