Evaluation of rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests, AFIAS COVID-19 Ag and ichroma COVID-19 Ag, with serial nasopharyngeal specimens from COVID-19 patients
- PMID: 33831118
- PMCID: PMC8031412
- DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249972
Evaluation of rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests, AFIAS COVID-19 Ag and ichroma COVID-19 Ag, with serial nasopharyngeal specimens from COVID-19 patients
Abstract
We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of two newly developed, point-of-care, rapid antigen tests (RATs) for detecting SARS-CoV-2, the AFIAS COVID-19 Ag and the ichromaTM COVID-19 Ag, and investigated antigen kinetics. A total of 200 serially collected nasopharyngeal (NP) specimens from 38 COVID-19 patients and 122 specimens from negative controls were analyzed. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were assessed in comparison to molecular test results and subdivided according to targeted genes (E, RdRP, and N) and days post-symptom onset (PSO). For the kinetics evaluation, cut-off-indices from serial NP specimens were used according to the number of days PSO. Both RATs showed sensitivity of 91.3‒100% for specimens with cycle threshold (Ct) < 25. The specificity of AFIAS was 98.7‒98.9% and that of ichromaTM was 100.0%. The kappa values of AFIAS and ichromaTM for the molecular testing of specimens with Ct < 25 (RdRP) were 0.97 and 1.00, respectively. The sensitivity of AFIAS and ichromaTM for all genes was lower for specimens collected at 8‒14 PSO than for those collected before 7-days PSO. The kinetics profiles showed that antigen levels gradually decreased from ≤ 7-days PSO to > 22-days PSO. Both RATs showed excellent specificity and acceptable sensitivity for NP specimens with higher viral loads and for specimens collected within 7-days PSO. Hence, they have the potential to become useful tools for the early detection of SARS-CoV-2. However, because of concerns about false negativity, RATs should be used in conjunction with molecular tests.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Figures


References
-
- Corman VM, Landt O, Kaiser M, Molenkamp R, Meijer A, Chu DK, et al.. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro surveillance: bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin. 2020;25(3). Epub 2020/01/30. 10.2807/1560-7917.Es.2020.25.3.2000045 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Overview of Testing for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) [cited 15 December 2020]. In: CDC website [Internet]. Atlanta, GA. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/testing-overview.html.
-
- Mak GC, Cheng PK, Lau SS, Wong KK, Lau CS, Lam ET, et al.. Evaluation of rapid antigen test for detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus. Journal of clinical virology: the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology. 2020;129:104500. Epub 2020/06/26. 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104500 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Albert E, Torres I, Bueno F, Huntley D, Molla E, Fernández-Fuentes M, et al.. Field evaluation of a rapid antigen test (Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device) for COVID-19 diagnosis in primary healthcare centres. Clinical microbiology and infection: the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. 2020. Epub 2020/11/16. 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.11.004 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous