Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

19 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Limit of detection in different matrices of 19 commercially available rapid antigen tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

ABSTRACT: In the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic there has been an increase of the use of antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT). The performance of Ag-RDT vary greatly between manufacturers and evaluating their analytical limit of detection (LOD) has become high priority. Here we describe a manufacturer-independent evaluation of the LOD of 19 marketed Ag-RDT using live SARS-CoV-2 spiked in different matrices: direct culture supernatant, a dry swab, and a swab in Amies. Additionally, the LOD using dry swab was investigated after 7 days' storage at - 80 °C of the SARS-CoV-2 serial dilutions. An LOD of ≈ 5.0 × 10² pfu/ml (1.0 × 10⁶ genome copies/ml) in culture media is defined as acceptable by the World Health Organization. Fourteen of 19 Ag-RDTs (ActiveXpress, Espline, Excalibur, Innova, Joysbio, Mologic, NowCheck, Orient, PanBio, RespiStrip, Roche, Standard-F, Standard-Q and Sure-Status) exceeded this performance criteria using direct culture supernatant applied to the Ag-RDT. Six Ag-RDT were not compatible with Amies media and a decreased sensitivity of 2 to 20-fold was observed for eleven tests on the stored dilutions at - 80 °C for 7 days. Here, we provide analytical sensitivity data to guide appropriate test and sample type selection for use and for future Ag-RDT evaluations.

SUBMITTER: Cubas-Atienzar AI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8443584 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Performance differences among commercially available antigen rapid tests for COVID-19 in Brazil

Project description:A rapid and accurate diagnosis is a crucial strategy for containing the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Considering the obstacles to upscaling the use of RT–qPCR, rapid tests based on antigen detection (Ag-RDT) have become an alternative to enhance mass testing, reducing the time for a prompt diagnosis and virus spreading. However, the performances of several commercially available Ag-RDTs have not yet been evaluated in several countries. Here, we evaluate the performance of eight Ag-RDTs available in Brazil to diagnose COVID-19. Patients admitted to tertiary hospitals with moderate or mild COVID-19 symptoms and presenting risk factors for severe disease were included. The tests were performed using a masked protocol, strictly following the manufacturer’s recommendations and were compared with RT–qPCR. The overall sensitivity of the tests ranged from 9.8 to 81.1%, and specificity greater than 83% was observed for all the evaluated tests. Overall, slight or fair agreement was observed between Ag-RDTs and RT–PCR, except for the Ag-RDT COVID-19 (Acro Biotech), in which moderate agreement was observed. Lower sensitivity of Ag-RDTs was observed for patients with cycle threshold > 25, indicating that the sensitivity was directly affected by viral load, whereas the effect of the disease duration was unclear. Despite the lower sensitivity of Ag-RDTs compared with RT–qPCR, its easy fulfillment and promptness still justify its use, even at hospital admission. However, the main advantage of Ag-RDTs seems to be the possibility of increasing access to the diagnosis of COVID-19 in patients with a high viral load, allowing immediate clinical management and reduction of infectivity and community transmission.

| S-EPMC9202877 | biostudies-literature

Pitfalls of commercially available HPV tests in HPV68a detection.

Project description:BackgroundHuman papillomavirus 68 (HPV68) is a probable carcinogenic HPV genotype which is included in almost all HPV screening assays and exists as two genetically variable subtypes (HPV68a and HPV68b). Routine HPV sample testing has shown that the cobas 4800 HPV Test (Roche) provides higher false-negative rates for HPV68 status than PapilloCheck HPV-Screening (Greiner Bio-One). The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of cobas 4800 in HPV68 detection.MethodsA total of 2,145 cervical/cervicovaginal samples from women aged 17-88 were tested for HPV68 status using the cobas 4800 and PapilloCheck HPV tests. Viral load was assessed by quantitative PCR in all of the HPV68-positive cases. HPV68a/b subtyping was performed with real-time PCR followed by high resolution melting curve analysis, and was subsequently confirmed by Sanger sequencing.ResultsCobas 4800 detected HPV positivity in only 13/33 HPV68 single-genotype infection cases. Viral load was comparable across both tested subgroups. HRM analysis and Sanger sequencing identified the HPV68a subtype in all of the 20 instances of cobas 4800 false negatives. HPV68a and HPV68b were detected in 3/13 and 10/13 cases identified as other HPV-positive by cobas 4800.ConclusionThe HPV68a subtype was missed by cobas 4800 in more than 85% of all HPV68a-positive cases. Therefore, commercially available assays may underestimate HPV68 prevalence.

| S-EPMC6681972 | biostudies-literature

Comparison of Eight Commercially Available Faecal Point-of-Care Tests for Detection of Canine Parvovirus Antigen.

Project description:A real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) is considered the gold standard for the laboratory diagnosis of canine parvovirus (CPV) infection but can only be performed in specialized laboratories. Several point-of-care tests (POCT), detecting CPV antigens in faeces within minutes, are commercially available. The aim of this study was to evaluate eight POCT in comparison with qPCR. Faecal samples of 150 dogs from three groups (H: 50 client-owned, healthy dogs, not vaccinated within the last four weeks; S: 50 shelter dogs, healthy, not vaccinated within the last four weeks; p = 50 dogs with clinical signs of CPV infection) were tested with eight POCT and qPCR. Practicability, sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV), as well as overall accuracy were determined. To assess the differences between and agreement among POCT, McNemar's test and Cohen's Kappa statistic were performed. Specificity and PPV were 100.0% in all POCT. Sensitivity varied from 22.9-34.3% overall and from 32.7-49.0% in group P. VetexpertRapidTestCPVAg® had the highest sensitivity (34.3% overall, 49.0% group P) and differed significantly from the 3 POCT with the lowest sensitivities (Fassisi®Parvo (27.7% overall, 36.7% group P), Primagnost®ParvoH+K (24.3% overall, 34.7% group P), FASTest®PARVOCard (22.9% overall, 32.7% group P)). The agreement among all POCT was at least substantial (kappa >0.80). A positive POCT result confirmed the infection with CPV in unvaccinated dogs, whereas a negative POCT result did not definitely exclude CPV infection due to the low sensitivity of all POCT.

| S-EPMC8540396 | biostudies-literature

Performance of Commercially Available Rapid Serological Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies.

Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), continues to spread globally. Although several rapid commercial serological assays have been developed, little is known about their performance and accuracy in detecting SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in COVID-19 patient samples. Here, we have evaluated the performance of seven commercially available rapid lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA) obtained from different manufacturers, and compared them to in-house developed and validated ELISA assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM and IgG antibodies in RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients. While all evaluated LFIA assays showed high specificity, our data showed a significant variation in sensitivity of these assays, which ranged from 0% to 54% for samples collected early during infection (3-7 days post symptoms onset) and from 54% to 88% for samples collected at later time points during infection (8-27 days post symptoms onset). Therefore, we recommend prior evaluation and validation of these assays before being routinely used to detect IgM and IgG in COVID-19 patients. Moreover, our findings suggest the use of LFIA assays in combination with other standard methods, and not as an alternative.

| S-EPMC7767212 | biostudies-literature

Impaired detection of omicron by SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests.

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

Evaluation of commercially available diagnostic tests for the detection of dengue virus NS1 antigen and anti-dengue virus IgM antibody.

Project description:Commercially available diagnostic test kits for detection of dengue virus (DENV) non-structural protein 1 (NS1) and anti-DENV IgM were evaluated for their sensitivity and specificity and other performance characteristics by a diagnostic laboratory network developed by World Health Organization (WHO), the UNICEF/UNDP/World Bank/WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) and the Pediatric Dengue Vaccine Initiative (PDVI). Each network laboratory contributed characterized serum specimens for the panels used in the evaluation. Microplate enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and rapid diagnostic test (RDT formats) were represented by the kits. Each ELISA was evaluated by 2 laboratories and RDTs were evaluated by at least 3 laboratories. The reference tests for IgM anti-DENV were laboratory developed assays produced by the Armed Forces Research Institute for Medical Science (AFRIMS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the NS1 reference test was reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Results were analyzed to determine sensitivity, specificity, inter-laboratory and inter-reader agreement, lot-to-lot variation and ease-of-use. NS1 ELISA sensitivity was 60-75% and specificity 71-80%; NS1 RDT sensitivity was 38-71% and specificity 76-80%; the IgM anti-DENV RDTs sensitivity was 30-96%, with a specificity of 86-92%, and IgM anti-DENV ELISA sensitivity was 96-98% and specificity 78-91%. NS1 tests were generally more sensitive in specimens from the acute phase of dengue and in primary DENV infection, whereas IgM anti-DENV tests were less sensitive in secondary DENV infections. The reproducibility of the NS1 RDTs ranged from 92-99% and the IgM anti-DENV RDTs from 88-94%.

| S-EPMC4199549 | biostudies-literature

Clinical validation of an open-access SARS-COV-2 antigen detection lateral flow assay, compared to commercially available assays.

Project description:Rapid tests for SARS-COV-2 infection are important tools for pandemic control, but current rapid tests are based on proprietary designs and reagents. We report clinical validation results of an open-access lateral flow assay (OA-LFA) design using commercially available materials and reagents, along with RT-qPCR and commercially available comparators (BinaxNOW® and Sofia®). Adult patients with suspected COVID-19 based on clinical signs and symptoms, and with symptoms ≤7 days duration, underwent anterior nares (AN) sampling for the OA-LFA, Sofia®, BinaxNOW ™, and RT-qPCR, along with nasopharyngeal (NP) RT-qPCR. Results indicate a positive predictive agreement with NP sampling as 69% (60% -78%) OA-LFA, 74% (64% - 82%) Sofia®, and 82% (73% - 88%) BinaxNOW™. The implication for these results is that we provide an open-access LFA design that meets the minimum WHO target product profile for a rapid test, that virtually any diagnostic manufacturer could produce.

| S-EPMC8370603 | biostudies-literature

Analytical reactivity of 13 commercially available rapid influenza diagnostic tests with H3N2v and recently circulating influenza viruses.

Project description:Rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) used widely in clinical practice are simple to use and provide results within 15 minutes; however, reported performance is variable, which causes concern when novel or variant viruses emerge. This study's goal was to assess the analytical reactivity of 13 RIDTs with recently circulating seasonal and H3N2v influenza viruses, using three different viral measures.Virus stocks were characterized by infectious dose (ID50 ) and nucleoprotein (NP) concentration, diluted at half-log dilutions, and tested with each RIDT and real-time RT-PCR.Strong correlation was observed between NP concentration and RIDT reactivity; however, only weak correlation was seen with ID50 or Ct values. Only four RIDTs detected viral NP at the lowest dilution for all influenza A viruses (IAV). Influenza A viruses not detected by more than one RIDT had lower NP levels. Of the 13 RIDTs, 9 had no significant differences in reactivity across IAV when compared to NP levels.Previous reports of RIDT performance typically compare reactivity based on ID50 titers, which in this study correlated only weakly with proportional amounts of viral NP in prepared virus samples. In the context of the strong correlation of RIDT reactivity with NP concentration, H3N2v was found to be as reactive as seasonal circulating IAV. While these findings may not reflect clinical performance of these RIDTs, measuring NP concentration can be useful in the future to assess comparable reactivity of available RIDTs, or to assess reactivity with newly evolving or emerging viruses.

| S-EPMC4181808 | biostudies-other

Evaluation of Six Commercially Available Rapid Immunochromatographic Tests for the Diagnosis of Rabies in Brain Material.

Project description:Rabies is a neglected zoonotic disease that causes an estimated 60,000 human deaths annually. The main burden lies on developing countries in Asia and Africa, where surveillance and disease detection is hampered by absence of adequate laboratory facilities and/or the difficulties of submitting samples from remote areas to laboratories. Under these conditions, easy-to-use tests such as immunochromatographic assays, i.e. lateral flow devices (LFD), may increase surveillance and improve control efforts. Several LFDs for rabies diagnosis are available but, except for one, there are no data regarding their performance. Therefore, we compared six commercially available LFDs for diagnostic and analytical sensitivity, as well as their specificity and their diagnostic agreement with standard rabies diagnostic techniques using different sample sets, including experimentally infected animals and several sets of field samples. Using field samples the sensitivities ranged between 0% up to 100% depending on the LFD and the samples, while for experimentally infected animals the maximum sensitivity was 32%. Positive results in LFD could be further validated using RT-qPCR and sequencing. In summary, in our study none of the tests investigated proved to be satisfactory, although the results somewhat contradict previous studies, indicating batch to batch variation. The high number of false negative results reiterates the necessity to perform a proper test validation before being marketed and used in the field. In this respect, marketing authorization and batch release control could secure a sufficient quality for these alternative tests, which could then fulfil their potential.

| S-EPMC4918935 | biostudies-literature

Evaluating 10 Commercially Available SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Serological Tests by Use of the STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) Method.

Project description:Numerous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rapid serological tests have been developed, but their accuracy has usually been assessed using very few samples, and rigorous comparisons between these tests are scarce. In this study, we evaluated and compared 10 commercially available SARS-CoV-2 rapid serological tests using the STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) methodology. Two hundred fifty serum samples from 159 PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients (collected 0 to 32 days after the onset of symptoms) were tested with rapid serological tests. Control serum samples (n = 254) were retrieved from pre-coronavirus disease (COVID) periods from patients with other coronavirus infections (n = 11), positivity for rheumatoid factors (n = 3), IgG/IgM hyperglobulinemia (n = 9), malaria (n = 5), or no documented viral infection (n = 226). All samples were tested using rapid lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) from 10 manufacturers. Only four tests achieved ≥98% specificity, with the specificities ranging from 75.7% to 99.2%. The sensitivities varied by the day of sample collection after the onset of symptoms, from 31.7% to 55.4% (days 0 to 9), 65.9% to 92.9% (days 10 to 14), and 81.0% to 95.2% (>14 days). Only three of the tests evaluated met French health authorities' thresholds for SARS-CoV-2 serological tests (≥90% sensitivity and ≥98% specificity). Overall, the performances varied greatly between tests, with only one-third meeting acceptable specificity and sensitivity thresholds. Knowledge of the analytical performances of these tests will allow clinicians and, most importantly, laboratorians to use them with more confidence; could help determine the general population's immunological status; and may help diagnose some patients with false-negative real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) results.

| S-EPMC8111137 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data