Unknown

Dataset Information

0

Performance of the LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay vs. SARS-CoV-2-RT-PCR.


ABSTRACT: We aimed to evaluate the LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay (DiaSorin), comparing its performance to real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. 182 (110 PCR-positive and 72 PCR-negative) nasopharyngeal swab samples were taken for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. RT-PCR and antigen assay were performed using the same material. The sensitivity and specificity of the antigen assay were calculated for different cut-offs, with RT-PCR serving as the reference method. Stored clinical samples that were positive for other respiratory viruses were tested to evaluate cross-reactivity. One third (33/110, 30%) were falsely classified as negative, while no false positives were found using the 200 TCID50/mL cut-off for the SARS-CoV-2 antigen as proposed by the manufacturer. This corresponded to a sensitivity of 70% (60-78%) and a specificity of 100% (94-100%). Lowering the cut-off for positivity of the antigen assay to 22.79 or 57.68 TCID50/mL increased the sensitivity of the method, reaching a sensitivity of 92% (85-96%) vs. 79% (70-86%) and a specificity of 81% (69-89%) vs. 99% (91-100%), respectively. The antigen assay reliably detected samples with high SARS-CoV-2 viral loads (≥106 copies SARS-CoV-2/mL), while it cannot differentiate between negative and low positive samples. Cross-reactivity toward other respiratory viruses was not detected.

SUBMITTER: Fiedler M 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8228578 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

Similar Datasets

| S-EPMC9911158 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC7435359 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC7598596 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC7665091 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC8036167 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC9863853 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC7325174 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC7323686 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC9233876 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC7119649 | biostudies-literature