OBJECTIVES: Compared to RT-PCR, lower performance of antigen detection assays, including the Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag assay, may depend on specific testing scenarios. METHODS: We tested 594 nasopharyngeal swab samples from individuals with COVID-19 (RT-PCR cycle threshold [Ct] values ≤ 40) or non-COVID-19 (Ct values > 40) diagnoses. RT-PCR positive samples were assigned to diagnostic, screening, or monitoring groups of testing. RESULTS: With a limit of detection of 1.2 × 104 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/ml, Lumipulse showed positive percent agreement (PPA) of 79.9% (155/194) and negative percent agreement of 99.3% (397/400), whereas PPAs were 100% for samples with Ct values of <18 or 18-<25 and 92.5% for samples with Ct values of 25-<30. By three groups, Lumipulse showed PPA of 87.0% (60/69), 81.1% (43/53), or 72.2% (52/72), respectively, whereas PPA was 100% for samples with Ct values of <18 or 18-<25, and was 94.4, 80.0, or 100% for samples with Ct values of 25-<30, respectively. Additional testing of RT-PCR positive samples for SARS-CoV-2 subgenomic RNA showed that, by three groups, PPA was 63.8% (44/69), 62.3% (33/53), or 33.3% (24/72), respectively. PPAs dropped to 55.6, 20.0, or 41.7% for samples with Ct values of 25-<30, respectively. All 101 samples with a subgenomic RNA positive result had a Lumipulse assay's antigen positive result, whereas only 54 (58.1%) of remaining 93 samples had a Lumipulse assay's antigen positive result. CONCLUSIONS: Lumipulse assay was highly sensitive in samples with low RT-PCR Ct values, implying repeated testing to reduce consequences of false-negative results.
OBJECTIVES: Compared to RT-PCR, lower performance of antigen detection assays, including the Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag assay, may depend on specific testing scenarios. METHODS: We tested 594 nasopharyngeal swab samples from individuals with COVID-19 (RT-PCR cycle threshold [Ct] values ≤ 40) or non-COVID-19 (Ct values > 40) diagnoses. RT-PCR positive samples were assigned to diagnostic, screening, or monitoring groups of testing. RESULTS: With a limit of detection of 1.2 × 104 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/ml, Lumipulse showed positive percent agreement (PPA) of 79.9% (155/194) and negative percent agreement of 99.3% (397/400), whereas PPAs were 100% for samples with Ct values of <18 or 18-<25 and 92.5% for samples with Ct values of 25-<30. By three groups, Lumipulse showed PPA of 87.0% (60/69), 81.1% (43/53), or 72.2% (52/72), respectively, whereas PPA was 100% for samples with Ct values of <18 or 18-<25, and was 94.4, 80.0, or 100% for samples with Ct values of 25-<30, respectively. Additional testing of RT-PCR positive samples for SARS-CoV-2 subgenomic RNA showed that, by three groups, PPA was 63.8% (44/69), 62.3% (33/53), or 33.3% (24/72), respectively. PPAs dropped to 55.6, 20.0, or 41.7% for samples with Ct values of 25-<30, respectively. All 101 samples with a subgenomic RNA positive result had a Lumipulse assay's antigen positive result, whereas only 54 (58.1%) of remaining 93 samples had a Lumipulse assay's antigen positive result. CONCLUSIONS: Lumipulse assay was highly sensitive in samples with low RT-PCR Ct values, implying repeated testing to reduce consequences of false-negative results.
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: 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
Authors: Supranee Thongpradit; Somsak Prasongtanakij; Supanart Srisala; Suwannee Chanprasertyothin; Ekawat Pasomsub; Boonsong Ongphiphadhanakul Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-24 Impact factor: 4.614
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