Gian Luca Salvagno1,2, Gianluca Gianfilippi3, Damiano Bragantini4, Brandon M Henry5, Giuseppe Lippi2. 1. Service of Laboratory Medicine, Pederzoli Hospital, Peschiera del Garda, Italy. 2. Section of Clinical Biochemistry, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. 3. Chief Medical Officer, Pederzoli Hospital, Peschiera del Garda, Italy. 4. Infectious Diseases Unit, Pederzoli Hospital, Peschiera del Garda, Italy. 5. Cardiac Intensive Care Unit, The Heart Institute, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Novel point-of-care antigen assays present a promising opportunity for rapid screening of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. The purpose of this study was the clinical assessment of the new Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test. METHODS: The clinical performance of Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test was evaluated vs. a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) laboratory-based assay (Seegene AllplexTM2019-nCoV) in nasopharyngeal swabs collected from a series of consecutive patients referred for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics to the Pederzoli Hospital (Peschiera del Garda, Verona, Italy) over a 2-week period. RESULTS: The final study population consisted of 321 consecutive patients (mean age, 46 years and IQR, 32-56 years; 181 women, 56.4%), with 149/321 (46.4%) positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA via the Seegene AllplexTM2019-nCoV Assay, and 109/321 (34.0%) positive with Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test, respectively. The overall accuracy of Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test compared to molecular testing was 86.9%, with 72.5% sensitivity and 99.4% specificity. Progressive decline in performance was observed as cycle threshold (Ct) values of different SARS-CoV-2 gene targets increased. The sensitivity was found to range between 97-100% in clinical samples with Ct values <25, between 50-81% in those with Ct values between 25 and <30, but low as 12-18% in samples with Ct values between 30 and <37. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical performance of Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test is excellent in nasopharyngeal swabs with Ct values <25, which makes it a reliable screening test in patients with high viral load. However, mass community screening would require the use of more sensitive techniques.
OBJECTIVES: Novel point-of-care antigen assays present a promising opportunity for rapid screening of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. The purpose of this study was the clinical assessment of the new Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test. METHODS: The clinical performance of Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test was evaluated vs. a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) laboratory-based assay (Seegene AllplexTM2019-nCoV) in nasopharyngeal swabs collected from a series of consecutive patients referred for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics to the Pederzoli Hospital (Peschiera del Garda, Verona, Italy) over a 2-week period. RESULTS: The final study population consisted of 321 consecutive patients (mean age, 46 years and IQR, 32-56 years; 181 women, 56.4%), with 149/321 (46.4%) positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA via the Seegene AllplexTM2019-nCoV Assay, and 109/321 (34.0%) positive with Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test, respectively. The overall accuracy of Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test compared to molecular testing was 86.9%, with 72.5% sensitivity and 99.4% specificity. Progressive decline in performance was observed as cycle threshold (Ct) values of different SARS-CoV-2 gene targets increased. The sensitivity was found to range between 97-100% in clinical samples with Ct values <25, between 50-81% in those with Ct values between 25 and <30, but low as 12-18% in samples with Ct values between 30 and <37. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical performance of Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test is excellent in nasopharyngeal swabs with Ct values <25, which makes it a reliable screening test in patients with high viral load. However, mass community screening would require the use of more sensitive techniques.
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: Stefano Porru; Maria Grazia Lourdes Monaco; Angela Carta; Gianluca Spiteri; Marco Parpaiola; Andrea Battaggia; Giulia Galligioni; Beatrice Ferrazzi; Giuliana Lo Cascio; Davide Gibellini; Angelo Peretti; Martina Brutti; Stefano Tardivo; Giovanna Ghirlanda; Giuseppe Verlato; Stefania Gaino; Denise Peserico; Antonella Bassi; Giuseppe Lippi Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-14 Impact factor: 3.390