Literature DB >> 32871543

Another false-positive problem for a SARS-CoV-2 antigen test in Japan.

Taku Ogawa1, Tatsuya Fukumori2, Yuji Nishihara2, Takahiro Sekine2, Nao Okuda2, Tomoko Nishimura2, Hiroyuki Fujikura2, Nobuyasu Hirai2, Natsuko Imakita2, Kei Kasahara2.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32871543      PMCID: PMC7445490          DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104612

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Virol        ISSN: 1386-6532            Impact factor:   3.168


× No keyword cloud information.
To the Editor, A recent article in your journal states that the antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 is insufficiently sensitive and of little clinical significance [1]. The ongoing use of the quantitative antigen test in Japan since June 2020 is increasingly causing serious clinical problems because of its high incidence of false positives. The quantitative antigen test Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Fujirebio, Tokyo, Japan) has a 91.7 % (22/24 cases) and 97.3 % (293/301 cases) positive and negative concordance rate compared with RT-PCR, respectively. Eight of the 30 antigen-positive patients were reported to have negative RT-PCR results. [2]. Although it is true that the sensitivity of RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 is insufficient [3], RT-PCR is the current golden standard in clinical practice. Therefore, although difficult to accurately evaluate, some false-positive results can be expected with this antigen test. In addition, because the Japanese MHLW permits definitive diagnosis of COVID-19 without PCR if the antigen test is positive [4], concerns arise about the potential for false-positive patients to be admitted to the same medical room as patients with a true COVID-19 diagnosis. A patient with a false-positive result for COVID-19 was recently admitted to our facility. The patient was a 96-year-old woman who tested positive on the Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag, had a general malaise, and had no abnormal lung shading on chest computed tomography. However, in accordance with MHLW policy, the local health authorities recognized her as a confirmed COVID-19 case. Furthermore, because all COVID-19 cases in Japan require hospitalization, the patient was admitted to our hospital. We considered the possibility of false-positive result for this patient and decided to admit her to a private room isolated from true COVID-19 cases. After two subsequent RT-PCR tests performed more than 24 hours apart were negative, we determined that the patient’s condition was not COVID-19, and we discharged her. If instead—with no suspicion of a false-positive result—had the patient been admitted to the same room as a true COVID-19 patient, then she could have been at risk for a nosocomial infection. Because Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag is a quantitative test, raising the cutoff value could prevent the occurrence of false positives. If the cutoff were raised to 100 pg/mL of antigen volume, the results would be 38.7 % (12/31cases) with a positive concordance rate and 99.6 % (293/294 cases) with a negative concordance rate, resulting in 1 RT-PCR negative result for 13 positive antigen tests, meaning fewer false positives [2]. However, the sensitivity of the test would be significantly lower. The use of antigen tests in Japan that are prone to false positives, coupled with the current MHLW policy, is creating a situation in which false-positive patients who are not infected with SARS-CoV-2 are at risk of nosocomial infection. Since Fujirebio has initiated the clinical trial to gain U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval [5], this test will be used outside of Japan. Because the characteristics of antigen tests vary among products, we believe it is important to fully understand their use.

Funding

None.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors report no declarations of interest.
  2 in total

1.  Low performance of rapid antigen detection test as frontline testing for COVID-19 diagnosis.

Authors:  Anaïs Scohy; Ahalieyah Anantharajah; Monique Bodéus; Benoît Kabamba-Mukadi; Alexia Verroken; Hector Rodriguez-Villalobos
Journal:  J Clin Virol       Date:  2020-05-21       Impact factor: 3.168

Review 2.  Laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 - A review of current methods.

Authors:  Jitendra Prasad Mathuria; Ramakant Yadav
Journal:  J Infect Public Health       Date:  2020-06-07       Impact factor: 3.718

  2 in total
  20 in total

Review 1.  Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Authors:  Jacqueline Dinnes; Pawana Sharma; Sarah Berhane; Susanna S van Wyk; Nicholas Nyaaba; Julie Domen; Melissa Taylor; Jane Cunningham; Clare Davenport; Sabine Dittrich; Devy Emperador; Lotty Hooft; Mariska Mg Leeflang; Matthew Df McInnes; René Spijker; Jan Y Verbakel; Yemisi Takwoingi; Sian Taylor-Phillips; Ann Van den Bruel; Jonathan J Deeks
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2022-07-22

Review 2.  Performance of Antigen Detection Tests for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Anastasia Tapari; Georgia G Braliou; Maria Papaefthimiou; Helen Mavriki; Panagiota I Kontou; Georgios K Nikolopoulos; Pantelis G Bagos
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-04

3.  Decentralization of COVID-19 molecular diagnosis, a success story from Jordan.

Authors:  Arwa Qaqish; Mariam Al-Omari; Manal M Abbas; Rana Said; Mohammad Al Tamimi; Mahmoud Ghazo
Journal:  J Glob Health       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 7.664

Review 4.  Science's Response to CoVID-19.

Authors:  Marcus J C Long; Yimon Aye
Journal:  ChemMedChem       Date:  2021-06-22       Impact factor: 3.540

5.  Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Authors:  Jacqueline Dinnes; Jonathan J Deeks; Sarah Berhane; Melissa Taylor; Ada Adriano; Clare Davenport; Sabine Dittrich; Devy Emperador; Yemisi Takwoingi; Jane Cunningham; Sophie Beese; Julie Domen; Janine Dretzke; Lavinia Ferrante di Ruffano; Isobel M Harris; Malcolm J Price; Sian Taylor-Phillips; Lotty Hooft; Mariska Mg Leeflang; Matthew Df McInnes; René Spijker; Ann Van den Bruel
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-03-24

Review 6.  A Minimalist Strategy Towards Temporarily Defining Protection for COVID-19.

Authors:  Nevio Cimolai
Journal:  SN Compr Clin Med       Date:  2020-09-19

7.  Head-to-Head Comparison of Rapid and Automated Antigen Detection Tests for the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Authors:  Julien Favresse; Constant Gillot; Maxime Oliveira; Julie Cadrobbi; Marc Elsen; Christine Eucher; Kim Laffineur; Catherine Rosseels; Sandrine Van Eeckhoudt; Jean-Baptiste Nicolas; Laure Morimont; Jean-Michel Dogné; Jonathan Douxfils
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-01-13       Impact factor: 4.241

8.  Immunochromatography and chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay for COVID-19 diagnosis.

Authors:  Toshiaki Ishii; Masakazu Sasaki; Kageto Yamada; Daiki Kato; Hiroyoshi Osuka; Kotaro Aoki; Toshisuke Morita; Yoshikazu Ishii; Kazuhiro Tateda
Journal:  J Infect Chemother       Date:  2021-02-25       Impact factor: 2.211

9.  Antigen tests for COVID-19.

Authors:  Yuta Kyosei; Sou Yamura; Mayuri Namba; Teruki Yoshimura; Satoshi Watabe; Etsuro Ito
Journal:  Biophys Physicobiol       Date:  2021-02-10

10.  The evaluation of a novel digital immunochromatographic assay with silver amplification to detect SARS-CoV-2.

Authors:  Yoko Kurihara; Yoshihiko Kiyasu; Yusaku Akashi; Yuto Takeuchi; Kenji Narahara; Sunao Mori; Tomonori Takeshige; Shigeyuki Notake; Atsuo Ueda; Koji Nakamura; Hiroichi Ishikawa; Hiromichi Suzuki
Journal:  J Infect Chemother       Date:  2021-07-13       Impact factor: 2.211

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.