Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag assay evaluation using clinical samples from different testing groups
- PMID: 33823089
- DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2021-0182
Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag assay evaluation using clinical samples from different testing groups
Abstract
Objectives: Compared to RT-PCR, lower performance of antigen detection assays, including the Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag assay, may depend on specific testing scenarios.
Methods: We tested 594 nasopharyngeal swab samples from individuals with COVID-19 (RT-PCR cycle threshold [Ct] values ≤ 40) or non-COVID-19 (Ct values >40) diagnoses. RT-PCR positive samples were assigned to diagnostic, screening, or monitoring groups of testing.
Results: With a limit of detection of 1.2 × 104 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/mL, Lumipulse showed positive percent agreement (PPA) of 79.9% (155/194) and negative percent agreement of 99.3% (397/400), whereas PPAs were 100% for samples with Ct values of <18 or 18-<25 and 92.5% for samples with Ct values of 25-<30. By three groups, Lumipulse showed PPA of 87.0% (60/69), 81.1% (43/53), or 72.2% (52/72), respectively, whereas PPA was 100% for samples with Ct values of <18 or 18-<25, and was 94.4, 80.0, or 100% for samples with Ct values of 25-<30, respectively. Additional testing of RT-PCR positive samples for SARS-CoV-2 subgenomic RNA showed that, by three groups, PPA was 63.8% (44/69), 62.3% (33/53), or 33.3% (24/72), respectively. PPAs dropped to 55.6, 20.0, or 41.7% for samples with Ct values of 25-<30, respectively. All 101 samples with a subgenomic RNA positive result had a Lumipulse assay's antigen positive result, whereas only 54 (58.1%) of remaining 93 samples had a Lumipulse assay's antigen positive result.
Conclusions: Lumipulse assay was highly sensitive in samples with low RT-PCR Ct values, implying repeated testing to reduce consequences of false-negative results.
Keywords: SARS-CoV-2; antigen detection; lumipulse assay; nasopharyngeal swab; testing group.
© 2021 Giulia Menchinelli et al., published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston.
References
-
- Brooks, ZC, Das, S. COVID-19 testing. Am J Clin Pathol 2020;154:575–84. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqaa141.
-
- Cheng, MP, Papenburg, J, Desjardins, M, Kanjilal, S, Quach, C, Libman, M, et al.. Diagnostic testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus-2: a narrative review. Ann Intern Med 2020:M20–1301.
-
- Mak, GC, Lau, SS, Wong, KK, Chow, NL, Lau, CS, Lam, ET, et al.. Analytical sensitivity and clinical sensitivity of the three rapid antigen detection kits for detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus. J Clin Virol 2020;133:104684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104684.
-
- Ogawa, T, Fukumori, T, Nishihara, Y, Sekine, T, Okuda, N, Nishimura, T, et al.. Another false-positive problem for a SARS-CoV-2 antigen test in Japan. J Clin Virol 2020;131:104612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104612.
-
- European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Options for the use of rapid antigen tests for COVID-19 in the EU/EEA and the UK. 19 November 2020. Stockholm: ECDC; 2020.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous