scholarly journals Comparison of Rapid and Automated Antigen Detection Tests for the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Diagnostics ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 104
Author(s):  
Dorian Petonnet ◽  
Stéphane Marot ◽  
Isabelle Leroy ◽  
Julien Cohier ◽  
Charline Ramahefasolo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Viral Antigen ◽  
Strong Relationship ◽  
Antigen Detection ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Band Intensity ◽  
Antigen Test ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Antigen Concentration ◽  
Pcr Assay ◽  
Interesting Alternative

SARS-CoV-2 viral antigen detection may be an interesting alternative to RT-PCR for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection as a less laborious or expensive method but requires validation. This study aimed to compare the performance of the DiaSorin™ LiaisonXL automated quantitative antigen test (QAT) and the AAZ™ rapid antigen test (RAT) to the DiaSorin™ MDX RT-PCR assay. A total of 242 nasopharyngeal samples were tested at La Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital (Paris, France). Performances for the detection of variants of SARS-CoV-2 were further investigated. RATs were visually read for qualitative results and band intensity was determined. Overall sensitivity was 63.2% for QAT and 58.6% for RAT. For RT-PCR Ct value 25, sensitivity was 89.8% for both tests. Both tests showed comparable sensitivity for detection of variants. There was a strong relationship between antigen concentration and band positivity. On the same set of samples these tests share similar performances.

scholarly journals Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 antigen electrochemiluminescence immunoassay to RT-PCR assay for laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 in Peshawar

Diagnosis ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bilal Iqbal ◽  
Maria Khan ◽  
Noman Shah ◽  
Mirza Muhammad Dawood ◽  
Valeed Jehanzeb ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Laboratory Diagnosis ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Antigen Test ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Pcr Assay ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Viral Loads ◽  
Testing Algorithms ◽  
Frequent Testing ◽  
Antigen Testing

Abstract Objectives Antigen based rapid diagnostic tests possesses a potential to be utilized along with Gold standard methods to detect Covid-19 infection to cope with the demand of testing. The aim of this study was to determine diagnostic accuracy of electrochemiluminescence based automated antigen detection immunoassay comparing with molecular based test RT-PCR (Covid-19). Methods It was a cross-sectional study conducted in RMI Peshawar, from 1st April 2021 till 30th April 2021. The study comprised 170 individuals who were suspected of having Covid-19. Nasopharyngeal samples taken from suspected individuals were analyzed by RT-PCR and automated antigen test (Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen) simultaneously. The correlation of SARS-CoV-2 antigen with PCR positive and negative cases was analyzed for specificity, sensitivity respectively. Results The ECLIA based Elecsys antigen test (Roche) revealed overall sensitivity 72%, specificity 95% and accuracy of 94.9%. Sensitivity of antigen test progressively declined from 94.3% in Ct <25 to 70.8% in Ct 26–29 and then to 47.2% in Ct 30–35. Conclusions Based on the findings of our study we conclude that automated antigen testing (Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen) cannot replace molecular based testing like RT PCR. Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Ag test should be used complementary to RT-PCR in testing algorithms. Frequent testing strategy should be adopted while using automated antigen testing to overcome its limitation in individuals with low viral loads.

scholarly journals Rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection assay in comparison with real-time RT-PCR assay for laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 in Thailand

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chutikarn Chaimayo ◽  
Bualan Kaewnaphan ◽  
Nattaya Tanlieng ◽  
Niracha Athipanyasilp ◽  
Rujipas Sirijatuphat ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Real Time ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Laboratory Diagnosis ◽  
Antigen Detection ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Pcr Assay ◽  
Screening Assay ◽  
The Real ◽  
Pcr Test

Abstract Background The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to spread across the world. Hence, there is an urgent need for rapid, simple, and accurate tests to diagnose severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Performance characteristics of the rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection test should be evaluated and compared with the gold standard real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for diagnosis of COVID-19 cases. Methods The rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection test, Standard™ Q COVID-19 Ag kit (SD Biosensor®, Republic of Korea), was compared with the real-time RT-PCR test, Allplex™ 2019-nCoV Assay (Seegene®, Korea) for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory specimens. Four hundred fifty-four respiratory samples (mainly nasopharyngeal and throat swabs) were obtained from COVID-19 suspected cases and contact individuals, including pre-operative patients at Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand during March–May 2020. Results Of 454 respiratory samples, 60 (13.2%) were positive, and 394 (86.8%) were negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by real-time RT-PCR assay. The duration from onset to laboratory test in COVID-19 suspected cases and contact individuals ranged from 0 to 14 days with a median of 3 days. The rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection test’s sensitivity and specificity were 98.33% (95% CI, 91.06–99.96%) and 98.73% (95% CI, 97.06–99.59%), respectively. One false negative test result was from a sample with a high real-time RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct), while five false positive test results were from specimens of pre-operative patients. Conclusions The rapid assay for SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection showed comparable sensitivity and specificity with the real-time RT-PCR assay. Thus, there is a potential use of this rapid and simple SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection test as a screening assay.

scholarly journals Comparison of the performance of the rapid antigen detection actim Influenza A&B test and RT-PCR in different respiratory specimens

2009 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Ghebremedhin ◽  
I. Engelmann ◽  
W. König ◽  
B. König
Keyword(s):  
Influenza A Virus ◽  
Influenza A ◽  
Antigen Detection ◽  
Influenza B Virus ◽  
Influenza B ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Pcr Assay ◽  
B Virus ◽  
B Test ◽  
Respiratory Specimens

Nowadays, influenza antigen detection test kits are used most frequently to detect influenza A or B virus to establish the diagnosis of influenza rapidly and initiate appropriate therapy. This study was conducted to evaluate the performance of the actim Influenza A&B test (Medix Biochemica). Overall, 473 respiratory specimens were analysed in the actim Influenza A&B test and the results were compared with those from an RT-PCR assay; 461 of these samples originated from paediatric patients aged 7 weeks to 6.5 years either with influenza-related symptoms or from the intensive care unit, and 12 samples originated from adults with underlying lung or haematological diseases. Diagnosis of influenza A or B virus could be established using the actim Influenza A&B test (9/473 samples for influenza A virus and 6/473 for influenza B virus). RT-PCR revealed 23 patients with influenza virus (13/473 for influenza A virus and 10/473 for influenza B virus). The sensitivity and specificity of the actim Influenza A&B test were 65 and 100 % compared with the RT-PCR assay. However, 32 external quality assessment samples containing seven different strains of influenza A subtypes H1N1 and H3N2 and the avian H5N1 were detected correctly by the actim Influenza A&B test. No cross-reactivity to a range of bacterial, fungal and other viral pathogens was observed. In conclusion, the actim Influenza A&B test is reliable for positive results due to its high specificity. Nevertheless, negative results from this test need to be confirmed by a more sensitive assay because of the low sensitivity observed with diagnostic samples.

scholarly journals Potential Use of Antigen-Based Rapid Test for SARS-CoV-2 in Respiratory Specimens in Low-Resource Settings in Egypt for Symptomatic Patients and High-Risk Contacts

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abeer Mohamed Abdelrazik ◽  
Shahira Morsy Elshafie ◽  
Hossam M Abdelaziz
Keyword(s):  
Test Performance ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Antigen Test ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Viral Loads ◽  
Viral Transport Medium ◽  
Public Health Challenges ◽  
Polymerase Chain

Abstract Objective Because of the rapidly emerging SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and its wide public health challenges, rapid diagnosis is essential to decrease the spread. Antigen-based rapid detection tests are available; however, insufficient data about their performance are available. Methods The lateral-flow immunochromatographic BIOCREDIT COVID-19 antigen test was evaluated using nasopharyngeal swabs in a viral transport medium from patients with confirmed infection, contacts, and exposed healthcare professionals at Fayoum University Hospital in Egypt. Test performance was determined in comparison to the SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. Results Three hundred ten specimens from 3 categories—patients with confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19, contacts, and exposed healthcare professionals—were included; 188 specimens were RT-PCR-positive, from which 81 were detected by rapid antigen test. Overall sensitivity was 43.1%. Sensitivity was significantly higher in specimens with high viral loads. Conclusion Poor sensitivity of the BIOCREDIT COVID-19 test does not permit its use for diagnosis, and it can only be used in conjunction with RT-PCR for screening.

scholarly journals Immunochromatographic test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katsuhito Kashiwagi ◽  
Yoshikazu Ishii ◽  
Kotaro Aoki ◽  
Shintaro Yagi ◽  
Tadashi Maeda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antigen Detection ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Immunochromatographic Test ◽  
Antigen Test ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Game Changer

AbstractWe evaluated the rapid immunochromatographic test for SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection using 16 saliva specimens collected from 6 COVID-19 hospitalized patients, and detected N-antigen in 4 of 7 RT-PCR positive specimens. The POCT antigen test using saliva is highly considered to be a game-changer for COVID-19 diagnosis.

scholarly journals Comparison of the quantitative DiaSorin Liaison antigen test to RT-PCR for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in symptomatic and asymptomatic outpatients

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefanie Lefever ◽  
Christophe Indevuyst ◽  
Lize Cuypers ◽  
Klaas Dewaele ◽  
Nicolas Yin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Viral Load ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
High Viral Load ◽  
Antigen Test ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Antigen Concentration ◽  
General Practioner ◽  
Asymptomatic Individuals

Background:We evaluated the quantitative DiaSorin Liaison SARS-CoV-2 antigen test in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals consulting their general practioner (GP) during a period of stable intense virus circulation (213/100,000 habitants per day). Methods:Left-over RT-PCR positive (n=204) and negative (n=210) nasopharyngeal samples were randomly selected among fresh routine samples collected from patients consulting their GP. Samples were tested on Liaison XL according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Equivocal results were considered positive. Results:Overall sensitivity and specificity of the Liaison antigen test compared to RT-PCR were 67.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 60.9%-73.7%] and 100% [CI: 97.8%-100%]. Sensitivity in samples with a viral load ≥105, ≥104 and ≥103 copies/mL was 100% [CI: 96.3%-100.0%], 96.5% [CI: 91.8%-98.7%] and 87.4% [CI: 81.3%-91.5%], respectively. All samples ≤103 copies/mL were antigen negative. The ratio of antigen concentration to viral load in samples ≥103 copies/mL was comparable in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals (p=0.58). The proportion of RT-PCR positive participants with a high viral load (≥105 copies/mL) was not significantly higher in symptomatic than in asymptomatic participants (63.9% [CI: 54.9%-72.0%] vs. 51.9% [CI: 41.1%-62.6%], p=0.11), but the proportion of participants with a low viral load (<103 copies/mL) was significantly higher in asymptomatic than in symptomatic RT-PCR positive participants (35.4% [CI: 25.8%-46.4%] vs. 14.3% [CI: 9.0%-21.8%], p<0.01). Conclusions:Sensitivity and specificity in samples with a viral load ≥104 copies/mL was 96.5% and 100%. The correlation of antigen concentration with viral load was comparable in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals.

scholarly journals Diagnostic Performance of SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test in a Large, German Cohort

Children ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. 682
Author(s):  
Olivier Mboma ◽  
Elmar Rieke ◽  
Parviz Ahmad-Nejad ◽  
Stefan Wirth ◽  
Malik Aydin
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
False Negative ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
True Positive ◽  
Antigen Test ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Everyday Clinical Practice ◽  
Ct Value ◽  
The Right

We assessed the performance of a rapid antigen test (RAT) in everyday clinical practice. Between 1 November 2020 until 1 April 2021 all in-patients at the Helios University Hospital Wuppertal, Germany, as well as the accompanying relatives at the Children’s Hospital received a SARS-CoV-2 RAT and a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR prior to admission. Out of 3686 patients, 22 (0.6%) subjects were tested positive by RT-PCR and RAT, and 3591 (97.4%) were negative by both methods, showing discordant results: RT-PCR+/RAT− in 58 (1.6%) and RT-PCR−/RAT+ in 15 patients (0.4%). Overall sensitivity and specificity of RAT was 27.5% (95%CI 18.1–38.6%) and 99.6% (95%CI 99.3–99.8%), respectively. The sensitivity was slightly higher in adults (30.4%, 95%CI 18.8–90.9%) than in pediatric subjects (20.8%, 95%CI 7.1–42.2%). False negative RAT had a statistically higher Ct-value (p < 0.001) compared to true positive values, and overall sensitivity increased to 80% [59.3–93.2%] with Ct value < 30. While the sensitivity of the RAT was poor compared with the RT-PCR, the specificity was excellent. However, the sensitivity increased with lower Ct value, and with the right anamnesis the RAT can be a quick and easy approach to distinguish people who are infectious with SARS-CoV-2 from noninfectious people, enabling appropriate triage in clinical practice while waiting for the RT-PCR result.

1089: Prognostic Value of Molecular Staging of Bladder Cancer with RT -PCR Assay for KRT20: Results at 5 Year-Follow-up

2007 ◽  
Vol 177 (4S) ◽  
pp. 360-360
Author(s):  
Ana Agud ◽  
Maria J. Ribal ◽  
Lourdes Mengual ◽  
Mercedes Marin-Aguilera ◽  
Laura Izquierdo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bladder Cancer ◽  
Prognostic Value ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Pcr Assay ◽  
Molecular Staging

Polymerase chain reaction amplification and typing of rotavirus in environmental samples

1995 ◽  
Vol 31 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 371-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Gajardo ◽  
R. M. Pintó ◽  
A. Bosch
Keyword(s):  
Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
Environmental Samples ◽  
Polymerase Chain Reaction Amplification ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Pcr Assay ◽  
Group A ◽  
Reaction Amplification ◽  
Stool Specimens ◽  
Polymerase Chain

A reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay is described that has been developed for the detection and serotyping of group A rotavirus in stool specimens and concentrated and non-concentrated sewage specimens.

Scoring System for the Diagnosis of COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 413-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed Farouk Allam
Keyword(s):  
Scoring System ◽  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Pcr Assay ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
False Negative Results ◽  
Symptoms And Signs

Due to the international spread of COVID-19, the difficulty of collecting nasopharyngeal swab specimen from all suspected patients, the costs of RT-PCR and CT, and the false negative results of RT-PCR assay in 41% of COVID-19 patients, a scoring system is needed to classify the suspected patients in order to determine the need for follow-up, home isolation, quarantine or the conduction of further investigations. A scoring system is proposed as a diagnostic tool for suspected patients. It includes Epidemiological Evidence of Exposure, Clinical Symptoms and Signs, and Investigations (if available). This scoring system is simple, could be calculated in a few minutes, and incorporates the main possible data/findings of any patient.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document