Low performance of rapid antigen detection test as frontline testing for COVID-19 diagnosis

Anaïs Scohy, Ahalieyah Anantharajah, Monique Bodéus, Benoît Kabamba-Mukadi, Alexia Verroken, Hector Rodriguez-Villalobos, Anaïs Scohy, Ahalieyah Anantharajah, Monique Bodéus, Benoît Kabamba-Mukadi, Alexia Verroken, Hector Rodriguez-Villalobos

Abstract

Background: Ensuring accurate diagnosis is essential to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and for the clinical management of COVID-19. Although real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT- qPCR) is the current recommended laboratory method to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 acute infection, several factors such as requirement of special equipment and skilled staff limit the use of these time-consuming molecular techniques. Recently, several easy to perform rapid antigen detection tests were developed and recommended in some countries as the first line of diagnostic.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performances of the Coris COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip test, a rapid immunochromatographic test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen, in comparison to RT-qPCR.

Results: 148 nasopharyngeal swabs were tested. Amongst the 106 positive RT-qPCR samples, 32 were detected by the rapid antigen test, given an overall sensitivity of 30.2%. All the samples detected positive with the antigen rapid test were also positive with RT-qPCR.

Conclusions: Higher viral loads are associated with better antigen detection rates. Unfortunately, the overall poor sensitivity of the COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip does not allow using it alone as the frontline testing for COVID-19 diagnosis.

Keywords: COVID-19; Rapid antigen detection test; SARS-CoV-2.

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip results according to viral load.

References

    1. Lu R., Zhao X., Li J., Niu P., Yang B., Wu H. Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for virus origins and receptor binding. Lancet. 2020;395(10224):565–574.
    1. Zhu N., Zhang D., Wang W., Li X., Yang B., Song J. A novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China, 2019. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020;382(8):727–733.
    1. Corman V.M., Landt O., Kaiser M., Molenkamp R., Meijer A., Chu D.K. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(3)
    1. OMS . 2020. Laboratory Testing Strategy Recommendations for COVID-19. Interim Guidance. 21 march.
    1. Centers for Disease C Prevention. Evaluation of rapid influenza diagnostic tests for detection of novel influenza A (H1N1) Virus - United States, 2009. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2009;58(30):826–829.

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit