ABSTRACT
The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron was classified as a variant of concern in November 2021. The sublineage BA.2 spreads rapidly worldwide. Currently, there is a lack of data for the parallel comparison of Rapid Antigen Test (RAT) Kits to detect SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2. We evaluated the analytical sensitivity of 12 RAT kits to detect Omicron BA.2 in the present study. Analytical sensitivity was determined by means of the limit of detection (LOD). We prepared a dilution set using a respiratory specimen collected from a COVID-19 patient infected by Omicron BA.2. The reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction was used as a reference method. The LOD results showed that all 12 RAT kits had comparable analytical sensitivity to detect Omicron BA.2. The RAT kits selected in the current study may be used for the first-line screening of the rapid spreading Omicron BA.2.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnosis , Humans , Immunologic Tests , RNA, Viral/analysis , SARS-CoV-2/geneticsABSTRACT
Background Currently, there is a lack of studies evaluating rapid antigen detection (RAD) kits to detect SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529. Objective To evaluate the analytical sensitivity of seven RAD kits to detect SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529. Study design The analytical sensitivity was determined by means of limit of detection (LOD). A dilution set using a respiratory specimen collected from a COVID-19 patient infected with SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 was prepared. RT-PCR was used as a reference method. Results The LOD results showed that all seven RAD kits had comparable analytical sensitivity for detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529. Conclusions The RAD kits selected in the current study may be used for first-line screening of the recently emerged SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529.
ABSTRACT
RT-PCR is the gold standard to detect SARS-CoV-2, however, its capacity is limited. We evaluated an automated antigen detection (AAD) test, Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen (Roche, Germany), for detecting SARS-CoV-2. We compared the limit of detection (LOD) between AAD test, rapid antigen detection (RAD) test; SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (SD Biosensor, Korea), and in-house RT-PCR test. LOD results showed that the AAD test was 100 fold more sensitive than the RAD test, while the sensitivity of the AAD test was comparable to the RT-PCR test. The AAD test detected between 85.7% and 88.6% of RT-PCR-positive specimens collected from COVID-19 patients, false negative results were observed for specimens with Ct values >30. Although clinical sensitivity for the AAD test was not superior or comparable to the RT-PCR test in the present study, the AAD test may be an alternative to RT-PCR test in terms of turn-around time and throughput.
Subject(s)
Antigens, Viral/isolation & purification , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19/virology , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , Humans , Limit of Detection , Sensitivity and Specificity , Viral LoadABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Currently, there are two rapid antigen detection (RAD) kits from the WHO Emergency Use List for detecting SARS-CoV-2. OBJECTIVE: The Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device was selected to evaluate the performance for detecting SARS-CoV-2. STUDY DESIGN: Analytical sensitivity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus was determined by limit of detection (LOD) using RT-PCR as a reference method. Clinical sensitivity was evaluated by using respiratory specimens collected from confirmed COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: The LOD results showed that the RAD kit was 100 fold less sensitive than RT-PCR. Clinical sensitivity of the RAD kit was 68.6 % for detecting specimens from COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSIONS: The RAD kit evaluated in the present study shared similar performance with another kit from the WHO Emergency Use List, the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag. Understanding the clinical characteristics of RAD kits can guide us to decide different testing strategies in different settings.