(1) Background: The detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in nasopharyngeal samples through real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is considered the standard gold method for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antigen detection (AD) tests are more rapid, less laborious, and less expensive alternatives but still require clinical validation. (2) Methods: This study compared the clinical performance of five AD tests, including four rapid AD (RAD) tests (biotical, Panbio, Healgen, and Roche) and one automated AD test (VITROS). For that purpose, 118 (62.8%) symptomatic patients and 70 (37.2%) asymptomatic subjects were tested, and results were compared to RT-PCR. (3) Results: The performance of the RAD tests was modest and allowed us to identify RT-PCR positive patients with higher viral loads. For Ct values ≤25, the sensitivity ranged from 93.1% (95% CI: 83.3-98.1%) to 96.6% (95% CI: 88.1-99.6%), meaning that some samples with high viral loads were missed. Considering the Ct value proposed by the CDC for contagiousness (i.e., Ct values ≤33) sensitivities ranged from 76.2% (95% CI: 65.4-85.1%) to 88.8% (95% CI: 79.7-94.7%) while the specificity ranged from 96.3% (95% CI: 90.8-99.0%) to 99.1% (95% CI: 95.0-100%). The VITROS automated assay showed a 100% (95% CI: 95.5-100%) sensitivity for Ct values ≤33, and had a specificity of 100% (95% CI: 96.6-100%); (4) Conclusions: Compared to RAD tests, the VITROS assay fully aligned with RT-PCR for Ct values up to 33, which might allow a faster, easier and cheaper identification of SARS-CoV-2 contagious patients.
(1) Background: The detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in nasopharyngeal samples through real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is considered the standard gold method for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antigen detection (AD) tests are more rapid, less laborious, and less expensive alternatives but still require clinical validation. (2) Methods: This study compared the clinical performance of five AD tests, including four rapid AD (RAD) tests (biotical, Panbio, Healgen, and Roche) and one automated AD test (VITROS). For that purpose, 118 (62.8%) symptomatic patients and 70 (37.2%) asymptomatic subjects were tested, and results were compared to RT-PCR. (3) Results: The performance of the RAD tests was modest and allowed us to identify RT-PCR positive patients with higher viral loads. For Ct values ≤25, the sensitivity ranged from 93.1% (95% CI: 83.3-98.1%) to 96.6% (95% CI: 88.1-99.6%), meaning that some samples with high viral loads were missed. Considering the Ct value proposed by the CDC for contagiousness (i.e., Ct values ≤33) sensitivities ranged from 76.2% (95% CI: 65.4-85.1%) to 88.8% (95% CI: 79.7-94.7%) while the specificity ranged from 96.3% (95% CI: 90.8-99.0%) to 99.1% (95% CI: 95.0-100%). The VITROS automated assay showed a 100% (95% CI: 95.5-100%) sensitivity for Ct values ≤33, and had a specificity of 100% (95% CI: 96.6-100%); (4) Conclusions: Compared to RAD tests, the VITROS assay fully aligned with RT-PCR for Ct values up to 33, which might allow a faster, easier and cheaper identification of SARS-CoV-2 contagious patients.
Authors: Alana F Ogata; Adam M Maley; Connie Wu; Tal Gilboa; Maia Norman; Roey Lazarovits; Chih-Ping Mao; Gail Newton; Matthew Chang; Katrina Nguyen; Maliwan Kamkaew; Quan Zhu; Travis E Gibson; Edward T Ryan; Richelle C Charles; Wayne A Marasco; David R Walt Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2020-09-08 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Alexander Krüttgen; Christian G Cornelissen; Michael Dreher; Mathias W Hornef; Matthias Imöhl; Michael Kleines Journal: J Virol Methods Date: 2020-11-20 Impact factor: 2.014
Authors: Gannon C K Mak; Stephen S Y Lau; Kitty K Y Wong; Nancy L S Chow; C S Lau; Edman T K Lam; Rickjason C W Chan; Dominic N C Tsang Journal: J Clin Virol Date: 2020-12-04 Impact factor: 3.168
Authors: Jacqueline Steinlin-Schopfer; Maria Teresa Barbani; Richard Kamgang; Martina Zwahlen; Franziska Suter-Riniker; Ronald Dijkman Journal: J Clin Virol Plus Date: 2021-05-09
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
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: Lukas E Brümmer; Stephan Katzenschlager; Sean McGrath; Stephani Schmitz; Mary Gaeddert; Christian Erdmann; Marc Bota; Maurizio Grilli; Jan Larmann; Markus A Weigand; Nira R Pollock; Aurélien Macé; Berra Erkosar; Sergio Carmona; Jilian A Sacks; Stefano Ongarello; Claudia M Denkinger Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 11.613
Authors: Sascha Dierks; Oliver Bader; Julian Schwanbeck; Uwe Groß; Michael S Weig; Kemal Mese; Raimond Lugert; Wolfgang Bohne; Andreas Hahn; Nicolas Feltgen; Setare Torkieh; Fenja R Denker; Peer Lauermann; Marcus W Storch; Hagen Frickmann; Andreas Erich Zautner Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-05-29 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Alejandro Fernandez-Montero; Josepmaria Argemi; José Antonio Rodríguez; Arturo H Ariño; Laura Moreno-Galarraga Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2021-06-09
Authors: Kanan T Desai; Karla Alfaro; Laura Mendoza; Matthew Faron; Brian Mesich; Mauricio Maza; Rhina Dominguez; Adriana Valenzuela; Chyntia Díaz Acosta; Magaly Martínez; Juan C Felix; Rachel Masch; Sofia Gabrilovich; Michael Plump; Akiva P Novetsky; Mark H Einstein; Nataki C Douglas; Miriam Cremer; Nicolas Wentzensen Journal: medRxiv Date: 2021-07-06