| Literature DB >> 33322035 |
Seiya Yamayoshi1, Yuko Sakai-Tagawa1, Michiko Koga2,3, Osamu Akasaka4, Ichiro Nakachi5, Hidefumi Koh6, Kenji Maeda7, Eisuke Adachi3, Makoto Saito2,3, Hiroyuki Nagai3, Kazuhiko Ikeuchi2,3, Takayuki Ogura8, Rie Baba5, Kensuke Fujita8, Takahiro Fukui6, Fumimaro Ito6, Shin-Ichiro Hattori7, Kei Yamamoto9, Takato Nakamoto9, Yuri Furusawa1, Atsuhiro Yasuhara1, Michiko Ujie1, Shinya Yamada1, Mutsumi Ito1, Hiroaki Mitsuya7, Norio Omagari9, Hiroshi Yotsuyanagi2,3, Kiyoko Iwatsuki-Horimoto1, Masaki Imai1, Yoshihiro Kawaoka1,10,11.
Abstract
Reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR)-based tests are widely used to diagnose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). As a result that these tests cannot be done in local clinics where RT-qPCR testing capability is lacking, rapid antigen tests (RATs) for COVID-19 based on lateral flow immunoassays are used for rapid diagnosis. However, their sensitivity compared with each other and with RT-qPCR and infectious virus isolation has not been examined. Here, we compared the sensitivity among four RATs by using severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) isolates and several types of COVID-19 patient specimens and compared their sensitivity with that of RT-qPCR and infectious virus isolation. Although the RATs read the samples containing large amounts of virus as positive, even the most sensitive RAT read the samples containing small amounts of virus as negative. Moreover, all RATs tested failed to detect viral antigens in several specimens from which the virus was isolated. The current RATs will likely miss some COVID-19 patients who are shedding infectious SARS-CoV-2.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; diagnosis; rapid antigen test
Year: 2020 PMID： 33322035 DOI： 10.3390/v12121420
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Viruses ISSN： 1999-4915 Impact factor: 5.048