Cargando…
Evaluation of ECLIA antigen detection tests as screening methods for COVID-19 in comparison with molecular analysis
BACKGROUND: Data from literature shows that antigen tests are rapid and helpful tools for diagnosis of COVID-19. AIM: This work aimed to evaluate the performances of the Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen test, in comparison to RT-qPCR, the gold standard. METHODS: A total of 110 swabs were tested; according...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8631556/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34850319 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11845-021-02863-1 |
_version_ | 1784607588894113792 |
---|---|
author | Kolesova, Olga Tomassetti, Flaminia Cerini, Paola Finucci, Davide Turchetti, Giordano Capogreco, Francesca Bernardini, Sergio Calugi, Graziella Pieri, Massimo |
author_facet | Kolesova, Olga Tomassetti, Flaminia Cerini, Paola Finucci, Davide Turchetti, Giordano Capogreco, Francesca Bernardini, Sergio Calugi, Graziella Pieri, Massimo |
author_sort | Kolesova, Olga |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Data from literature shows that antigen tests are rapid and helpful tools for diagnosis of COVID-19. AIM: This work aimed to evaluate the performances of the Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen test, in comparison to RT-qPCR, the gold standard. METHODS: A total of 110 swabs were tested; according to rRT-PCR, 76 were positive, and 34 were negative. The swabs were processed by Elecsys SARS CoV 2 Antigen assay (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany), an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA). RESULTS: In a first evaluation, the overall sensitivity and specificity were 85% and 100%, respectively. It was noted that most of the discordant cases had cycle threshold (Ct) values > 28. Therefore, it was assumed a new measure to evaluate sensitivity and specificity, then samples with Ct values < 28 were selected. In this way, it was achieved a Ct < 28 sensitivity of 94%. The level of agreement between the two tests was 89. 1% with κ value of 0.77 for total data and 95.9% with κ value of 0.95 for samples with < 28 Ct. The antigen test performs well in the presence of high viral loads, whereas lower levels are missed. CONCLUSIONS: The comparison data obtained in this study support that this method seems a proper approach for rapid screening of patients with high SARS-CoV-2 viral load; however, the rate of sensitivity is highly Ct-dependent. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8631556 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-86315562021-12-01 Evaluation of ECLIA antigen detection tests as screening methods for COVID-19 in comparison with molecular analysis Kolesova, Olga Tomassetti, Flaminia Cerini, Paola Finucci, Davide Turchetti, Giordano Capogreco, Francesca Bernardini, Sergio Calugi, Graziella Pieri, Massimo Ir J Med Sci Original Article BACKGROUND: Data from literature shows that antigen tests are rapid and helpful tools for diagnosis of COVID-19. AIM: This work aimed to evaluate the performances of the Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen test, in comparison to RT-qPCR, the gold standard. METHODS: A total of 110 swabs were tested; according to rRT-PCR, 76 were positive, and 34 were negative. The swabs were processed by Elecsys SARS CoV 2 Antigen assay (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany), an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA). RESULTS: In a first evaluation, the overall sensitivity and specificity were 85% and 100%, respectively. It was noted that most of the discordant cases had cycle threshold (Ct) values > 28. Therefore, it was assumed a new measure to evaluate sensitivity and specificity, then samples with Ct values < 28 were selected. In this way, it was achieved a Ct < 28 sensitivity of 94%. The level of agreement between the two tests was 89. 1% with κ value of 0.77 for total data and 95.9% with κ value of 0.95 for samples with < 28 Ct. The antigen test performs well in the presence of high viral loads, whereas lower levels are missed. CONCLUSIONS: The comparison data obtained in this study support that this method seems a proper approach for rapid screening of patients with high SARS-CoV-2 viral load; however, the rate of sensitivity is highly Ct-dependent. Springer International Publishing 2021-11-30 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8631556/ /pubmed/34850319 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11845-021-02863-1 Text en © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland 2021 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Kolesova, Olga Tomassetti, Flaminia Cerini, Paola Finucci, Davide Turchetti, Giordano Capogreco, Francesca Bernardini, Sergio Calugi, Graziella Pieri, Massimo Evaluation of ECLIA antigen detection tests as screening methods for COVID-19 in comparison with molecular analysis |
title | Evaluation of ECLIA antigen detection tests as screening methods for COVID-19 in comparison with molecular analysis |
title_full | Evaluation of ECLIA antigen detection tests as screening methods for COVID-19 in comparison with molecular analysis |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of ECLIA antigen detection tests as screening methods for COVID-19 in comparison with molecular analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of ECLIA antigen detection tests as screening methods for COVID-19 in comparison with molecular analysis |
title_short | Evaluation of ECLIA antigen detection tests as screening methods for COVID-19 in comparison with molecular analysis |
title_sort | evaluation of eclia antigen detection tests as screening methods for covid-19 in comparison with molecular analysis |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8631556/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34850319 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11845-021-02863-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kolesovaolga evaluationofecliaantigendetectiontestsasscreeningmethodsforcovid19incomparisonwithmolecularanalysis AT tomassettiflaminia evaluationofecliaantigendetectiontestsasscreeningmethodsforcovid19incomparisonwithmolecularanalysis AT cerinipaola evaluationofecliaantigendetectiontestsasscreeningmethodsforcovid19incomparisonwithmolecularanalysis AT finuccidavide evaluationofecliaantigendetectiontestsasscreeningmethodsforcovid19incomparisonwithmolecularanalysis AT turchettigiordano evaluationofecliaantigendetectiontestsasscreeningmethodsforcovid19incomparisonwithmolecularanalysis AT capogrecofrancesca evaluationofecliaantigendetectiontestsasscreeningmethodsforcovid19incomparisonwithmolecularanalysis AT bernardinisergio evaluationofecliaantigendetectiontestsasscreeningmethodsforcovid19incomparisonwithmolecularanalysis AT calugigraziella evaluationofecliaantigendetectiontestsasscreeningmethodsforcovid19incomparisonwithmolecularanalysis AT pierimassimo evaluationofecliaantigendetectiontestsasscreeningmethodsforcovid19incomparisonwithmolecularanalysis |