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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |