Cargando…

Clinical Evaluation and Comparison of Two Microfluidic Antigenic Assays for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Virus

Given the ongoing pandemic, there is a need to identify SARS-CoV-2 and differentiate it from other respiratory viral infections in various critical settings. Since its introduction, rapid antigen testing is spreading worldwide, but diagnostic accuracy is extremely variable and often in disagreement...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bottino, Paolo, Pizzo, Valentina, Castaldo, Salvatore, Scomparin, Elisabetta, Bara, Cristina, Cerrato, Marcella, Sisinni, Sabrina, Penpa, Serena, Roveta, Annalisa, Gerbino, Maria, Maconi, Antonio, Rocchetti, Andrea
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10673207/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38004721
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11112709
_version_ 1785140568522752000
author Bottino, Paolo
Pizzo, Valentina
Castaldo, Salvatore
Scomparin, Elisabetta
Bara, Cristina
Cerrato, Marcella
Sisinni, Sabrina
Penpa, Serena
Roveta, Annalisa
Gerbino, Maria
Maconi, Antonio
Rocchetti, Andrea
author_facet Bottino, Paolo
Pizzo, Valentina
Castaldo, Salvatore
Scomparin, Elisabetta
Bara, Cristina
Cerrato, Marcella
Sisinni, Sabrina
Penpa, Serena
Roveta, Annalisa
Gerbino, Maria
Maconi, Antonio
Rocchetti, Andrea
author_sort Bottino, Paolo
collection PubMed
description Given the ongoing pandemic, there is a need to identify SARS-CoV-2 and differentiate it from other respiratory viral infections in various critical settings. Since its introduction, rapid antigen testing is spreading worldwide, but diagnostic accuracy is extremely variable and often in disagreement with the manufacturer’s specifications. Our study compared the clinical performances of two microfluidic rapid antigen tests towards a molecular assay, starting from positive samples. A total of 151 swabs collected at the Microbiology and Virology Laboratory of A.O. “SS Antonio e Biagio e C. Arrigo” (Alessandria, Italy) for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 were simultaneously tested to evaluate accuracy, specificity, and agreement with the RT-qPCR results. Both assays showed an overall agreement of 100% for negative specimens, while positive accuracy comprised between 45.10% and 54.90%. According to the manufacturer’s instructions, the greatest correlation between the antigenic and molecular assays was observed for the subset with high viral load (18/19, 94.74%), while it dramatically decreased for other subsets. Moreover, the ability to differentiate between SARS-CoV-2 and Flu provides an added value and could be addressed in an epidemic context. However, an in-house validation should be performed due to differences observed in performance declared by manufacturers and those actually obtained.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10673207
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106732072023-11-05 Clinical Evaluation and Comparison of Two Microfluidic Antigenic Assays for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Virus Bottino, Paolo Pizzo, Valentina Castaldo, Salvatore Scomparin, Elisabetta Bara, Cristina Cerrato, Marcella Sisinni, Sabrina Penpa, Serena Roveta, Annalisa Gerbino, Maria Maconi, Antonio Rocchetti, Andrea Microorganisms Communication Given the ongoing pandemic, there is a need to identify SARS-CoV-2 and differentiate it from other respiratory viral infections in various critical settings. Since its introduction, rapid antigen testing is spreading worldwide, but diagnostic accuracy is extremely variable and often in disagreement with the manufacturer’s specifications. Our study compared the clinical performances of two microfluidic rapid antigen tests towards a molecular assay, starting from positive samples. A total of 151 swabs collected at the Microbiology and Virology Laboratory of A.O. “SS Antonio e Biagio e C. Arrigo” (Alessandria, Italy) for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 were simultaneously tested to evaluate accuracy, specificity, and agreement with the RT-qPCR results. Both assays showed an overall agreement of 100% for negative specimens, while positive accuracy comprised between 45.10% and 54.90%. According to the manufacturer’s instructions, the greatest correlation between the antigenic and molecular assays was observed for the subset with high viral load (18/19, 94.74%), while it dramatically decreased for other subsets. Moreover, the ability to differentiate between SARS-CoV-2 and Flu provides an added value and could be addressed in an epidemic context. However, an in-house validation should be performed due to differences observed in performance declared by manufacturers and those actually obtained. MDPI 2023-11-05 /pmc/articles/PMC10673207/ /pubmed/38004721 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11112709 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Communication
Bottino, Paolo
Pizzo, Valentina
Castaldo, Salvatore
Scomparin, Elisabetta
Bara, Cristina
Cerrato, Marcella
Sisinni, Sabrina
Penpa, Serena
Roveta, Annalisa
Gerbino, Maria
Maconi, Antonio
Rocchetti, Andrea
Clinical Evaluation and Comparison of Two Microfluidic Antigenic Assays for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Virus
title Clinical Evaluation and Comparison of Two Microfluidic Antigenic Assays for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Virus
title_full Clinical Evaluation and Comparison of Two Microfluidic Antigenic Assays for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Virus
title_fullStr Clinical Evaluation and Comparison of Two Microfluidic Antigenic Assays for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Virus
title_full_unstemmed Clinical Evaluation and Comparison of Two Microfluidic Antigenic Assays for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Virus
title_short Clinical Evaluation and Comparison of Two Microfluidic Antigenic Assays for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Virus
title_sort clinical evaluation and comparison of two microfluidic antigenic assays for detection of sars-cov-2 virus
topic Communication
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10673207/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38004721
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11112709
work_keys_str_mv AT bottinopaolo clinicalevaluationandcomparisonoftwomicrofluidicantigenicassaysfordetectionofsarscov2virus
AT pizzovalentina clinicalevaluationandcomparisonoftwomicrofluidicantigenicassaysfordetectionofsarscov2virus
AT castaldosalvatore clinicalevaluationandcomparisonoftwomicrofluidicantigenicassaysfordetectionofsarscov2virus
AT scomparinelisabetta clinicalevaluationandcomparisonoftwomicrofluidicantigenicassaysfordetectionofsarscov2virus
AT baracristina clinicalevaluationandcomparisonoftwomicrofluidicantigenicassaysfordetectionofsarscov2virus
AT cerratomarcella clinicalevaluationandcomparisonoftwomicrofluidicantigenicassaysfordetectionofsarscov2virus
AT sisinnisabrina clinicalevaluationandcomparisonoftwomicrofluidicantigenicassaysfordetectionofsarscov2virus
AT penpaserena clinicalevaluationandcomparisonoftwomicrofluidicantigenicassaysfordetectionofsarscov2virus
AT rovetaannalisa clinicalevaluationandcomparisonoftwomicrofluidicantigenicassaysfordetectionofsarscov2virus
AT gerbinomaria clinicalevaluationandcomparisonoftwomicrofluidicantigenicassaysfordetectionofsarscov2virus
AT maconiantonio clinicalevaluationandcomparisonoftwomicrofluidicantigenicassaysfordetectionofsarscov2virus
AT rocchettiandrea clinicalevaluationandcomparisonoftwomicrofluidicantigenicassaysfordetectionofsarscov2virus