Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

12 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Diagnostic performance of a novel digital immunoassay (RapidTesta SARS-CoV-2): A prospective observational study with nasopharyngeal samples

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Digital immunoassays are generally regarded as superior tests for the detection of infectious disease pathogens, but there have been insufficient data concerning SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays.

Methods

We prospectively evaluated a novel digital immunoassay (RapidTesta SARS-CoV-2). Two nasopharyngeal samples were simultaneously collected for antigen tests and Real-time RT-PCR.

Results

During the study period, 1127 nasopharyngeal samples (symptomatic patients: 802, asymptomatic patients: 325) were evaluated. For digital immunoassay antigen tests, the sensitivity was 78.3% (95% CI: 67.3%–87.1%) and the specificity was 97.6% (95% CI: 96.5%–98.5%). When technicians visually analyzed the antigen test results, the sensitivity was 71.6% (95% CI: 59.9%–81.5%) and the specificity was 99.2% (95% CI: 98.5%–99.7%). Among symptomatic patients, the sensitivity was 89.4% (95% CI; 76.9%–96.5%) with digital immunoassay antigen tests, and 85.1% (95% CI; 71.7%–93.8%) with visually analyzed the antigen test, respectively.

Conclusions

The sensitivity of digital immunoassay antigen tests was superior to that of visually analyzed antigen tests, but the rate of false-positive results increased with the introduction of a digital immunoassay device.

SUBMITTER: Suzuki H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8549190 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Field evaluation of the performance of a SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic test in Uganda using nasopharyngeal samples.

Project description:ObjectivesThere is a high demand for SARS-CoV-2 testing to identify COVID-19 cases. Real-time quantitative PCR (qRT-PCR) is the recommended diagnostic test but a number of constraints prevent its widespread implementation, including cost. The aim of this study was to evaluate a low cost and easy to use rapid antigen test for diagnosing COVID-19 at the point of care.MethodsNasopharyngeal swabs from suspected COVID-19 cases and low-risk volunteers were tested with the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test and the results were compared with the qRT-PCR results.ResultsIn total, 262 samples were collected, including 90 qRT-PCR positives. The majority of samples were from males (89%) with a mean age of 34 years and only 13 (14%) of the positives were mildly symptomatic. The sensitivity and specificity of the antigen test were 70.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 60-79) and 92% (95% CI: 87-96), respectively, and the diagnostic accuracy was 84% (95% CI: 79-88). The antigen test was more likely to be positive for samples with qRT-PCR Ct values ≤29, with a sensitivity of 92%.ConclusionsThe STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test performed less than optimally in this evaluation. However, the test may still have an important role to play early in infection when timely access to molecular testing is not available but the results should be confirmed by qRT-PCR.

| S-EPMC7836828 | biostudies-literature

SARS-CoV-2 Oropharyngeal and Nasopharyngeal samples

Project description:Microbiome analysis of oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal samples of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients

2021-02-06 | GSE166281 | GEO

Analytical performance of lateral flow immunoassay for SARS-CoV-2 exposure screening on venous and capillary blood samples.

Project description:ObjectivesWe validate the use of a lateral flow immunoassay (LFI) intended for rapid screening and qualitative detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG in serum, plasma, and whole blood, and compare results with ELISA. We also seek to establish the value of LFI testing on blood obtained from a capillary blood sample.MethodsSamples collected by venous blood draw and finger stick were obtained from patients with SARS-CoV-2 detected by RT-qPCR and control patients. Samples were tested with Biolidics 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Detection Kit lateral flow immunoassay, and antibody calls were compared with ELISA.ResultsBiolidics LFI showed clinical sensitivity of 92% with venous blood at 7 days after PCR diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. Test specificity was 92% for IgM and 100% for IgG. There was no significant difference in detecting IgM and IgG with Biolidics LFI and ELISA at D0 and D7 (p = 1.00), except for detection of IgM at D7 (p = 0.04). Capillary blood of SARS-CoV-2 patients showed 93% sensitivity for antibody detection.ConclusionsClinical performance of Biolidics 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Detection Kit is comparable to ELISA and was consistent across sample types. This provides an opportunity for decentralized rapid testing and may allow point-of-care and longitudinal self-testing for the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

| S-EPMC7647890 | biostudies-literature

Microchip RT-PCR Detection of Nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 Samples.

Project description:Fast, accurate, and reliable diagnostic tests are critical for controlling the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The current gold standard for testing is real-time PCR; however, during the current pandemic, supplies of testing kits and reagents have been limited. We report the validation of a rapid (30 minutes), user-friendly, and accurate microchip real-time PCR assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 from nasopharyngeal swab RNA extracts. Microchips preloaded with COVID-19 primers and probes for the N gene accommodate 1.2-μL reaction volumes, lowering the required reagents by 10-fold compared with tube-based real-time PCR. We validated our assay using contrived reference samples and 21 clinical samples from patients in Canada, determining a limit of detection of 1 copy per reaction. The microchip real-time PCR provides a significantly lower resource alternative to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-approved real-time RT-PCR assays with comparable sensitivity, showing 100% positive and negative predictive agreement of clinical samples.

| S-EPMC7939975 | biostudies-literature

Effects of Patient Characteristics on Diagnostic Performance of Self-Collected Samples for SARS-CoV-2 Testing.

Project description:We evaluated the performance of self-collected anterior nasal swab (ANS) and saliva samples compared with healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal swab specimens used to test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We used the same PCR diagnostic panel to test all self-collected and healthcare worker-collected samples from participants at a public hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Among 1,076 participants, 51.9% were men, 57.1% were >50 years of age, 81.2% were Black (non-Hispanic), and 74.9% reported >1 chronic medical condition. In total, 8.0% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Compared with nasopharyngeal swab samples, ANS samples had a sensitivity of 59% and saliva samples a sensitivity of 68%. Among participants tested 3-7 days after symptom onset, ANS samples had a sensitivity of 80% and saliva samples a sensitivity of 85%. Sensitivity varied by specimen type and patient characteristics. These findings can help physicians interpret PCR results for SARS-CoV-2.

| S-EPMC8314823 | biostudies-literature

A new SARS-CoV-2 variant with high lethality poorly detected by RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal samples: an observational study.

Project description:ObjectivesIn early January 2021 an outbreak of nosocomial cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) emerged in Western France; RT-PCR tests were repeatedly negative on nasopharyngeal samples but positive on lower respiratory tract samples. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) revealed a new variant, currently defining a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) lineage B.1.616. In March, the WHO classified this as a 'variant under investigation' (VUI). We analysed the characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 cases related to this new variant.MethodsClinical, virological, and radiological data were retrospectively collected from medical charts in the two hospitals involved. We enrolled those inpatients with: (a) positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR on a respiratory sample, (b) seroconversion with anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM, or (c) suggestive symptoms and typical features of COVID-19 on a chest CT scan. Cases were categorized as B.1.616, a variant of concern (VOC), or unknown.ResultsFrom 1st January to 24th March 2021, 114 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria: B.1.616 (n = 39), VOC (n = 32), and unknown (n = 43). B.1.616-related cases were older than VOC-related cases (81 years, interquartile range (IQR) 73-88 versus 73 years, IQR 67-82, p < 0.05) and their first RT-PCR tests were rarely positive (6/39, 15% versus 31/32, 97%, p < 0.05). The B.1.616 variant was independently associated with severe disease (multivariable Cox model HR 4.0, 95%CI 1.5-10.9) and increased lethality (28-day mortality 18/39 (46%) for B.1.616 versus 5/32 (16%) for VOC, p = 0.006).ConclusionWe report a nosocomial outbreak of COVID-19 cases related to a new variant, B.1.616, which is poorly detected by RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal samples and is associated with high lethality.

| S-EPMC8496927 | biostudies-literature

Performance evaluation of the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S immunoassay.

Project description:The Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics International Ltd, Rotkreuz, Switzerland) has been developed for the detection of antibodies to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike (S) protein. We evaluated the assay performance using samples from seven sites in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. For specificity and sensitivity analyses, 7880 presumed negative pre-pandemic samples and 827 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-confirmed single or sequential samples from 272 different patients were tested, respectively. The overall specificity and sensitivity (≥14 days post-PCR) for the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S immunoassay were 99.95% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 99.87-99.99; 7876/7880) and 97.92% (95% CI: 95.21-99.32; 235/240), respectively. The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S immunoassay had significantly higher specificity compared with the LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG (99.95% [2032/2033] vs 98.82% [2009/2033]), ADVIA Centaur® SARS-CoV-2 Total (100% [928/928] vs 86.96% [807/928]), ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG (99.97% [2931/2932] vs 99.69% [2923/2932]), iFlash-SARS-CoV-2 IgM (100.00% [928/928] vs 99.57% [924/928]), and EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (100.00% [903/903] vs 97.45% [880/903]) and IgA (100.00% [895/895] vs 95.75% [857/895]) assays. The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S immunoassay had significantly higher sensitivity (≥14 days post-PCR) compared with the ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG (98.70% [76/77] vs 87.01% [67/77]), iFlash-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (100.00% [76/76] vs 93.42% [71/76]) and IgM (100.00% [76/76] vs 35.53% [27/76]), and EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (98.26% [113/115] vs 93.91% [108/115]) assays. Therefore, the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay demonstrated a reliable performance across various sample populations for the detection of anti-S antibodies.

| S-EPMC8393518 | biostudies-literature

Diagnostic Microbiology & Infectious Disease Rapid and sensitive detection of Sars-CoV-2 variants in nasopharyngeal swabs and wastewaters

Project description:The SARS-CoV-2 virus is continuously evolving, with appearance of new variants characterized by multiple genomic mutations, some of which can affect functional properties, including infectivity, interactions with host immunity, and disease severity. The rapid spread of new SARS-CoV-2 variants has highlighted the urgency to trace the virus evolution, to help limit its diffusion, and to assess effectiveness of containment strategies. We propose here a PCR-based rapid, sensitive and low-cost allelic discrimination assay panel for the identification of SARS-CoV-2 genotypes, useful for detection in different sample types, such as nasopharyngeal swabs and wastewater. The tests carried out demonstrate that this in-house assay, whose results were confirmed by SARS-CoV-2 whole-genome sequencing, can detect variations in up to 10 viral genome positions at once and is specific and highly sensitive for identification of all tested SARS-CoV-2 clades, even in the case of samples very diluted and of poor quality, particularly difficult to analyze.

2022-06-03 | E-MTAB-11261 | biostudies-arrayexpress

Immunoassay-Compatible Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 in Plasma Samples for Enhanced Handling Safety.

Project description:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) inactivation is an important step toward enhanced biosafety in testing facilities and affords a reduction in the biocontainment level necessary for handling virus-positive biological specimens. Virus inactivation methods commonly employ heat, detergents, or combinations thereof. In this work, we address the dearth of information on the efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 inactivation procedures in plasma and their downstream impact on immunoassays. We evaluated the effects of heat (56 °C for 30 min), detergent (1-5% Triton X-100), and solvent-detergent (SD) combinations [0.3-1% tri-n-butyl phosphate (TNBP) and 1-2% Triton X-100] on 19 immunoassays across different assay formats. Treatments are deemed immunoassay-compatible when the average and range of percentage recovery (treated concentration relative to untreated concentration) lie between 90-110 and 80-120%, respectively. We show that SD treatment (0.3% TNBP/1% Triton-X100) is compatible with more than half of the downstream immunoassays tested and is effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infectivity in plasma to below detectable levels in plaque assays. This facile method offers enhanced safety for laboratory workers handling biological specimens in clinical and research settings.

| S-EPMC9301769 | biostudies-literature

Diagnostic accuracy of nasopharyngeal swab, nasal swab and saliva swab samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR.

Project description:BackgroundThe current gold standard in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) diagnostics is the real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA in nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples. Alternatively, nasal swab (NS) or saliva swab (SS) specimens are used, although available data on test accuracy are limited. We examined the diagnostic accuracy of NPS/NS/SS samples for this purpose.MethodsTen patients were included after being tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR in NPS samples according to the National Institute of Infectious Disease guidelines. In comparison with this conventional diagnostic method, NPS/NS/SS samples were tested using the cobas 6800 systems RT-PCR device. To investigate the usefulness of the cobas method and the difference among sample types, the agreement and sensitivity were calculated. Five to six samples were collected over a total period of 5-6 d from each patient.ResultsFifty-seven sets of NPS/NS/SS samples were collected, of which 40 tested positive for COVID-19 by the conventional method. Overall, the concordance rates using the conventional method were 86.0%/70.2%/54.4% for NPS/NS/SS samples (cobas); however, for samples collected up to and including on Day 9 after disease onset (22 negative and one positive specimens), the corresponding rates were 95.7%/87.0%/65.2%. The overall sensitivity estimates were 100.0%/67.5%/37.5% for NPS/NS/SS samples (cobas). For samples up to 9 d after onset, the corresponding values were 100.0%/86.4%/63.6%.ConclusionsNS samples are more reliable than SS samples and can be an alternative to NPS samples. They can be a useful diagnostic method in the future.

| S-EPMC8006266 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

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