Head-to-head comparison of four antigen-based rapid detection tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples
Weitzel, T.; Legarraga, P.; Iruretagoyena, M.; Pizarro, G.; Vollrath, V.; Araos, R.; Munita, J. M.; Porte, L.
Show abstract
In the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, the development and validation of rapid and easy-to-perform diagnostic methods are of high priority. We compared the performance of four rapid antigen detection tests for SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples. Immunochromatographic SARS-CoV-2 assays from RapiGEN, Liming bio, Savant, and Bioeasy were evaluated using universal transport medium containing naso-oropharyngeal swabs from suspected Covid-19 cases. The diagnostic accuracy was determined in comparison to SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. A total of 111 samples were included; 80 were RT-PCR positive. Median patients age was 40 years, 55% were female, and 88% presented within the first week after symptom onset. The evaluation of the Liming bio assay was discontinued due to insufficient performance. The overall sensitivity values of RapiGEN, Liming bio, and Bioeasy tests were 62.0% (CI95% 51.0-71.9), 16.7% (CI95% 10.0-26.5), and 85.0% (CI95% 75.6-91.2), respectively, with specificities of 100%. Sensitivity was significantly higher in samples with high viral loads (RapiGEN, 84.9%; Bioeasy, 100%). The study highlighted the significant heterogeneity of test performance among evaluated assays, which might have been influenced by the use of a non-validated sample material. The high sensitivity of some tests demonstrated that rapid antigen detection has the potential to serve as an alternative diagnostic method, especially in patients presenting with high viral loads in early phases of infection. This is particularly important in situations with limited access to RT-PCR or prolonged turnaround time. Further comparative evaluations are necessary to select products with high performance among the growing market of diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparison of the Accula SARS-CoV-2 Test with a Laboratory-Developed Assay for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Clinical Nasopharyngeal Specimens 97%
- Analytical and Clinical Comparison of Three Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Detection 96%
- Performance of Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 rapid nucleic acid amplification test in nasopharyngeal swabs transported in viral media and dry nasal swabs, in a New York City academic institution 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Handling and accuracy of four rapid antigen tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR 97%
- Evaluation of three rapid lateral flow antigen detection tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection 97%
- Evaluation of a fully automated high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 multiplex qPCR assay with build-in screening functionality for DelHV69/70- and N501Y variants such as B.1.1.7 97%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical impact of the rapid molecular detection of RSV and influenza A and B virus in the emergency room 97%
- Diagnostic accuracy of two commercial SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-detecting rapid tests at the point of care in community-based testing centers 96%
- Laboratory and field evaluation of the STANDARD Q and Panbio™ SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid test in Namibia using nasopharyngeal samples 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Real-life performance of a novel antigen detection test on nasopharyngeal specimens for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis: a prospective study 97%
- Validation and Performance Comparison of Three SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Assays 95%
- Clinical evaluation of an automated, rapid mariPOC ® antigen test in screening of symptomatics and asymptomatics for SARS-CoV-2 infections 95%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.