Performance differences among commercially available antigen rapid tests for COVID-19 in Brazil.

A rapid and accurate diagnosis is a crucial strategy for containing the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Considering the obstacles to upscaling the use of RT-qPCR, rapid tests based on antigen detection (Ag-RDT) have become an alternative to enhance mass testing, reducing the time for a prompt diagnosis and virus spreading. However, the performances of several commercially available Ag-RDTs have not yet been evaluated in several countries. Here, we evaluate the performance of eight Ag-RDTs available in Brazil to diagnose COVID-19. Patients admitted to tertiary hospitals with moderate or mild COVID-19 symptoms and presenting risk factors for severe disease were included. The tests were performed using a masked protocol, strictly following the manufacturer's recommendations and were compared with RT-qPCR. The overall sensitivity of the tests ranged from 9.8 to 81.1%, and specificity greater than 83% was observed for all the evaluated tests. Overall, slight or fair agreement was observed between Ag-RDTs and RT-PCR, except for the Ag-RDT COVID-19 (Acro Biotech), in which moderate agreement was observed. Lower sensitivity of Ag-RDTs was observed for patients with cycle threshold > 25, indicating that the sensitivity was directly affected by viral load, whereas the effect of the disease duration was unclear. Despite the lower sensitivity of Ag-RDTs compared with RT-qPCR, its easy fulfillment and promptness still justify its use, even at hospital admission. However, the main advantage of Ag-RDTs seems to be the possibility of increasing access to the diagnosis of COVID-19 in patients with a high viral load, allowing immediate clinical management and reduction of infectivity and community transmission.

Diagnostic performance of commercially available COVID-19 serology tests in Brazil.

Timely and accurate laboratory testing is essential for managing the global COVID-19 pandemic. Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction remains the gold-standard for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, but several practical issues limit the test's use. Immunoassays have been indicated as an alternative for individual and mass testing. OBJECTIVES: To access the performance of 12 serological tests for COVID-19 diagnosis. METHODS: We conducted a blind evaluation of six lateral-flow immunoassays (LFIAs) and six enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) commercially available in Brazil for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. RESULTS: Considering patients with seven or more days of symptoms, the sensitivity ranged from 59.5% to 83.1% for LFIAs and from 50.7% to 92.6% for ELISAs. For both methods, the sensitivity increased with clinical severity and days of symptoms. The agreement among LFIAs performed with digital blood and serum was moderate. Specificity was, in general, higher for LFIAs than for ELISAs. Infectious diseases prevalent in the tropics, such as HIV, leishmaniasis, arboviruses, and malaria, represent conditions with the potential to cause false-positive results with these tests, which significantly compromises their specificity. CONCLUSION: The performance of immunoassays was only moderate, affected by the duration and clinical severity of the disease. Absence of discriminatory power between IgM/IgA and IgG has also been demonstrated, which prevents the use of acute-phase antibodies for decisions on social isolation.