Evaluation of six anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody test kits and practical approaches to optimize the diagnostic performance.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ko JH
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7997140 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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:BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which has caused a global pandemic beginning in 2020, can be detected by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). However, owing to the urgent need for a large number of detection kits, the time spent researching and developing these kits has been shortened during the pandemic, and the kits that are being used commercially have not undergone full and independent evaluation. To ensure the accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 test results, performance verification of commercial Real-Time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) kits is required.MethodsThe performance of five commercial RT-qPCR diagnostic kits for SARS-CoV-2 used in China was evaluated using a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) RNA liquid performance verification reference product-manufactured by Guangzhou Bondson (BDS) Biotechnology Co., Ltd.,Guangzhou, China-that uses droplet digital RT-PCR technology combined with fluorescence quantitative PCR. The five kits of Novel Coronavirus 2019-nCoV nucleic acid detection kit (RT-qPCR method) evaluated were Da An (Da An Gene Co., Ltd. of Sun Yat-sen University), Liferiver (Shanghai ZJ Bio-Tech Co., Ltd.), Kinghawk (Beijing Kinghawk Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.), eDiagnosis (Wuhan Easy Diagnosis Biomedicine Co., Ltd.), and Maccura (Maccura Biotechnology Co., Ltd.). Performance verification criteria included the coincidence rate, limit of detection (LoD), cross-reactivity, precision, and anti-interference. Finally, through the BDS performance verification reference product kit, clinical samples are used to verify its clinical diagnostic efficacy.ResultsThe coincidence rate was 100% for all kits except for Kinghawk, which was 95%. The LoD for Da An, eDiagnosis and Maccura was 250copies/mL, and it was 1000 copies/ml for Liferiver. Kinghawk was not able to detect its advertised LoD of 500 copies/ml. The cross-reactivity test results were all negative. Moreover, all kits had a coefficient of variation less than 5%; however, Liferiver showed the best precision. Da An, Liferiver, and eDiagnosis showed higher sensitivity to the nucleocapsid (N) gene than they did to the open reading frame (ORF) 1ab genes. Anti-interference results for all five kits were positive. The results of clinical diagnostic efficacy were that the specificity of the four kits was 1.000 (0.877-1.000), the sensitivity of Da An was 1.000 (0.850-1.000), Liferiver was 0.964 (0.798-0.998), Maccura was 0.893 (0.706-0.972), and eDiagnosis was 0.857 (0.664-0.953).ConclusionsAll commercial RT-qPCR diagnostic kits for SARS-CoV-2 passed the BDS performance verification, except for Kinghawk (batch No:20200608113) which failed to detect the LoD of 500 copies/mL. Da An and Liferiver have excellent clinical diagnostic specificity and sensitivity. This study can provide guidance for the selection or optimization of RT-qPCR diagnostic test kits for SARS-CoV-2.
| S-EPMC8662914 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:To compare the diagnostic efficacy between two different real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test kits for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid detection and provide references for laboratories. METHODS:Throat swab samples from 18 hospitalized patients were clinically diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 100 hospitalized patients without COVID-19 were collected. SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid was detected in throat swab samples with RT-PCR test kits from Sansure Biotech Inc (Hunan, China) and Shanghai BioGerm Medical Biotechnology Co., Ltd.(Shanghai, China). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and kappa value were analyzed, and three parallel tests were performed with three weakly positive samples. RESULTS:The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and kappa value of the Sansure PCR kit were 0.833, 1.000, 1.000, 0.971, and 0.894, respectively, and the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and kappa value of the BioGerm PCR kit were 0.944, 1.000, 1.000, 0.990, and 0.966, respectively. For the three parallel tests, the coefficient of variation value of the BioGerm PCR kit in all three samples was the smallest for both the ORF1ab and N gene. CONCLUSION:The detection efficacy of the BioGerm PCR kit for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection was relatively higher than that of the Sansure PCR kit.
| S-EPMC7536918 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To control the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemics, it is necessary to have easy-to-use, reliable diagnostic tests available. The nasopharyngeal sampling method being often uncomfortable, nasal sampling could prove to be a viable alternative to the reference sampling method. We performed a multicentre, prospective validation study of the COVID-VIRO® test, using a nasal swab sampling method, in a point-of-care setting. In addition, we performed a multicentre, prospective, and usability study to validate the use of the rapid antigen nasal diagnostic test by laypersons. In March 2021, 239 asymptomatic and symptomatic patients were included in the validation study. Compared with reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction on nasopharyngeal samples, the sensitivity and specificity of the COVID-VIRO® Antigen test combined with a nasal sampling method were evaluated as 96.88% and 100%, respectively. A total of 101 individuals were included in the usability study. Among these, 99% of the participants rated the instructions material as good, 98% of the subjects executed the test procedure well, and 98% of the participants were able to correctly interpret the test results. This study validates the relevance of COVID-VIRO® as a diagnostic tool from nasal specimens as well as its usability in the general population. COVID-VIRO® diagnostic performances and ease of use make it suitable for widespread utilization.
| S-EPMC8426870 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The first pillar of the UNAIDS 90-90-90 goal seeks to accurately identify persons living with HIV (PLHIV), a process that is predicated on facilities having the necessary HIV tests available to perform the task. In many rural settings, the identification of PLHIV is accomplished through a two-step process involving the sequential use of 2 separate rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs). Inadequate inventory of either test has ramifications for the success of HIV-related programs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the inventory levels of HIV RDT kits at specific healthcare facilities in Zambézia province, Mozambique. METHODS:Using facility-level pharmacy stock surveillance data from October 2015 through September 2016, we assessed the inventory levels of HIV RDTs at 75 health facilities in 8 districts within Zambézia province, Mozambique. Using programmatically established categories (good, sufficient, threatened, or stockout), defined in conjunction with the provincial health authorities, descriptive statistics were performed to determine inventory control of HIV RDTs at the district and health facility levels. Monthly proportions of adequate (good + sufficient) inventory were calculated for each district to identify inventory trends over the evaluation period. To assess whether the proportion of inadequate stocks differed between RDT, a mixed-effects logistic regression was conducted, with inadequate inventory status as the outcome of interest. RESULTS:When viewed as a whole, the inventory of each test kit was reported as being at adequate levels more than 89% of the time across the 75 facilities. However, disaggregated analysis revealed significant variability in the inventory levels of HIV RDTs at the district level. Specifically, the districts of Inhassunge, Namacurra, and Pebane reported inadequate inventory levels (threatened + stockout), of one or both test kits, for more than 10% of the study period. In addition, a disparity between inventory levels of each test kit was identified, with the odds of reporting inadequate inventory levels of the confirmatory test (Uni-Gold™) being approximately 1.8-fold greater than the initial test (Determine™) (odds ratio: 1.82, 95% CI: 1.40-2.38). CONCLUSION:As Test and Treat programs evolve, a significant emphasis should be placed on the "test" component of the strategy, beginning with assurances that health facilities have the adequate inventory of RDT necessary to meet the needs of their community. As national policy-makers rely predominantly on data from the upstream arm of the supply chain, it is unlikely the disparity between inventory levels of HIV RDTs identified at individual districts and specific health facilities would have been recognized. Moving forward, our findings point to a need for (1) renewed efforts reinforcing appropriate downstream forecasting of essential medicines and diagnostic tests in general and for Uni-Gold™ test kits specifically, and (2) simple metrics that may be routinely collected at all health facilities and which may then easily and quickly flow upstream so that policy-makers may optimally allocate resources.
| S-EPMC6571497 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The ongoing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has led to the design and development of multiple reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction kits aimed to facilitate the rapid scale-up of molecular testing for massive screening. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of nine commercial kits, which showed optimal performance and high discriminatory power. However, we observed differences in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and E gene Ct Values and discuss these results in light of the influence of SARS-CoV-2 genetic variability and its potential impact in current molecular diagnostic assays.
| S-EPMC8242747 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8140580 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSerial screening is critical for restricting spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by facilitating timely identification of infected individuals to interrupt transmission. Variation in sensitivity of different diagnostic tests at different stages of infection has not been well documented.MethodsIn a longitudinal study of 43 adults newly infected with SARS-CoV-2, all provided daily saliva and nasal swabs for quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), Quidel SARS Sofia antigen fluorescent immunoassay (FIA), and live virus culture.ResultsBoth RT-qPCR and Quidel SARS Sofia antigen FIA peaked in sensitivity during the period in which live virus was detected in nasal swabs, but sensitivity of RT-qPCR tests rose more rapidly prior to this period. We also found that serial testing multiple times per week increases the sensitivity of antigen tests.ConclusionsRT-qPCR tests are more effective than antigen tests at identifying infected individuals prior to or early during the infectious period and thus for minimizing forward transmission (given timely results reporting). All tests showed >98% sensitivity for identifying infected individuals if used at least every 3 days. Daily screening using antigen tests can achieve approximately 90% sensitivity for identifying infected individuals while they are viral culture positive.
| S-EPMC8448437 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Early diagnosis is still as crucial as the initial stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. As RT-PCR sometimes is not feasible in developing nations or rural areas, health professionals may use a rapid antigen test (RAT) to lessen the load of diagnosis. However, the efficacy of RAT is yet to be investigated thoroughly. Hence, we tried to evaluate the overall performance of RAT in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Based on our PROSPERO registered protocol (CRD42021231432), we searched online databases (i.e., PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science) and analysed overall pooled specificity and sensitivity of RAT along with study quality, publication bias, heterogeneity and more. The overall pooled specificity and sensitivity of RAT were detected as 99.4% (95% CI: 99.1-99.8; I2 = 90%) and 68.4% (95% CI: 60.8-75.9; I2 = 98%), respectively. In subgroup analyses, nasopharyngeal specimens and symptomatic patient's samples were more sensitive in RAT, while cycle threshold (Ct) values were found to have an inverse relationship with sensitivity. In the European and American populations, RAT showed better performance. Although the sensitivity of RAT is yet to be improved, it could still be an alternative in places with poor laboratory set up. Nevertheless, the negative samples of RAT can be re-tested using RT-PCR to reduce false negative results.
| S-EPMC8397079 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Widespread testing for the presence of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 in individuals remains vital for controlling the COVID-19 pandemic prior to the advent of an effective treatment. Challenges in testing can be traced to an initial shortage of supplies, expertise and/or instrumentation necessary to detect the virus by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), the most robust, sensitive, and specific assay currently available. Here we show that academic biochemistry and molecular biology laboratories equipped with appropriate expertise and infrastructure can replicate commercially available SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR test kits and backfill pipeline shortages. The Georgia Tech COVID-19 Test Kit Support Group, composed of faculty, staff, and trainees across the biotechnology quad at Georgia Institute of Technology, synthesized multiplexed primers and probes and formulated a master mix composed of enzymes and proteins produced in-house. Our in-house kit compares favorably to a commercial product used for diagnostic testing. We also developed an environmental testing protocol to readily monitor surfaces across various campus laboratories for the presence of SARS-CoV-2. Our blueprint should be readily reproducible by research teams at other institutions, and our protocols may be modified and adapted to enable SARS-CoV-2 detection in more resource-limited settings.
| S-EPMC7402063 | biostudies-literature