The evaluation of an automated mariPOC SARS-CoV-2 antigen test compared to RT-qPCR SARS-CoV-2 assay and comparison of its sensitivity in Delta- and Omicron-variant samples.
Delta
Omicron
SARS-CoV-2
antigen testing
sensitivity
Journal
Influenza and other respiratory viruses
ISSN: 1750-2659
Titre abrégé: Influenza Other Respir Viruses
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101304007
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2022
11 2022
Historique:
revised:
05
08
2022
received:
07
07
2022
accepted:
25
08
2022
pubmed:
7
9
2022
medline:
6
10
2022
entrez:
6
9
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The rapid diagnostics tests for SARS-CoV-2 antigen vary in their sensitivities, and moreover, genomic mutations may further affect the performance of the assays. We aimed to evaluate the analytical performance of an automated antigen assay and compare its sensitivity in Delta- and Omicron-variant positive clinical samples. The analytical performance of an automated mariPOC SARS-CoV-2 antigen test was evaluated on a population of community-dwelling subjects with mild respiratory symptoms or being asymptomatic investigated by the RT-qPCR Allplex™ SARS-CoV-2 assay. The sensitivity and specificity of the antigen test were evaluated on prospective 621 nasopharyngeal swabs along with oropharyngeal swabs. The sensitivity regarding variants determined by the Allplex™ SARS-CoV-2 Variant assays was analysed in additional, retrospective 158 Delta and 59 Omicron samples. The overall sensitivity of the antigen test in prospective samples was 77.9% (113/145; 95% confidence interval [CI] 70.3-84.4) with the specificity of 99.8% (95% CI 98.8-100). Regarding the variant, the sensitivity was higher in Omicron-variant samples, 93.2% (55/59; 95% CI 83.5-98.1), compared to Delta-variant samples, 71.5% (113/158; 95% CI 63.8-78.4; p = .001). In community-dwelling subjects with mild respiratory symptoms or being asymptomatic, the automated mariPOC SARS-CoV-2 antigen test showed high sensitivity over 98.0% in subgroup samples with cycle threshold (Ct) values < 25. Regarding the variant, the antigen test sensitivity was higher in the Omicron-variant samples compared to the Delta-variant samples. The analytical performance of the antigen test can differ between the SARS-CoV-2 variants, and a re-evaluation should be performed for new circulating lineages.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The rapid diagnostics tests for SARS-CoV-2 antigen vary in their sensitivities, and moreover, genomic mutations may further affect the performance of the assays. We aimed to evaluate the analytical performance of an automated antigen assay and compare its sensitivity in Delta- and Omicron-variant positive clinical samples.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The analytical performance of an automated mariPOC SARS-CoV-2 antigen test was evaluated on a population of community-dwelling subjects with mild respiratory symptoms or being asymptomatic investigated by the RT-qPCR Allplex™ SARS-CoV-2 assay. The sensitivity and specificity of the antigen test were evaluated on prospective 621 nasopharyngeal swabs along with oropharyngeal swabs. The sensitivity regarding variants determined by the Allplex™ SARS-CoV-2 Variant assays was analysed in additional, retrospective 158 Delta and 59 Omicron samples.
RESULTS
The overall sensitivity of the antigen test in prospective samples was 77.9% (113/145; 95% confidence interval [CI] 70.3-84.4) with the specificity of 99.8% (95% CI 98.8-100). Regarding the variant, the sensitivity was higher in Omicron-variant samples, 93.2% (55/59; 95% CI 83.5-98.1), compared to Delta-variant samples, 71.5% (113/158; 95% CI 63.8-78.4; p = .001).
CONCLUSION
In community-dwelling subjects with mild respiratory symptoms or being asymptomatic, the automated mariPOC SARS-CoV-2 antigen test showed high sensitivity over 98.0% in subgroup samples with cycle threshold (Ct) values < 25. Regarding the variant, the antigen test sensitivity was higher in the Omicron-variant samples compared to the Delta-variant samples. The analytical performance of the antigen test can differ between the SARS-CoV-2 variants, and a re-evaluation should be performed for new circulating lineages.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36065770
doi: 10.1111/irv.13048
pmc: PMC9530541
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1033-1039Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Trends Analyt Chem. 2021 Dec;145:116452
pubmed: 34629572
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Dec 17;71(10):2663-2666
pubmed: 32442256
Euro Surveill. 2021 Nov;26(44):
pubmed: 34738515
Epidemiol Mikrobiol Imunol. 2021 Summer;70(3):156-160
pubmed: 34641689
J Infect. 2022 Apr;84(4):e7-e9
pubmed: 35143815
J Med Virol. 2022 Apr;94(4):1707-1710
pubmed: 34825717
Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2022 Nov;16(6):1033-1039
pubmed: 36065770
Microbiol Spectr. 2022 Aug 31;10(4):e0085322
pubmed: 35938792
N Engl J Med. 2021 Dec 23;385(26):2489-2491
pubmed: 34941024
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2020 Jun;39(6):1059-1061
pubmed: 32342252
JAMA. 2021 Feb 9;325(6):529-531
pubmed: 33404586
Sci Rep. 2021 Oct 13;11(1):20363
pubmed: 34645929
Genomics Proteomics Bioinformatics. 2022 Feb;20(1):60-69
pubmed: 35033679
Emerg Infect Dis. 2021 Dec;27(12):3137-3141
pubmed: 34708686
Lancet. 2022 Apr 16;399(10334):1489-1512
pubmed: 35120592
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2021 Jul;19(7):409-424
pubmed: 34075212
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Mar 24;3:CD013705
pubmed: 33760236