Your browser doesn't support javascript.
The evaluation results of proposed antigen rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19: some possible factors might influence.
Furqoni, Abdul Hadi; Amin, Mochamad; Restifan, Yanna Debby; Putri, Serius Miliyani Dwi; Ferandra, Virginia Ayu; Lusida, Maria Inge.
  • Juniastuti; Department of Medical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia.
  • Furqoni AH; Clinical Microbiology Residency Program, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga - Dr. Soetomo General Hospital, Surabaya, Indonesia.
  • Amin M; Institute of Tropical Disease, Universitas Airlangga, Campus C Jalan Mulyorejo, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia.
  • Restifan YD; Institute of Tropical Disease, Universitas Airlangga, Campus C Jalan Mulyorejo, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia.
  • Putri SMD; Institute of Tropical Disease, Universitas Airlangga, Campus C Jalan Mulyorejo, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia.
  • Ferandra VA; Institute of Tropical Disease, Universitas Airlangga, Campus C Jalan Mulyorejo, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia.
  • Lusida MI; Institute of Tropical Disease, Universitas Airlangga, Campus C Jalan Mulyorejo, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia.
Infection ; 2023 Jan 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2175263
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

In addition to existing gold standard qRT-PCR methods, there is a need to develop reliable rapid tests for infection control with early notification of COVID-19 cases to enable effective outbreak management. We evaluated the validity of the three Ag-RDT kits proposed by some companies in different countries by using qRT-PCR and analyzed its results.

METHODS:

Each of the three Ag-RDT kits (namely A, B, and C) was tested with 90 samples, consisting of samples with Ct ≤ 25, samples with Ct > 25, and negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR samples.

RESULTS:

This study showed that for samples with Ct > 25, all the three kits could not detect SARS-CoV-2 Ag (0% sensitivity) but showed 100% specificity. Meanwhile, for samples with Ct ≤ 25, kit C was the best (76.7% sensitivity and 100% specificity). The PPV of the three kits was 100%, but their NPV ranged 63-84.8%. Kit C showed the best accuracy (89.9%). Some factors might influence the results of evaluation, such as variation of virus proteins and transportation-storage of the kits.

CONCLUSION:

The overall specificity of the three kits for all samples was high; however, all of them have not met the minimum performance requirements of ≥ 80% sensitivity for samples with Ct ≤ 25. The validation test is much necessary to be carried out by the authority in national health care to ensure the feasibility of the kit for point-of-care testing (POCT) of COVID-19. Some factors that might influence should be anticipated to increase their sensitivities and specificities.
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study Language: English Year: 2023 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: S15010-022-01975-9

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study Language: English Year: 2023 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: S15010-022-01975-9