Literature DB >> 33423918

Clinical validation of quantitative SARS-CoV-2 antigen assays to estimate SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in nasopharyngeal swabs.

Kotaro Aoki1, Tatsuya Nagasawa1, Yoshikazu Ishii2, Shintaro Yagi3, Sadatsugu Okuma3, Katsuhito Kashiwagi4, Tadashi Maeda4, Taito Miyazaki4, Sadako Yoshizawa1, Kazuhiro Tateda1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Expansion of the testing capacity for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an important issue to mitigate the pandemic of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) caused by this virus. Recently, a sensitive quantitative antigen test (SQT), Lumipulse® SARS-CoV-2 Ag, was developed. It is a fully automated chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay system for SARS-CoV-2.
METHODS: In this study, the analytical performance of SQT was examined using clinical specimens from nasopharyngeal swabs using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as a control.
RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic analysis of 24 SARS-CoV-2-positive and 524 -negative patients showed an area under the curve of 0.957 ± 0.063. Using a cut-off value of 1.34 pg/ml, the sensitivity was 91.7%, the specificity was 98.5%, and the overall rate of agreement was 98.2%. In the distribution of negative cases, the 99.5 percentile value was 1.03 pg/ml. There was a high correlation between the viral load calculated using the cycle threshold value of RT-PCR and the concentration of antigen. The tendency for the antigen concentration to decrease with time after disease onset correlated with that of the viral load.
CONCLUSIONS: Presented results indicate that SQT is highly concordant with RT-PCR and should be useful for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in any clinical setting. Therefore, this fully automated kit will contribute to the expansion of the testing capability for SARS-CoV-2.
Copyright © 2020 Japanese Society of Chemotherapy and The Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay; Covid-19; Nasopharyngeal swab; Nasopharynx; SARS-CoV-2; Saliva; Sensitive quantitative antigen test

Year:  2020        PMID: 33423918     DOI: 10.1016/j.jiac.2020.11.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Infect Chemother        ISSN: 1341-321X            Impact factor:   2.211


  17 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.  Mass screening is a key component to fight against SARS-CoV-2 and return to normalcy.

Authors:  Zhaomin Feng; Yi Zhang; Yang Pan; Daitao Zhang; Lei Zhang; Quanyi Wang
Journal:  Med Rev (Berl)       Date:  2022-04-28

Review 3.  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

4.  Comparison of four commercial, automated antigen tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern.

Authors:  Andreas Osterman; Maximilian Iglhaut; Andreas Lehner; Patricia Späth; Marcel Stern; Hanna Autenrieth; Maximilian Muenchhoff; Alexander Graf; Stefan Krebs; Helmut Blum; Armin Baiker; Natascha Grzimek-Koschewa; Ulrike Protzer; Lars Kaderali; Hanna-Mari Baldauf; Oliver T Keppler
Journal:  Med Microbiol Immunol       Date:  2021-08-20       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Comparison of the Quantitative DiaSorin Liaison Antigen Test to Reverse Transcription-PCR for the Diagnosis of COVID-19 in Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Outpatients.

Authors:  Stefanie Lefever; Christophe Indevuyst; Lize Cuypers; Klaas Dewaele; Nicolas Yin; Frédéric Cotton; Elizaveta Padalko; Matthijs Oyaert; Julie Descy; Etienne Cavalier; Marc Van Ranst; Emmanuel André; Katrien Lagrou; Pieter Vermeersch
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2021-06-18       Impact factor: 5.948

6.  A novel strategy for SARS-CoV-2 mass screening with quantitative antigen testing of saliva: a diagnostic accuracy study.

Authors:  Isao Yokota; Peter Y Shane; Kazufumi Okada; Yoko Unoki; Yichi Yang; Sumio Iwasaki; Shinichi Fujisawa; Mutsumi Nishida; Takanori Teshima
Journal:  Lancet Microbe       Date:  2021-05-19

7.  Current state of diagnostic, screening and surveillance testing methods for COVID-19 from an analytical chemistry point of view.

Authors:  Julia Martín; Noelia Tena; Agustin G Asuero
Journal:  Microchem J       Date:  2021-04-19       Impact factor: 4.821

8.  Evaluation of false positives in the SARS-CoV-2 quantitative antigen test.

Authors:  Ryo Kobayashi; Ryosei Murai; Mikako Moriai; Shinya Nirasawa; Hitoshi Yonezawa; Takashi Kondoh; Masachika Saeki; Yuki Yakuwa; Yuki Sato; Yuki Katayama; Hirotaka Nakafuri; Ikumi Kitayama; Koichi Asanuma; Yoshihiro Fujiya; Satoshi Takahashi
Journal:  J Infect Chemother       Date:  2021-06-25       Impact factor: 2.211

9.  Performance of the LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay vs. SARS-CoV-2-RT-PCR.

Authors:  Melanie Fiedler; Caroline Holtkamp; Ulf Dittmer; Olympia E Anastasiou
Journal:  Pathogens       Date:  2021-05-26

10.  Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.