Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

12 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

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

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Petonnet D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8775255 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

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

Project description:(1) Background: The detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in nasopharyngeal samples through real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is considered the standard gold method for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antigen detection (AD) tests are more rapid, less laborious, and less expensive alternatives but still require clinical validation. (2) Methods: This study compared the clinical performance of five AD tests, including four rapid AD (RAD) tests (biotical, Panbio, Healgen, and Roche) and one automated AD test (VITROS). For that purpose, 118 (62.8%) symptomatic patients and 70 (37.2%) asymptomatic subjects were tested, and results were compared to RT-PCR. (3) Results: The performance of the RAD tests was modest and allowed us to identify RT-PCR positive patients with higher viral loads. For Ct values ≤25, the sensitivity ranged from 93.1% (95% CI: 83.3-98.1%) to 96.6% (95% CI: 88.1-99.6%), meaning that some samples with high viral loads were missed. Considering the Ct value proposed by the CDC for contagiousness (i.e., Ct values ≤33) sensitivities ranged from 76.2% (95% CI: 65.4-85.1%) to 88.8% (95% CI: 79.7-94.7%) while the specificity ranged from 96.3% (95% CI: 90.8-99.0%) to 99.1% (95% CI: 95.0-100%). The VITROS automated assay showed a 100% (95% CI: 95.5-100%) sensitivity for Ct values ≤33, and had a specificity of 100% (95% CI: 96.6-100%); (4) Conclusions: Compared to RAD tests, the VITROS assay fully aligned with RT-PCR for Ct values up to 33, which might allow a faster, easier and cheaper identification of SARS-CoV-2 contagious patients.

| S-EPMC7828347 | biostudies-literature

Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC8078202 | biostudies-literature

Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC8078597 | 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

Diagnosis value of SARS-CoV-2 antigen/antibody combined testing using rapid diagnostic tests at hospital admission.

Project description:The implementation of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) may enhance the efficiency of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing, as RDTs are widely accessible and easy to use. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of a diagnosis strategy based on a combination of antigen and immunoglobulin M (IgM) or immunoglobulin G (IgG) serological RDTs. Plasma and nasopharyngeal samples were collected between 14 March and 11 April 2020 at hospital admission from 45 patients with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) confirmed COVID-19 and 20 negative controls. SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Ag) was assessed in nasopharyngeal swabs using the Coris Respi-Strip. For IgM/IgG detection, SureScreen Diagnostics and Szybio Biotech RDTs were used in addition to laboratory assays (Abbott Alinity i SARS-CoV-2 IgG and Theradiag COVID-19 IgM enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay). Using the Ag RDT, 13 out of 45 (29.0%) specimens tested positive, the sensitivity was 87.0% for cycle threshold (Ct ) values ≤25% and 0% for Ct values greater than 25. IgG detection was associated with high Ct values and the amount of time after the onset of symptoms. The profile of isolated IgM on RDTs was more frequently observed during the first and second week after the onset of symptoms. The combination of Ag and IgM/IgG RDTs enabled the detection of up to 84.0% of COVID-19 confirmed cases at hospital admission. Antigen and antibody-based RDTs showed suboptimal performances when used alone. However when used in combination, they are able to identify most COVID-19 patients admitted in an emergency department.

| S-EPMC8013599 | 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

The Performance of Two Rapid Antigen Tests During Population-Level Screening for SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Project description:Background: SARS-CoV-2 antigen assays offer a rapid mean to diagnose and isolate infected individuals. However, their utility in population-level screening is unknown. Objectives: The performance of two antigen tests in detecting SARS-CoV-2 was assessed among individuals randomly selected in the community. Study Design: A prospective study that performed head-to-head comparison of two SARS-CoV-2 antigen assays. Individuals were recruited during community SARS-CoV-2 screening over 10 working days. Demographic and clinical data were collected. Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test, a point-of-care chromatographic assay, was conducted immediately, and then the sample was transported to the virology laboratory to perform PCR and the LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 Ag chemiluminesence immunoassay. Results: respiratory samples from 991 individuals were collected, and 62 were positive by PCR. Inconclusive PCR results were observed in 19 samples and were excluded. The median age of participants was 40.2 years (IQR 32.3-47.8), and 932 (94%) were males. Most (77.4%) of infections were asymptomatic. The sensitivity and the specificity of the LIAISON assay were 43.3% (95%CI 30.6-56.8) and 99.9% (95%CI 99.3-100). The Standard Q assay had lower sensitivity (30.6%, 95%CI 19.6-43.7) but similar specificity (98.8%, 95%CI, 97.8-99.4). Similarly, the LIAISON assay had higher positive predictive value (96.3%, 95%CI 81-99.9% vs. 63.3%, 95%CI, 43.9-80.1%). Both assays performed better in symptomatic patients and among samples with a low-cycle threshold (Ct < 25). Conclusion: In our setting of random community surveillance, rapid antigen testing of nasopharyngeal swabs by either LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 Ag (DiaSorin) or Standard Q COVID-19 Ag (SD Biosensor) was less sensitive to detecting SARS-CoV-2 than the TaqPath COVID-19 RT-PCR.

| S-EPMC8733308 | biostudies-literature

Diagnostic performance of CerTest and Panbio antigen rapid diagnostic tests to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Project description:ObjectivesAntigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) have been developed as reliable tools to control the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The objective of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of two Ag-RDTs.MethodsWe evaluated CerTest SARS-CoV-2 Ag One Step Card Test and Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device Ag-RDTs. We included 320 nasopharyngeal samples: 150 PCR negative samples to assess the specificity and 170 PCR positive samples to evaluate the sensitivity. We also evaluated their sensitivity according to cycle threshold (Ct) values and the time from the onset of symptoms. Tests were compared using the McNemar's test and agreement was evaluated using the kappa score (k).ResultsBoth Ag-RDTs showed a specificity of 100 %. Overall sensitivity was 53.5 % for CerTest and 60.0 % for Panbio. For samples with Ct≤ 25, sensitivity was 94.0 % for CerTest and 96.4 % for Panbio (p = 0.500). Regarding samples with Ct>25, sensitivity was 14.0 % for CerTest and 24.4 % for Panbio (p = 0.004). Sensitivity for samples within the first 5 days after the onset of symptoms were 84.8 % for CerTest and 91.3 % for Panbio (p = 0.250) and notably decreased for samples taken after the fifth day. Both Ag-RDTs showed an excellent agreement between them (agreement = 96.7 %, k = 0.920). Agreement with PCR was also excellent for high viral load samples (Ct<25) for CerTest (98.0 %, k = 0.954) and Panbio (98.8 %, k = 0.973).ConclusionsCerTest SARS-CoV-2 and Panbio COVID-19 Ag showed excellent performance and agreement results for samples with high viral loads (Ct ≤ 25) or samples taken within the first 5 days after the onset of symptoms.

| S-EPMC7897407 | biostudies-literature

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

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC8612709 | biostudies-literature