Comparative analysis of antigen and molecular tests for the detection of Sars-CoV-2 and related variants: A study on 4266 samples.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
The present study compared the performance of the Lumipulse G Sars-CoV-2 Ag kit with the TaqPath COVID-19 RT-PCR CE IVD kit.Methods
The study was conducted on 4266 naso-oropharyngeal swabs. Samples were subjected to antigen RT-PCR tests for the detection of Sars-CoV-2 and related variants. Statistical analyses were conducted in R software.Results
We found 503 positives (including 138 H69-V70 deletion carriers) and 3763 negatives by RT-PCR, whereas 538 positives and 3728 negatives were obtained by antigen testing. We achieved empirical and binormal AU-ROCs of 0.920 and 0.990, accuracy of 0.960, sensitivity of 0.866, specificity of 0.973, positive and negative predictive values of 0.810 and 0.980. We obtained a positive correlation between viral loads and antigen levels (R2 = 0.81), finding a complete concordance for high viral loads (log10 copies/mL > 5.4). Antigen levels > 222 pg/mL were found to be reliable in assigning positive samples (p < 0.01). Concerning variant carriers, antigen test detected them with the same accuracy as other positive samples.Conclusions
Molecular and antigen tests should be evaluated regarding the prevalence of the area. In case of low prevalence, antigen testing can be employed as a first-line screening for the timely identification of affected individuals with high viral load, also if carriers of Sars-CoV-2 variants.
SUBMITTER: Caputo V
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8053214 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundViral diversity presents an ongoing challenge for diagnostic tests, which need to accurately detect all circulating variants. The Abbott Global Surveillance program monitors severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants and their impact on diagnostic test performance.ObjectivesTo evaluate the capacity of Abbott molecular, antigen, and serologic assays to detect circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants, including all current variants of concern (VOC): B.1.1.7 (alpha), B.1.351 (beta), P.1 (gamma) and B.1.617.2 (delta).Study designDilutions of variant virus cultures (B.1.1.7, B.1.351, B.1.429, B.1.526.1, B.1.526.2, B.1.617.1, B.1.617.2, P.1, R.1 and control isolate WA1) and a panel of N = 248 clinical samples from patients with sequence confirmed variant infections (B.1.1.7, B.1.351, B.1.427, B.1.429, B.1.526, B.1.526.1, B.1.526.2, P.1, P.2, R.1) were evaluated on at least one assay: Abbott ID NOW COVID-19, m2000 RealTime SARS-CoV-2, Alinity m SARS-CoV-2, and Alinity m Resp-4-Plex molecular assays; the BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card and Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device; and the ARCHITECT/Alinity i SARS-CoV-2 IgG and AdviseDx IgM assays, Panbio COVID-19 IgG assay, and ARCHITECT/Alinity i AdviseDx SARS-CoV-2 IgG II assay.ResultsConsistent with in silico predictions, each molecular and antigen assay detected VOC virus cultures with equivalent sensitivity to the WA1 control strain. Notably, 100% of all tested variant patient specimens were detected by molecular assays (N = 197 m2000, N = 88 Alinity m, N = 99 ID NOW), and lateral flow assays had a sensitivity of >94% for specimens with genome equivalents (GE) per device above 4 log (85/88, Panbio; 54/57 Binax). Furthermore, Abbott antibody assays detected IgG and IgM in 94-100% of sera from immune competent B.1.1.7 patients 15-26 days after symptom onset.ConclusionsThese data confirm variant detection for 11 SARS-CoV-2 assays, which is consistent with each assay target region being highly conserved. Importantly, alpha, beta, gamma, and delta VOCs were detected by molecular and antigen assays, indicating that these tests may be suitable for widescale use where VOCs predominate.
| S-EPMC8770247 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Since autumn 2020, rapid antigen tests (RATs) have been implemented in several countries as an important pillar of the national testing strategy to rapidly screen for infections on site during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The current surge in infection rates around the globe is driven by the variant of concern (VoC) omicron (B.1.1.529). Here, we evaluated the performance of nine SARS-CoV-2 RATs in a single-centre laboratory study. We examined a total of 115 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative and 166 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive respiratory swab samples (101 omicron, 65 delta (B.1.617.2)) collected from October 2021 until January 2022 as well as cell culture-expanded clinical isolates of both VoCs. In an assessment of the analytical sensitivity in clinical specimen, the 50% limit of detection (LoD50) ranged from 1.77 × 106 to 7.03 × 107 RNA copies subjected to the RAT for omicron compared to 1.32 × 105 to 2.05 × 106 for delta. To score positive in these point-of-care tests, up to 10-fold (LoD50) or 101-fold (LoD95) higher virus loads were required for omicron- compared to delta-containing samples. The rates of true positive test results for omicron samples in the highest virus load category (Ct values < 25) ranged between 31.4 and 77.8%, while they dropped to 0-8.3% for samples with intermediate Ct values (25-30). Of note, testing of expanded virus stocks suggested a comparable RAT sensitivity of both VoCs, questioning the predictive value of this type of in vitro-studies for clinical performance. Given their importance for national test strategies in the current omicron wave, awareness must be increased for the reduced detection rate of omicron infections by RATs and a short list of suitable RATs that fulfill the minimal requirements of performance should be rapidly disclosed.
| S-EPMC8858605 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe objective of this study was to develop a scalable approach for direct comparison of the analytical sensitivities of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antigen point-of-care tests (AgPOCTs) to rapidly identify poor-performing products.MethodsWe present a methodology for quick assessment of the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 AgPOCTs suitable for quality evaluation of many different products. We established reference samples with high, medium, and low SARS-CoV-2 viral loads along with a SARS-CoV-2 negative control sample. Test samples were used to semi-quantitatively assess the analytical sensitivities of 32 different commercial AgPOCTs in a head-to-head comparison.ResultsAmong 32 SARS-CoV-2 AgPOCTs tested, we observe sensitivity differences across a broad range of viral loads (9.8 × 108 to 1.8 × 105 SARS-CoV-2 genome copies per ml). 23 AgPOCTs detected the Ct25 test sample (1.6 × 106 copies/ml), while only five tests detected the Ct28 test sample (1.8 × 105 copies/ml). In the low-range of analytical sensitivity, we found three saliva spit tests only delivering positive results for the Ct21 sample (2.7 × 107 copies/ml). Comparison with published data supports our AgPOCT ranking. Importantly, we identified an AgPOCT widely offered, which did not reliably recognize the sample with the highest viral load (Ct16 test sample with 9.8 × 108 copies/ml) leading to serious doubts about its usefulness in SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics.ConclusionThe results show that the rapid sensitivity assessment procedure presented here provides useful estimations on the analytical sensitivities of 32 AgPOCTs and identified a widely-spread AgPOCT with concerningly low sensitivity.
| S-EPMC8994089 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceVariants of SARS-CoV-2 have sequence variations in the viral genome that may alter the accuracy of rapid diagnostic tests.ObjectiveTo assess the analytical and clinical accuracy of 2 rapid diagnostic tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 during 3 phases of variants.Design, setting, and participantsThis diagnostic study included participants aged 18 years or older who reported onset of COVID-19-like symptoms within the prior 5 days and were tested at multiple COVID-19 testing locations in King County, Washington, from February 17, 2021, to January 11, 2022, during 3 distinct phases of SARS-CoV-2 infection (pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron).InterventionsTwo anterior nasal swab specimens were collected from each participant-1 for onsite testing by the SCoV-2 Ag Detect Rapid Self-Test and 1 for reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing.Main outcomes and measuresThe analytical limit of detection of the 2 rapid diagnostic tests (SCoV-2 Ag Detect Rapid Self-Test and BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card) was assessed using Omicron (B.1.1.529/BA.1), Delta (B.1.617.2), and a wild-type (USA-WA1/2020) variant. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of clinical testing for the rapid antigen tests were compared with that of RT-PCR testing.ResultsA total of 802 participants were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 37.3 [13.3] years; 467 [58.2%] female), 424 (52.9%) of whom had not received COVID-19 vaccination and presented a median of 2 days (IQR, 1-3 days) from symptom onset. Overall, no significant differences were found in the analytical limit of detection or clinical diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen testing across SARS-CoV-2 variants. The estimated limit of detection for both rapid nucleocapsid antigen tests was at or below a 50% tissue culture infectious dose of 62.5, and the positive percent agreement of the SCoV-2 Ag Detect Rapid Self-Test ranged from 81.2% (95% CI, 69.5%-89.9%) to 90.7% (95% CI, 77.9%-97.4%) across the 3 phases of variants. The diagnostic sensitivity increased for nasal swabs with a lower cycle threshold by RT-PCR, which correlates with a higher viral load.Conclusions and relevanceIn this diagnostic study, analytical and clinical performance data demonstrated accuracy of 2 rapid antigen tests among adults with COVID-19 symptoms across 3 phases of SARS-CoV-2 variants. The findings suggest that home-based rapid antigen testing programs may be an important intervention to reduce global SARS-CoV-2 transmission.
| S-EPMC9403778 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic continues to be a concern and keeps global health authorities on alert. The RT-PCR technique has been the gold-standard assay for detecting the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, rapid antigen tests (RATs) have been widely used to increase the number of tests faster and more efficiently in the population. Nevertheless, the appearance of new viral variants, with genomic mutations associated with greater contagiousness and immune evasion, highlights the need to evaluate the sensitivity of these RATs. This report evaluates the sensitivity of SD Biosensor-Roche, Panbio™, and Clinitest® RATs widely used in Santiago de Chile in the detection of the Omicron variant from Nasopharyngeal samples (NPSs), the most predominant SARS-CoV-2 variant in Chile and the world. SD Biosensor-Roche shows a detection sensitivity of 95.7% in the viral amplification range of 20 ≤ Cq < 25, while Panbio™ and Clinitest® show 100% and 91.3%, respectively. In the viral amplification ranges of 25 ≤ Cq < 30, the detection sensitivity decreased to 28% for SD Biosensor-Roche, 32% for Panbio™, and 72% for Clinitest®. This study indicates that the tested RATs have high sensitivity in detecting the Omicron variant of concern (VOC) at high viral loads. By contrast, its sensitivity decreases at low viral loads. Therefore, it is suggested to limit the use of RATs as an active search method, considering that infections in patients are increasingly associated with lower viral loads of SARS-CoV-2. These antecedents could prevent contagion outbreaks and reduce the underestimation of the current Omicron variant circulation at the local level.
| S-EPMC9631301 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) initiated global health care challenges such as the necessity for new diagnostic tests. Diagnosis by real-time PCR remains the gold-standard method, yet economical and technical issues prohibit its use in points of care (POC) or for repetitive tests in populations. A lot of effort has been exerted in developing, using, and validating antigen-based tests (ATs). Since individual studies focus on few methodological aspects of ATs, a comparison of different tests is needed. Herein, we perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from articles in PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv. The bivariate method for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests pooling sensitivities and specificities was used. Most of the AT types for SARS-CoV-2 were lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA), fluorescence immunoassays (FIA), and chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassays (CLEIA). We identified 235 articles containing data from 220,049 individuals. All ATs using nasopharyngeal samples show better performance than those with throat saliva (72% compared to 40%). Moreover, the rapid methods LFIA and FIA show about 10% lower sensitivity compared to the laboratory-based CLEIA method (72% compared to 82%). In addition, rapid ATs show higher sensitivity in symptomatic patients compared to asymptomatic patients, suggesting that viral load is a crucial parameter for ATs performed in POCs. Finally, all methods perform with very high specificity, reaching around 99%. LFIA tests, though with moderate sensitivity, appear as the most attractive method for use in POCs and for performing seroprevalence studies.
| S-EPMC9221910 | biostudies-literature
Project description:During COVID19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests (RATs) were marketed with minimal or no performance data. We aimed at closing this gap by determining technical sensitivities and specificities of 30 RATs prior to market release. We developed a standardized technical validation protocol and assessed 30 RATs across four diagnostic laboratories. RATs were tested in parallel using the Standard Q® (SD Biosensor/Roche) assay as internal reference. We used left-over universal transport/optimum media from nasopharyngeal swabs of 200 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative and 100 PCR-positive tested patients. Transport media was mixed with assay buffer and applied to RATs according to manufacturer instructions. Sensitivities were determined according to viral loads. Specificity of at least 99% and sensitivity of 95%, 90%, and 80% had to be reached for 107, 106, 105 virus copies/mL, respectively. Sensitivities ranged from 43.5% to 98.6%, 62.3% to 100%, and 66.7% to 100% at 105, 106, 107 copies/mL, respectively. Automated assay readers such as ExDia or LumiraDx showed higher performances. Specificities ranged from 88.8% to 100%. Only 15 of 30 (50%) RATs passed our technical validation. Due to the high failure rate of 50%, mainly caused by lack of sensitivity, we recommend a thorough validation of RATs prior to market release.
| S-EPMC8704317 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAntigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 offer new opportunities for testing in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) are the reference sample type, but oropharyngeal swabs (OPS) may be a more acceptable sample type in some patients.MethodsWe conducted a prospective study in a single screening center to assess the diagnostic performance of the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (Abbott) on OPS compared with reverse-transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) using NPS during the second pandemic wave in Switzerland.Results402 outpatients were enrolled in a COVID-19 screening center, of whom 168 (41.8%) had a positive RT-qPCR test. The oropharyngeal Ag-RDT clinical sensitivity compared to nasopharyngeal RT-qPCR was 81% (95%CI: 74.2-86.6). Two false positives were noted out of the 234 RT-qPCR negative individuals, which resulted in a clinical specificity of 99.1% (95%CI: 96.9-99.9) for the Ag-RDT. For cycle threshold values ≤ 26.7 (≥ 1E6 SARS-CoV-2 genomes copies/mL, a presumed cut-off for infectious virus), 96.3% sensitivity (95%CI: 90.7-99.0%) was obtained with the Ag-RDT using OPS.InterpretationBased on our findings, the diagnostic performance of the Panbio™ Covid-19 RDT with OPS samples, if taken by a trained person and high requirements regarding quality of the specimen, meet the criteria required by the WHO for Ag-RDTs (sensitivity ≥80% and specificity ≥97%) in a high incidence setting in symptomatic individuals.
| S-EPMC8224876 | biostudies-literature
Project description:SARS-CoV-2 viral antigen detection may be an interesting alternative to RT-PCR for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection as a less laborious or expensive method but requires validation. This study aimed to compare the performance of the DiaSorin™ LiaisonXL automated quantitative antigen test (QAT) and the AAZ™ rapid antigen test (RAT) to the DiaSorin™ MDX RT-PCR assay. A total of 242 nasopharyngeal samples were tested at La Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital (Paris, France). Performances for the detection of variants of SARS-CoV-2 were further investigated. RATs were visually read for qualitative results and band intensity was determined. Overall sensitivity was 63.2% for QAT and 58.6% for RAT. For RT-PCR Ct value 25, sensitivity was 89.8% for both tests. Both tests showed comparable sensitivity for detection of variants. There was a strong relationship between antigen concentration and band positivity. On the same set of samples these tests share similar performances.
| S-EPMC8775255 | biostudies-literature
Project description:During 2022, the COVID-19 pandemic has been dominated by the variant of concern (VoC) Omicron (B.1.1.529) and its rapidly emerging subvariants, including Omicron-BA.1 and -BA.2. Rapid antigen tests (RATs) are part of national testing strategies to identify SARS-CoV-2 infections on site in a community setting or to support layman's diagnostics at home. We and others have recently demonstrated an impaired RAT detection of infections caused by Omicron-BA.1 compared to Delta. Here, we evaluated the performance of five SARS-CoV-2 RATs in a single-centre laboratory study examining a total of 140 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive respiratory swab samples, 70 Omicron-BA.1 and 70 Omicron-BA.2, as well as 52 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative swabs collected from March 8th until April 10th, 2022. One test did not meet minimal criteria for specificity. In an assessment of the analytical sensitivity in clinical specimen, the 50% limit of detection (LoD50) ranged from 4.2 × 104 to 9.2 × 105 RNA copies subjected to the RAT for Omicron-BA.1 compared to 1.3 × 105 to 1.5 × 106 for Omicron-BA.2. Overall, intra-assay differences for the detection of Omicron-BA.1-containing and Omicron-BA.2-containing samples were non-significant, while a marked overall heterogeneity among the five RATs was observed. To score positive in these point-of-care tests, up to 22-fold (LoD50) or 68-fold (LoD95) higher viral loads were required for the worst performing compared to the best performing RAT. The rates of true-positive test results for these Omicron subvariant-containing samples in the highest viral load category (Ct values < 25) ranged between 44.7 and 91.1%, while they dropped to 8.7 to 22.7% for samples with intermediate Ct values (25-30). In light of recent reports on the emergence of two novel Omicron-BA.2 subvariants, Omicron-BA.2.75 and BJ.1, awareness must be increased for the overall reduced detection rate and marked differences in RAT performance for these Omicron subvariants.
| S-EPMC9660148 | biostudies-literature