Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
2.
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis ; 101(4): 115490, 2021 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34399380

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Antígenos Virais/isolamento & purificação , Teste Sorológico para COVID-19/métodos , COVID-19/virologia , Kit de Reagentes para Diagnóstico , SARS-CoV-2/imunologia , SARS-CoV-2/isolamento & purificação , Teste de Ácido Nucleico para COVID-19 , Testes Diagnósticos de Rotina , Humanos , Limite de Detecção , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Carga Viral
3.
J Clin Virol ; 134: 104712, 2021 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33338894

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Antígenos Virais/análise , COVID-19/diagnóstico , Kit de Reagentes para Diagnóstico/normas , SARS-CoV-2/imunologia , COVID-19/patologia , COVID-19/virologia , Teste para COVID-19/métodos , Reações Cruzadas , Hong Kong , Humanos , Limite de Detecção , Nasofaringe/virologia , Faringe/virologia , Reação em Cadeia da Polimerase Via Transcriptase Reversa , SARS-CoV-2/patogenicidade , Organização Mundial da Saúde
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA