Lorena Porte1, Paulette Legarraga1, Mirentxu Iruretagoyena1, Valeska Vollrath1, Gabriel Pizarro1, Jose Munita2,3,4, Rafael Araos2,3,4, Thomas Weitzel1,3. 1. Laboratorio Clínico, Clínica Alemana, Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile. 2. Servicio de Infectología, Clínica Alemana de Santiago, Facultad de Medicina Clínica Alemana, Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile. 3. Instituto de Ciencias e Innovación en Medicina (ICIM), Facultad de Medicina Clínica Alemana, Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile. 4. Millennium Initiative for Collaborative Research on Bacterial Resistance (MICROB-R), Santiago, Chile.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Real-Time Reverse-Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) is currently the only recommended diagnostic method for SARS-CoV-2. However, rapid immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2 antigen could significantly reduce the COVID-19 burden currently weighing on laboratories around the world. METHODS: We evaluated the performance of two rapid fluorescence immunoassays (FIAs), SOFIA SARS Antigen FIA (Quidel Corporation, San Diego, CA, USA) and STANDARD F COVID-19 Ag FIA (SD Biosensor Inc., Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea), which use an automated reader. The study used 64 RT-PCR characterized clinical samples (32 positive; 32 negative), which consisted of nasopharyngeal swabs in universal transport medium. RESULTS: Of the 32 positive specimens, all from patients within 5 days of symptom onset, the Quidel and SD Biosensor assays detected 30 (93.8%) and 29 (90.6%) samples, respectively. Among the 27 samples with high viral loads (Ct ≤ 25), the two tests had a sensitivity of 100%. Specificity was 96.9% for both kits. CONCLUSION: The high performance of the evaluated FIAs indicates a potential use as rapid and PCR-independent tools for COVID-19 diagnosis in early stages of infection. The excellent sensitivity to detect cases with viral loads above ~106 copies/mL (Ct values ≤ 25), the estimated threshold of contagiousness, suggests that the assays might serve to rapidly identify infective individuals.
BACKGROUND: Real-Time Reverse-Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) is currently the only recommended diagnostic method for SARS-CoV-2. However, rapid immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2 antigen could significantly reduce the COVID-19 burden currently weighing on laboratories around the world. METHODS: We evaluated the performance of two rapid fluorescence immunoassays (FIAs), SOFIA SARS Antigen FIA (Quidel Corporation, San Diego, CA, USA) and STANDARD F COVID-19 Ag FIA (SD Biosensor Inc., Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea), which use an automated reader. The study used 64 RT-PCR characterized clinical samples (32 positive; 32 negative), which consisted of nasopharyngeal swabs in universal transport medium. RESULTS: Of the 32 positive specimens, all from patients within 5 days of symptom onset, the Quidel and SD Biosensor assays detected 30 (93.8%) and 29 (90.6%) samples, respectively. Among the 27 samples with high viral loads (Ct ≤ 25), the two tests had a sensitivity of 100%. Specificity was 96.9% for both kits. CONCLUSION: The high performance of the evaluated FIAs indicates a potential use as rapid and PCR-independent tools for COVID-19 diagnosis in early stages of infection. The excellent sensitivity to detect cases with viral loads above ~106 copies/mL (Ct values ≤ 25), the estimated threshold of contagiousness, suggests that the assays might serve to rapidly identify infective individuals.
Authors: Jared Bullard; Kerry Dust; Duane Funk; James E Strong; David Alexander; Lauren Garnett; Carl Boodman; Alexander Bello; Adam Hedley; Zachary Schiffman; Kaylie Doan; Nathalie Bastien; Yan Li; Paul G Van Caeseele; Guillaume Poliquin Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2020-12-17 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Roman Wölfel; Victor M Corman; Wolfgang Guggemos; Michael Seilmaier; Sabine Zange; Marcel A Müller; Daniela Niemeyer; Terry C Jones; Patrick Vollmar; Camilla Rothe; Michael Hoelscher; Tobias Bleicker; Sebastian Brünink; Julia Schneider; Rosina Ehmann; Katrin Zwirglmaier; Christian Drosten; Clemens Wendtner Journal: Nature Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Pascal Mertens; Nathalie De Vos; Delphine Martiny; Christian Jassoy; Ali Mirazimi; Lize Cuypers; Sigi Van den Wijngaert; Vanessa Monteil; Pierrette Melin; Karolien Stoffels; Nicolas Yin; Davide Mileto; Sabrina Delaunoy; Henri Magein; Katrien Lagrou; Justine Bouzet; Gabriela Serrano; Magali Wautier; Thierry Leclipteux; Marc Van Ranst; Olivier Vandenberg Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2020-05-08
Authors: Daniel B Larremore; Bryan Wilder; Evan Lester; Soraya Shehata; James M Burke; James A Hay; Milind Tambe; Michael J Mina; Roy Parker Journal: Sci Adv Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 14.136
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