Five Antigen Tests for SARS-CoV-2: Virus Viability Matters
- PMID: 33921164
- PMCID: PMC8071529
- DOI: 10.3390/v13040684
Five Antigen Tests for SARS-CoV-2: Virus Viability Matters
Abstract
Antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 (AGT) is generally considered inferior to RT-PCR testing in terms of sensitivity. However, little is known about the infectiousness of RT-PCR positive patients who pass undetected by AGT. In a screening setting for mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic patients with high COVID-19 prevalence (30-40%), 1141 patients were tested using one of five AGTs and RT-PCR. Where the results differed, virus viability in the samples was tested on cell culture (CV-1 cells). The test battery included AGTs by JOYSBIO, Assure Tech, SD Biosensor, VivaChek Biotech and NDFOS. Sensitivities of the ATGs compared to RT-PCR ranged from 42% to 76%. The best test yielded a 76% sensitivity, 97% specificity, 92% positive, and 89% negative predictive values, respectively. However, in the best performing ATG tests, almost 90% of samples with "false negative" AGT results contained no viable virus. Corrected on the virus viability, sensitivities grew to 81-97% and, with one exception, the tests yielded high specificities >96%. Performance characteristics of the best test after adjustment were 96% sensitivity, 97% specificity, 92% positive, and 99% negative predictive values (high prevalence population). We, therefore, believe that virus viability should be considered when assessing the AGT performance. Also, our results indicate that a well-performing antigen test could in a high-prevalence setting serve as an excellent tool for identifying patients shedding viable virus. We also propose that the high proportion of RT-PCR-positive samples containing no viable virus in the group of "false negatives" of the antigen test should be further investigated with the aim of possibly preventing needless isolation of such patients.
Keywords: COVID-19; RT-PCR; SARS-CoV-2; antigen testing; infectiousness; viability.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
-
- ECDC (European Centre for Disease Control) Options for the Use of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19 in the EU/EEA and the UK. ECDC. [(accessed on 30 January 2021)];2020 Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/options-use-rapid-antige....
-
- Dinnes J., Deeks J.J., Adriano A., Berhane S., Davenport C., Dittrich S., Emperador D., Takwoingi Y., Cunningham J., Beese S., et al. Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2020;8:Cd013705. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013705. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- FIND. FIND Evaluation of RapiGEN Inc BIOCREDIT COVID-19 Ag. Geneva: Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics. [(accessed on 10 February 2021)];2020 Available online: https://www.finddx.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Rapigen_Ag-INTERIM-Pub....
-
- FIND FIND Evaluation of SD Biosensor, Inc.STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag TestExternal Report. [(accessed on 30 January 2021)]; Available online: https://www.finddx.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/SDQ-Ag-Public-Report_2....
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous