Cargando…

Field evaluation of seven SARS-COV-2 antigen assays

There is a global demand for rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and the interest in their clinical compliance is growing. In this study, we evaluated the clinical compliance of seven different severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen RD...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lim, Yong Kwan, Kweon, Oh Joo, Kim, Hye Ryoun, Kim, Tae-Hyoung, Lee, Mi-Kyung
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8697424/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34991002
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiph.2021.12.012
_version_ 1784620043584143360
author Lim, Yong Kwan
Kweon, Oh Joo
Kim, Hye Ryoun
Kim, Tae-Hyoung
Lee, Mi-Kyung
author_facet Lim, Yong Kwan
Kweon, Oh Joo
Kim, Hye Ryoun
Kim, Tae-Hyoung
Lee, Mi-Kyung
author_sort Lim, Yong Kwan
collection PubMed
description There is a global demand for rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and the interest in their clinical compliance is growing. In this study, we evaluated the clinical compliance of seven different severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen RDTs. Nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swab specimens from COVID-19-confirmed cases and reverse-transcription PCR (RT-PCR) screening were used to evaluate the performance of seven RDTs. Using the RT-PCR and RDT results, we predicted the cycle threshold (Ct) of each target gene (E, RdRP, and N genes) which 50% (Ct(50)) and 95% (Ct(95)) detection rates were achieved in the RDTs. A total of 482 specimens were enrolled in our study: 316 specimens from COVID-19-confirmed cases and 166 RT-PCR-negative specimens. The median values of Ct(50) and Ct(95) for the seven RDTs were in the ranges of ranged 24.3–30.9 and 19.3–22.6 for E, 25.5–31.5 and 20.9–24.0 for RdRP, and 26.8–32.3 and 22.7–25.7 for N, respectively. The RDTs showed acceptable compliance only for specimens with high viral burdens (Ct < 20). However, the false-negative rate increased by more than 50% for most of the RDTs in low-viral burden specimens (Ct> 30). These results suggest that RDTs should not be used without molecular assays for COVID-19 screening for asymptomatic patients because of their high false-negative rates.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8697424
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86974242021-12-23 Field evaluation of seven SARS-COV-2 antigen assays Lim, Yong Kwan Kweon, Oh Joo Kim, Hye Ryoun Kim, Tae-Hyoung Lee, Mi-Kyung J Infect Public Health Article There is a global demand for rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and the interest in their clinical compliance is growing. In this study, we evaluated the clinical compliance of seven different severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen RDTs. Nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swab specimens from COVID-19-confirmed cases and reverse-transcription PCR (RT-PCR) screening were used to evaluate the performance of seven RDTs. Using the RT-PCR and RDT results, we predicted the cycle threshold (Ct) of each target gene (E, RdRP, and N genes) which 50% (Ct(50)) and 95% (Ct(95)) detection rates were achieved in the RDTs. A total of 482 specimens were enrolled in our study: 316 specimens from COVID-19-confirmed cases and 166 RT-PCR-negative specimens. The median values of Ct(50) and Ct(95) for the seven RDTs were in the ranges of ranged 24.3–30.9 and 19.3–22.6 for E, 25.5–31.5 and 20.9–24.0 for RdRP, and 26.8–32.3 and 22.7–25.7 for N, respectively. The RDTs showed acceptable compliance only for specimens with high viral burdens (Ct < 20). However, the false-negative rate increased by more than 50% for most of the RDTs in low-viral burden specimens (Ct> 30). These results suggest that RDTs should not be used without molecular assays for COVID-19 screening for asymptomatic patients because of their high false-negative rates. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences. 2022-02 2021-12-23 /pmc/articles/PMC8697424/ /pubmed/34991002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiph.2021.12.012 Text en © 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences. Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
spellingShingle Article
Lim, Yong Kwan
Kweon, Oh Joo
Kim, Hye Ryoun
Kim, Tae-Hyoung
Lee, Mi-Kyung
Field evaluation of seven SARS-COV-2 antigen assays
title Field evaluation of seven SARS-COV-2 antigen assays
title_full Field evaluation of seven SARS-COV-2 antigen assays
title_fullStr Field evaluation of seven SARS-COV-2 antigen assays
title_full_unstemmed Field evaluation of seven SARS-COV-2 antigen assays
title_short Field evaluation of seven SARS-COV-2 antigen assays
title_sort field evaluation of seven sars-cov-2 antigen assays
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8697424/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34991002
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiph.2021.12.012
work_keys_str_mv AT limyongkwan fieldevaluationofsevensarscov2antigenassays
AT kweonohjoo fieldevaluationofsevensarscov2antigenassays
AT kimhyeryoun fieldevaluationofsevensarscov2antigenassays
AT kimtaehyoung fieldevaluationofsevensarscov2antigenassays
AT leemikyung fieldevaluationofsevensarscov2antigenassays