Antigen-Based Testing but Not Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Correlates With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Viral Culture.
SARS-CoV-2
SARS-CoV-2 live culture
antigen testing
rt-PCR testing
viral load
Journal
Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
ISSN: 1537-6591
Titre abrégé: Clin Infect Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9203213
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 11 2021
02 11 2021
Historique:
received:
15
10
2020
pubmed:
23
1
2021
medline:
9
11
2021
entrez:
22
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Individuals can test positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by molecular assays following the resolution of their clinical disease. Recent studies indicate that SARS-CoV-2 antigen-based tests are likely to be positive early in the disease course, when there is an increased likelihood of high levels of infectious virus. Upper respiratory specimens from 251 participants with coronavirus disease 2019 symptoms (≤7 days from symptom onset) were prospectively collected and tested with a lateral flow antigen test and a real-time polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR) assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Specimens from a subset of the study specimens were utilized to determine the presence of infectious virus in the VeroE6TMPRSS2 cell culture model. The antigen test demonstrated a higher positive predictive value (90%) than rt-PCR (70%) when compared to culture-positive results. The positive percentage agreement for detection of infectious virus for the antigen test was similar to rt-PCR when compared to culture results. The correlation between SARS-CoV-2 antigen and SARS-CoV-2 culture positivity represents a significant advancement in determining the risk for potential transmissibility beyond that which can be achieved by detection of SARS-CoV-2 genomic RNA. SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing can facilitate low-cost, scalable, and rapid time-to-result, while providing good risk determination of those who are likely harboring infectious virus, compared to rt-PCR.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Individuals can test positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by molecular assays following the resolution of their clinical disease. Recent studies indicate that SARS-CoV-2 antigen-based tests are likely to be positive early in the disease course, when there is an increased likelihood of high levels of infectious virus.
METHODS
Upper respiratory specimens from 251 participants with coronavirus disease 2019 symptoms (≤7 days from symptom onset) were prospectively collected and tested with a lateral flow antigen test and a real-time polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR) assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Specimens from a subset of the study specimens were utilized to determine the presence of infectious virus in the VeroE6TMPRSS2 cell culture model.
RESULTS
The antigen test demonstrated a higher positive predictive value (90%) than rt-PCR (70%) when compared to culture-positive results. The positive percentage agreement for detection of infectious virus for the antigen test was similar to rt-PCR when compared to culture results.
CONCLUSIONS
The correlation between SARS-CoV-2 antigen and SARS-CoV-2 culture positivity represents a significant advancement in determining the risk for potential transmissibility beyond that which can be achieved by detection of SARS-CoV-2 genomic RNA. SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing can facilitate low-cost, scalable, and rapid time-to-result, while providing good risk determination of those who are likely harboring infectious virus, compared to rt-PCR.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33479756
pii: 6105729
doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1706
pmc: PMC7929138
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antigens, Viral
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2861-e2866Subventions
Organisme : NINR NIH HHS
ID : R01 NR005228
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : USA-WA1/2020
Pays : United States
Organisme : CDC HHS
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
BMJ Open. 2020 Aug 16;10(8):e039652
pubmed: 32801208
Nat Commun. 2021 Jan 11;12(1):267
pubmed: 33431879
Reprod Biomed Online. 2020 Sep;41(3):483-499
pubmed: 32651106
Nature. 2020 May;581(7809):465-469
pubmed: 32235945
BMJ Open. 2020 Nov 23;10(11):e040263
pubmed: 33234640
Nat Med. 2020 May;26(5):672-675
pubmed: 32296168
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2020 Jun;39(6):1059-1061
pubmed: 32342252
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Dec 17;59(1):
pubmed: 33023911
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Jul 23;58(8):
pubmed: 32518072
Sci Adv. 2021 Jan 1;7(1):
pubmed: 33219112
BMJ Open. 2020 Aug 5;10(8):e039856
pubmed: 32759252
J Clin Virol. 2020 Jul;128:104412
pubmed: 32416600
Lancet. 2003 May 24;361(9371):1767-72
pubmed: 12781535
Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Jul;26(7):1633-1635
pubmed: 32294051
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Dec 17;71(10):2663-2666
pubmed: 32442256
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Mar 31;117(13):7001-7003
pubmed: 32165541
Nat Microbiol. 2020 Oct;5(10):1299-1305
pubmed: 32651556
Environ Int. 2020 Jun;139:105730
pubmed: 32294574
Nature. 2020 Jul;583(7818):834-838
pubmed: 32408338
Emerg Infect Dis. 2004 Feb;10(2):294-9
pubmed: 15030700
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Aug 26;8:CD013705
pubmed: 32845525
N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 26;383(22):e120
pubmed: 32997903
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 28;382(22):2081-2090
pubmed: 32329971