Rapid COVID-19 antigenic tests: Usefulness of a modified method for diagnosis

Reza Soleimani, Corentin Deckers, Te-Din Huang, Pierre Bogaerts, Stéphanie Evrard, Isaline Wallemme, Boutaina Habib, Pauline Rouzé, Olivier Denis, Reza Soleimani, Corentin Deckers, Te-Din Huang, Pierre Bogaerts, Stéphanie Evrard, Isaline Wallemme, Boutaina Habib, Pauline Rouzé, Olivier Denis

Abstract

The current reliable recommended test for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis is quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Rapid antigen test devices could be useful as they are less expensive, faster without the need of specialized laboratories to perform the test. We report the performances of two rapid immunochromatographic antigen testing devices compared with RT-qPCR for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection in nasopharyngeal samples. We carried out a lateral-flow tests study on 401 nasopharyngeal swab samples from nonduplicated suspected COVID-19 subjects. An equal volume of universal transport medium tubes-containing samples (dilution ratio = 1:15) were added to the manufacturer's extraction buffer solution (dilution ratio = 1:2) and analyzed on BioSpeedia COVID19Speed-Antigen Test and on Abbott Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test, devices. Qualitative results were compared to those obtained by the RT-qPCR (Allplex™ SARS-CoV-2 Assay Seegene). Based on our data, the overall sensitivity for BioSpeedia and Panbio devices was estimated at 65.5% and 75.0%, respectively. The sensitivity was greater for cycle threshold values less than 25 achieving 90.4 and 96.8 for BioSpeedia and Panbio devices, respectively. A perfect specificity of 100.0% was observed for both devices.

Keywords: BioSpeedia; COVID-19; Panbio; RT-qPCR; SARS-CoV-2; antigen.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that there are no conflict of interests.

© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

References

    1. Corman VM, Landt O, Kaiser M, et al. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019‐nCoV) by real‐time RT‐PCR. Eurosurveillance. 2020;25(3):2000045.
    1. Soleimani R, Khourssaji M, Gruson D, et al. Clinical usefulness of fully automated chemiluminescent immunoassay for quantitative antibody measurements in COVID‐19 patients. J Med Virol. 2020;93:1465‐1477.
    1. Albert E, Torres I, Bueno F, et al. Field evaluation of a rapid antigen test (Panbio COVID‐19 Ag Rapid Test Device) for COVID‐19 diagnosis in primary healthcare centres. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020;27:472.
    1. Yamayoshi S, Sakai‐Tagawa Y, Koga M, et al. Comparison of rapid antigen tests for COVID‐19. Viruses. 2020;12(12):1420.
    1. Johanna N, Citrawijaya H, Wangge G. Mass screening vs lockdown vs combination of both to control COVID‐19: a systematic review. J Public Health Res. 2020;9(4):2011.
    1. Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, Grady DG, Newman TB. Designing Clinical Research. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007.
    1. Corman VM, Landt O, Kaiser M, et al. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019‐nCoV) by real‐time RT‐PCR. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(3):2000045.
    1. Scohy A, Anantharajah A, Bodéus M, Kabamba‐Mukadi B, Verroken A, Rodriguez‐Villalobos H. Low performance of rapid antigen detection test as frontline testing for COVID‐19 diagnosis. J Clin Virol. 2020;129:104455.
    1. Gremmels H, Winkel B, Schuurman R, et al. Real‐life validation of the Panbio™ COVID‐19 antigen rapid test (Abbott) in community‐dwelling subjects with symptoms of potential SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. EClinicalMedicine. 2020;31:100677.
    1. Linares M, Pérez‐Tanoira R, Carrero A, et al. Panbio antigen rapid test is reliable to diagnose SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in the first 7 days after the onset of symptoms. J Clin Virol. 2020;133:104659.
    1. Favresse J, Gillot C, Oliveira M, et al. Head‐to‐head comparison of rapid and automated antigen detection tests for the diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. J Clin Med. 2021;10(2):265. 10.3390/jcm10020265

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit