Cargando…

Comparison between nucleic acid amplification tests, antigen immunofluorescence assay, and in vitro infectivity in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis

The number of SARS-CoV-2 detection tests requested to the laboratories has dramatically increased together with an urgent need to release reliable responses in a very short time. The two options taken into consideration and analyzed in the current study were the point-of-care test (POCT) based on th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zupin, Luisa, Fontana, Francesco, Clemente, Libera, Ruscio, Maurizio, Crovella, Sergio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9022615/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35446012
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42770-022-00758-6
_version_ 1784690124926222336
author Zupin, Luisa
Fontana, Francesco
Clemente, Libera
Ruscio, Maurizio
Crovella, Sergio
author_facet Zupin, Luisa
Fontana, Francesco
Clemente, Libera
Ruscio, Maurizio
Crovella, Sergio
author_sort Zupin, Luisa
collection PubMed
description The number of SARS-CoV-2 detection tests requested to the laboratories has dramatically increased together with an urgent need to release reliable responses in a very short time. The two options taken into consideration and analyzed in the current study were the point-of-care test (POCT) based on the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) and the Antigen (Ag) rapid test. The POCT-NAAT-based assay was compared with a rapid antigen test of nasopharyngeal swab samples. If the specimen tested positive, it was followed by viral load quantification and by the functional assessment of the residual infectivity. When the initial cycle threshold (Ct) was below 20 (100%), and in the range of 20–25 (92%) and of 25–30 (88%), a great concordance between the POCT-NAAT and the Ag test was observed. Moreover, the positivity of the antigen test was well correlated to a successful infection in vitro (78%), with greater concordance when the initial Ct below 20 or above 35 (100%) and in the range 20–25 (83%). Our findings showed that most of the swabs which tested positive using the antigen test were able to infect the cells in vitro, suggesting that probably only these samples hold residual infectivity and therefore an increased risk of virus transmission at the moment of being tested. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42770-022-00758-6.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9022615
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90226152022-04-21 Comparison between nucleic acid amplification tests, antigen immunofluorescence assay, and in vitro infectivity in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis Zupin, Luisa Fontana, Francesco Clemente, Libera Ruscio, Maurizio Crovella, Sergio Braz J Microbiol Clinical Microbiology - Research Paper The number of SARS-CoV-2 detection tests requested to the laboratories has dramatically increased together with an urgent need to release reliable responses in a very short time. The two options taken into consideration and analyzed in the current study were the point-of-care test (POCT) based on the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) and the Antigen (Ag) rapid test. The POCT-NAAT-based assay was compared with a rapid antigen test of nasopharyngeal swab samples. If the specimen tested positive, it was followed by viral load quantification and by the functional assessment of the residual infectivity. When the initial cycle threshold (Ct) was below 20 (100%), and in the range of 20–25 (92%) and of 25–30 (88%), a great concordance between the POCT-NAAT and the Ag test was observed. Moreover, the positivity of the antigen test was well correlated to a successful infection in vitro (78%), with greater concordance when the initial Ct below 20 or above 35 (100%) and in the range 20–25 (83%). Our findings showed that most of the swabs which tested positive using the antigen test were able to infect the cells in vitro, suggesting that probably only these samples hold residual infectivity and therefore an increased risk of virus transmission at the moment of being tested. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42770-022-00758-6. Springer International Publishing 2022-04-21 /pmc/articles/PMC9022615/ /pubmed/35446012 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42770-022-00758-6 Text en © The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Sociedade Brasileira de Microbiologia 2022
spellingShingle Clinical Microbiology - Research Paper
Zupin, Luisa
Fontana, Francesco
Clemente, Libera
Ruscio, Maurizio
Crovella, Sergio
Comparison between nucleic acid amplification tests, antigen immunofluorescence assay, and in vitro infectivity in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis
title Comparison between nucleic acid amplification tests, antigen immunofluorescence assay, and in vitro infectivity in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis
title_full Comparison between nucleic acid amplification tests, antigen immunofluorescence assay, and in vitro infectivity in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis
title_fullStr Comparison between nucleic acid amplification tests, antigen immunofluorescence assay, and in vitro infectivity in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between nucleic acid amplification tests, antigen immunofluorescence assay, and in vitro infectivity in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis
title_short Comparison between nucleic acid amplification tests, antigen immunofluorescence assay, and in vitro infectivity in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis
title_sort comparison between nucleic acid amplification tests, antigen immunofluorescence assay, and in vitro infectivity in sars-cov-2 diagnosis
topic Clinical Microbiology - Research Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9022615/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35446012
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42770-022-00758-6
work_keys_str_mv AT zupinluisa comparisonbetweennucleicacidamplificationtestsantigenimmunofluorescenceassayandinvitroinfectivityinsarscov2diagnosis
AT fontanafrancesco comparisonbetweennucleicacidamplificationtestsantigenimmunofluorescenceassayandinvitroinfectivityinsarscov2diagnosis
AT clementelibera comparisonbetweennucleicacidamplificationtestsantigenimmunofluorescenceassayandinvitroinfectivityinsarscov2diagnosis
AT rusciomaurizio comparisonbetweennucleicacidamplificationtestsantigenimmunofluorescenceassayandinvitroinfectivityinsarscov2diagnosis
AT crovellasergio comparisonbetweennucleicacidamplificationtestsantigenimmunofluorescenceassayandinvitroinfectivityinsarscov2diagnosis