Gannon C K Mak1, Stephen S Y Lau2, Kitty K Y Wong2, Nancy L S Chow2, C S Lau2, Edman T K Lam2, Rickjason C W Chan2, Dominic N C Tsang2. 1. All from Microbiology Division, Public Health Laboratory Services Branch, Centre for Health Protection, Department of Health, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Electronic address: so_phls10@dh.gov.hk. 2. All from Microbiology Division, Public Health Laboratory Services Branch, Centre for Health Protection, Department of Health, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, there are two rapid antigen detection (RAD) kits from the WHO Emergency Use List for detecting SARS-CoV-2. OBJECTIVE: The Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device was selected to evaluate the performance for detecting SARS-CoV-2. STUDY DESIGN: Analytical sensitivity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus was determined by limit of detection (LOD) using RT-PCR as a reference method. Clinical sensitivity was evaluated by using respiratory specimens collected from confirmed COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: The LOD results showed that the RAD kit was 100 fold less sensitive than RT-PCR. Clinical sensitivity of the RAD kit was 68.6 % for detecting specimens from COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSIONS: The RAD kit evaluated in the present study shared similar performance with another kit from the WHO Emergency Use List, the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag. Understanding the clinical characteristics of RAD kits can guide us to decide different testing strategies in different settings.
BACKGROUND: Currently, there are two rapid antigen detection (RAD) kits from the WHO Emergency Use List for detecting SARS-CoV-2. OBJECTIVE: The Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device was selected to evaluate the performance for detecting SARS-CoV-2. STUDY DESIGN: Analytical sensitivity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus was determined by limit of detection (LOD) using RT-PCR as a reference method. Clinical sensitivity was evaluated by using respiratory specimens collected from confirmed COVID-19patients. RESULTS: The LOD results showed that the RAD kit was 100 fold less sensitive than RT-PCR. Clinical sensitivity of the RAD kit was 68.6 % for detecting specimens from COVID-19patients. CONCLUSIONS: The RAD kit evaluated in the present study shared similar performance with another kit from the WHO Emergency Use List, the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag. Understanding the clinical characteristics of RAD kits can guide us to decide different testing strategies in different settings.
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
Authors: Friederike Häuser; Martin F Sprinzl; Kim J Dreis; Angelique Renzaho; Simon Youhanen; Wolfgang M Kremer; Jürgen Podlech; Peter R Galle; Karl J Lackner; Heidi Rossmann; Niels A Lemmermann Journal: Med Microbiol Immunol Date: 2021-04-15 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: L Courtellemont; J Guinard; C Guillaume; S Giaché; V Rzepecki; A Seve; C Gubavu; K Baud; C Le Helloco; G N Cassuto; G Pialoux; L Hocqueloux; T Prazuck Journal: J Med Virol Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 20.693
Authors: Lukas E Brümmer; Stephan Katzenschlager; Mary Gaeddert; Christian Erdmann; Stephani Schmitz; Marc Bota; Maurizio Grilli; Jan Larmann; Markus A Weigand; Nira R Pollock; Aurélien Macé; Sergio Carmona; Stefano Ongarello; Jilian A Sacks; Claudia M Denkinger Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 11.069