Evaluation of a novel antigen-based rapid detection test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples

Lorena Porte, Paulette Legarraga, Valeska Vollrath, Ximena Aguilera, José M Munita, Rafael Araos, Gabriel Pizarro, Pablo Vial, Mirentxu Iruretagoyena, Sabine Dittrich, Thomas Weitzel, Lorena Porte, Paulette Legarraga, Valeska Vollrath, Ximena Aguilera, José M Munita, Rafael Araos, Gabriel Pizarro, Pablo Vial, Mirentxu Iruretagoyena, Sabine Dittrich, Thomas Weitzel

Abstract

Objectives: In the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the development and validation of rapid and easy-to-perform diagnostic methods are of high priority. This study was performed to evaluate a novel rapid antigen detection test (RDT) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in respiratory samples.

Methods: The fluorescence immunochromatographic SARS-CoV-2 antigen test (Bioeasy Biotechnology Co., Shenzhen, China) was evaluated using universal transport medium with nasopharyngeal (NP) and oropharyngeal (OP) swabs from suspected COVID-19 cases. Diagnostic accuracy was determined in comparison to SARS-CoV-2 real-time (RT)-PCR.

Results: A total of 127 samples were included; 82 were RT-PCR-positive. The median patient age was 38 years, 53.5% were male, and 93.7% were from the first week after symptom onset. Overall sensitivity and specificity were 93.9% (95% confidence interval 86.5-97.4%) and 100% (95% confidence interval 92.1-100%), respectively, with a diagnostic accuracy of 96.1% and Kappa coefficient of 0.9. Sensitivity was significantly higher in samples with high viral loads.

Conclusions: The RDT evaluated in this study showed a high sensitivity and specificity in samples mainly obtained during the first week of symptoms and with high viral loads, despite the use of a non-validated sample material. The assay has the potential to become an important tool for early diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, particularly in situations with limited access to molecular methods.

Keywords: Antigen; COVID-19; Coronavirus; Diagnosis; Rapid diagnostic test; SARS-CoV-2.

Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Cycle threshold (Ct) values and lineal trend line of 70 RT-PCR-positive samples taken on different days after symptom onset. Dot colours represent false-negative (red) and true-positive (blue) results by antigen detection test.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Cycle threshold (Ct) values and lineal trend lines for 33 samples from female patients (red) and 37 from male patients (blue) taken on different days after symptom onset.

References

    1. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), Respiratory Viruses Branch, Division of Viral Diseases. Real-Time RT-PCR Panel for Detection 2019-Novel Coronavirus. Instructions for Use. 2020. , 2020 (accessed 15 May 2020).
    1. Che X.Y., Hao W., Wang Y., Di B., Yin K., Xu Y.C. Nucleocapsid protein as early diagnostic marker for SARS. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10:1947–1949.
    1. CLSI . Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; Wayne, PA: 2008. User Protocol for Evaluation of Qualitative Test Performance; Approved Guideline-Second Edition. CLSI document EP12-A2.
    1. Corman V.M., Landt O., Kaiser M Molenkamp R., Meijer A., Chu D.K.W. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(3) doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045.
    1. Diao B., Wen K., Chen J., Liu Y., Yuan Z., Han C. 2020. Diagnosis of acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection by detection of nucleocapsid protein. Preprint at.
    1. ECDC. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: increased transmission in the EU/EEA and the UK – seventh update, 2020. Stockholm: 2020. (accessed 15 May 2020).
    1. Commission European. Communication from the Commission: Guidelines on COVID-19 in vitro diagnostic tests and their performance (2020/C 122 I/01) Official Journal of the European Union. 2020 (accessed 13 May 2020)
    1. FIND (Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics). SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic pipeline. 2020 (continuously updated). (accessed 15 May 2020).
    1. Nguyen T., Duong Bang D., Wolff A. Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): Paving the Road for Rapid Detection and Point-of-Care Diagnostics. Micromachines (Basel) 2020 pii:E306.
    1. Patel R., Babady E., Theel E.S., Storch G.A., Pinsky B.A., St George K. Report from the American Society for Microbiology COVID-19 International Summit, 23 March 2020: Value of Diagnostic Testing for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19. mBio. 2020 pii:e00722-20.
    1. Weitzel T., Rodríguez F., Noriega L.M., Marcotti A., Duran L., Palavecino C. Hepatitis B and C virus infection among HIV patients within the public and private healthcare systems in Chile: A cross-sectional serosurvey. PLOS One. 2020;15
    1. WHO (World Health Organisation) A coordinated Global Research Roadmap. , 2020a (accessed 15 May 2020).
    1. WHO (World Health Organisation) Laboratory testing for 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in suspected human cases. Interim guidance. 2020. , 2020b (accessed 15 May 2020).
    1. WHO (World Health Organisation) Laboratory testing strategy recommendations for COVID-19. Interim guidance. 2020. , 2020c (accessed 15 May 2020).
    1. WHO. Laboratory biosafety guidance related to the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Interim guidance. 2020. , 2020d (accessed 15 May 2020).
    1. Wölfel R., Corman V.M., Guggemos, Seilmaier W.M., Zange S., Mueller M.A. Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019. Nature. 2020;581:465–469.
    1. Zou L., Ruan F., Huang M., Liang L., Huang H., Hong Z. SARS-CoV-2 Viral load in upper respiratory specimens of infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1177–1179.

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit