Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

17 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 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

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

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

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

Multicenter Technical Validation of 30 Rapid Antigen Tests for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 (VALIDATE).

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

Diagnostic accuracy of Panbio rapid antigen tests on oropharyngeal swabs for detection of SARS-CoV-2.

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

Comparison of Rapid and Automated Antigen Detection Tests for the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

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

Rapid comparative evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care antigen tests.

Project description:The 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. We 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. Among 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. The 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

SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid tests for the delta variant.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC8612709 | biostudies-literature

Performance of six rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection and implications for practical use.

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

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