Performance of three rapid antigen tests against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant
Kanjilal, S.; Chalise, S.; Shami Shah, A.; Cheng, C.-A.; Senussi, Y.; Uddin, R.; Thiriveedhi, V.; Cho, H. E.; Carroll, S.; Lemieux, J.; Turbett, S.; Walt, D. R.
Show abstract
Rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are now in widespread use in the United States. RADTs play an important role in maintaining an open society but require periodic reassessment to ensure test performance remains intact as the virus evolves. The nucleocapsid (N) protein is the target for the majority of RADTs and the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant has several N protein mutations that are previously uncharacterized. We sought to assess the impact of these mutations by testing 30 Omicron variant samples across a wide range of viral loads on three widely used RADTs: the iHealth COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test, the ACON Laboratories FlowFlex COVID-19 Antigen Home Test, and the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Antigen Card, using 30 Delta variant samples as a comparator. We found no change in the analytic sensitivity of all three RADTs for detection of Omicron versus Delta, but noted differences in performance between assays. No RADT was able to detect samples with a cycle threshold (Ct) value of [≥]27.5 for the envelope gene target on the Roche cobas RT-PCR assay. Epidemiologic studies are necessary to correlate these findings with their real-world performance.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Estimating the false positive rate of highly automated SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification testing 97%
- Analytical and Clinical Comparison of Three Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Detection 97%
- 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 97%
Similar papers in this journal
- Performance of the Cue COVID-19 Molecular Test for Point of Care: Insights from a multi-site clinic service model 97%
- A Reagent and Virus Benchmarking Panel for a Uniform Analytical Performance Assessment of N Antigen–Based Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19 96%
- Clinical evaluation of BD Veritor™ SARS-CoV-2 and Flu A+B Assay for point-of-care (POC) System 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparison of Cepheid Xpert Xpress and Abbott ID Now to Roche cobas for the Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 96%
- Is the glass half full? Extraction-free RT-LAMP to detect SARS-CoV-2 is less sensitive but highly specific compared to standard RT-PCR in 101 samples 95%
- Clinical evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay on a fully automated system for rapid on-demand testing in the hospital setting 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparative study of four SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT) platforms demonstrates that ID NOW performance is impaired substantially by patient and specimen type. 96%
- Verification of the Abbott Alinity m Resp-4-Plex Assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B, and respiratory syncytial virus 95%
- Analytical Performance of the AMDI Fast PCR Mini Respiratory Panel 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Point of Care Devices in the Laboratory and Clinical Setting 97%
- Diagnostic accuracy of two commercial SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-detecting rapid tests at the point of care in community-based testing centers 96%
- Recommendations for sample pooling on the Cepheid GeneXpert(R) system using the Cepheid Xpert(R) Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay 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.