Diagnostic Accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Antigen Self-Test in Comparison to Reverse Transcriptase-Polymerase Chain Reaction.
COVID-19
N-antigen
RT–PCR
colloidal gold
self-test
Journal
The journal of applied laboratory medicine
ISSN: 2576-9456
Titre abrégé: J Appl Lab Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101693884
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 06 2022
30 06 2022
Historique:
received:
26
01
2022
accepted:
08
03
2022
pubmed:
12
6
2022
medline:
5
10
2022
entrez:
11
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Currently, the rapid antigen test (RAT) and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) are considered the main stakeholders in COVID-19 diagnosis. In RT-PCR, any of at least 2 evolutionary conserved genes (RdRP, E-, N-, ORF1ab gene) and S-gene of SARS-CoV-2 are endorsed, and in RAT, the nucleocapsid antigen (N-Ag) of SARS-CoV-2 is considered due to its stability and fewer chances of mutation effects. In the present work, we evaluated the performance of the AG-Q COVID-19 N-Ag self-test kit and conducted a validation study in comparison with the RT-PCR. AG-Q COVID-19 N-Ag rapid test kit is an Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) approved product developed and marketed by Agappe Diagnostics Limited. The RT-PCR assay was performed with a COVIPATH COVID-19 RT-PCR kit from Thermo Fisher Scientific. We observed 19 false-negative results in antigen self-tests, including samples of threshold cycle (Ct) values 22/22 (N-gene/ORF1ab-gene) in RT-PCR, indicating inadequate sampling by the patients in self-tests, leading to false-negative results and increased chances of the disease spreading. Based on the RT-PCR Ct value vs antigen self-test comparison, it is evident that proper sampling is crucial in performing antigen self-tests. Also, there were weak positive results in antigen self-tests with a Ct value of 18/19 in RT-PCR. Although the sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy offered by the AG-Q COVID-19 N-Antigen self-test in comparison with RT-PCR fulfills the ICMR tenets for RAT, this study recommends the laboratory/hospital-based RAT execution would be appropriate, rather than the self-test.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Currently, the rapid antigen test (RAT) and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) are considered the main stakeholders in COVID-19 diagnosis. In RT-PCR, any of at least 2 evolutionary conserved genes (RdRP, E-, N-, ORF1ab gene) and S-gene of SARS-CoV-2 are endorsed, and in RAT, the nucleocapsid antigen (N-Ag) of SARS-CoV-2 is considered due to its stability and fewer chances of mutation effects. In the present work, we evaluated the performance of the AG-Q COVID-19 N-Ag self-test kit and conducted a validation study in comparison with the RT-PCR.
METHODS
AG-Q COVID-19 N-Ag rapid test kit is an Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) approved product developed and marketed by Agappe Diagnostics Limited. The RT-PCR assay was performed with a COVIPATH COVID-19 RT-PCR kit from Thermo Fisher Scientific.
RESULTS
We observed 19 false-negative results in antigen self-tests, including samples of threshold cycle (Ct) values 22/22 (N-gene/ORF1ab-gene) in RT-PCR, indicating inadequate sampling by the patients in self-tests, leading to false-negative results and increased chances of the disease spreading. Based on the RT-PCR Ct value vs antigen self-test comparison, it is evident that proper sampling is crucial in performing antigen self-tests. Also, there were weak positive results in antigen self-tests with a Ct value of 18/19 in RT-PCR.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy offered by the AG-Q COVID-19 N-Antigen self-test in comparison with RT-PCR fulfills the ICMR tenets for RAT, this study recommends the laboratory/hospital-based RAT execution would be appropriate, rather than the self-test.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35689333
pii: 6605639
doi: 10.1093/jalm/jfac023
pmc: PMC9214153
doi:
Substances chimiques
RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase
EC 2.7.7.48
RNA-Directed DNA Polymerase
EC 2.7.7.49
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
871-880Informations de copyright
© American Association for Clinical Chemistry 2022. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.