Performance of a rapid antigen test in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
COVID-19
SARS-CoV-2
nasopharyngeal swabs
rapid antigen test
real-time PCR
Journal
Journal of medical virology
ISSN: 1096-9071
Titre abrégé: J Med Virol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7705876
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2021
May 2021
Historique:
revised:
22
01
2021
received:
07
01
2021
accepted:
25
01
2021
pubmed:
3
2
2021
medline:
22
4
2021
entrez:
2
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Diagnostics is crucial for a prompt identification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infected patients, their isolation and treatment. Real-time PCR is the reference method for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, the unprecedented increase in the number of infections worldwide calls for faster and easy methods that do not require skilled personnel and special equipment. Rapid antigen tests have been developed and used as first line screening. Here, we assessed the performance of a rapid antigen test in comparison to a real-time qualitative PCR as gold standard. Fifty nasopharyngeal swabs from suspected cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection have been tested by Coris coronavirus disease 2019 Ag Respi-Strip test and Allplex 2019n-CoV assay. Of the 50 nasopharyngeal swabs tested, 11 were negative by both tests, 27 were negative by Ag test but positive by real-time PCR, and 12 were positive by both methods. PCR detected the 39 positive samples at a median cycle threshold (Ct) value of 22.78 (mean: 24.51; range: 13.59-39.6). In the 12 concordant samples, the median Ct value was 17.37. The sensitivity of the Ag test was 30.77% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 17.02%-47.57%), specificity 100% (95% CI: 71.51%-100.00%), positive predictive value 100%, negative predictive value 85.25% (95% CI: 82.42%-87.69%), and accuracy 86.15% (95% CI: 73.45%-94.28%). The level of agreement between the two tests was poor, k = 0.164. The Ag test performs well in the presence of high viral loads, whereas lower levels are missed. Considering the poor sensitivity of the method, real-time PCR remains the gold standard as front line screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33527409
doi: 10.1002/jmv.26830
pmc: PMC8014551
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antigens, Viral
0
RNA, Viral
0
Reagent Kits, Diagnostic
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2988-2991Informations de copyright
© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Nature. 2020 Mar;579(7798):270-273
pubmed: 32015507
Nature. 2020 May;581(7809):465-469
pubmed: 32235945
J Med Virol. 2021 May;93(5):2988-2991
pubmed: 33527409
J Clin Virol. 2020 Aug;129:104455
pubmed: 32485618
JAMA. 2020 Dec 1;324(21):2153-2154
pubmed: 33185688
Nature. 2020 Mar;579(7798):265-269
pubmed: 32015508