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.
Similar articles
-
Prospective study of 1308 nasopharyngeal swabs from 1033 patients using the LUMIPULSE SARS-CoV-2 antigen test: Comparison with RT-qPCR.Int J Infect Dis. 2021 Apr;105:7-14. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.02.005. Epub 2021 Feb 5. Int J Infect Dis. 2021. PMID: 33556612 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluation of Lumipulse® G SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay automated test for detecting SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (NP) in nasopharyngeal swabs for community and population screening.Int J Infect Dis. 2021 Apr;105:391-396. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.02.098. Epub 2021 Feb 26. Int J Infect Dis. 2021. PMID: 33647511 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of Allplex™ SARS-CoV-2 Assay, Easy SARS-CoV-2 WE and Lumipulse quantitative SARS-CoV-2 antigen test performance using automated systems for the diagnosis of COVID-19.Int J Infect Dis. 2021 Dec;113:113-115. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.09.069. Epub 2021 Sep 29. Int J Infect Dis. 2021. PMID: 34597768 Free PMC article.
-
Fujirebio Lumipulse SARS-CoV-2 antigen immunoassay: pooled analysis of diagnostic accuracy.Diagnosis (Berl). 2022 Mar 15;9(2):149-156. doi: 10.1515/dx-2022-0021. Diagnosis (Berl). 2022. PMID: 35287253 Review.
-
Estimating the false-negative test probability of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR.Euro Surveill. 2020 Dec;25(50):2000568. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.50.2000568. Euro Surveill. 2020. PMID: 33334398 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Performance of Antigen Detection Tests for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel). 2022 Jun 4;12(6):1388. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12061388. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022. PMID: 35741198 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Evolution of the newest diagnostic methods for COVID-19: a Chinese perspective.J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2023 Jun 15;24(6):463-484. doi: 10.1631/jzus.B2200625. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2023. PMID: 37309039 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Automated antigen assays display a high heterogeneity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including several Omicron sublineages.Med Microbiol Immunol. 2023 Oct;212(5):307-322. doi: 10.1007/s00430-023-00774-9. Epub 2023 Aug 10. Med Microbiol Immunol. 2023. PMID: 37561226 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical evaluation of DIAGNOVIR SARS-CoV-2 ultra-rapid antigen test performance compared to PCR-based testing.Sci Rep. 2023 Mar 17;13(1):4438. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-31177-8. Sci Rep. 2023. PMID: 36932107 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of four commercial, automated antigen tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern.Med Microbiol Immunol. 2021 Dec;210(5-6):263-275. doi: 10.1007/s00430-021-00719-0. Epub 2021 Aug 20. Med Microbiol Immunol. 2021. PMID: 34415422 Free PMC article.
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