Efficacy comparison of three rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 and how viral load impact their performance
- PMID: 34050945
- PMCID: PMC8242364
- DOI: 10.1002/jmv.27108
Efficacy comparison of three rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 and how viral load impact their performance
Abstract
More and more rapid antigen tests for the diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) appear in the market with varying performance. The sensitivity of these tests heavily depends on the viral load, extrapolated by the threshold cycle (Ct). It is therefore essential to verify their performance before their inclusion in routine. The Coronavirus Ag Rapid Test Cassette Bio-Rad, the GSD NovaGen SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Antigen Rapid Test, and the Aegle Coronavirus Ag Rapid Test Cassette were evaluated on 199 samples: 150 fresh samples from the routine and positive in quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), nine fresh samples negative in RT-qPCR, and 40 frozen samples, taken before the discovery of SARS-CoV-2 but positive for other respiratory viruses. Positive RT-qPCR samples were categorized according to their Ct: Ct < 20 (18.7%), ≥ 20-< 25 (27.3%), ≥ 25-< 30 (18.7%), ≥ 30-35 (17.3%), and > 35 (18.0%). Sensitivities (95% confidence interval) for Ct below 25 were 95.7% (92.4-98.9), 97.1% (94.4-99.8), and 97.1% (94.4-99.8) for GSD NovaGen, Bio-Rad, and Aegle, respectively but drastically dropped when Ct exceeded 27. Among samples with previously diagnosed viruses, seven false-positive results were found with GSD NovaGen only (specificity 85.7%). Equivalent, high sensitivities were observed with the highest viral load samples. The GSD NovaGen assay showed less specificity. Although the three kits tested in this study are inadequate for routine testing in a high throughput laboratory, they can help to quickly identify the most infectious patients and screen their close contacts in an environment where molecular tests are not readily available.
Keywords: COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; point-of-care testing; rapid antigen test.
© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no relevant competing interest to disclose in relation to this study.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Comparative evaluation of RT-PCR and antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 detection: performance, variant specificity, and clinical implications.Microbiol Spectr. 2024 Jun 4;12(6):e0007324. doi: 10.1128/spectrum.00073-24. Epub 2024 Apr 29. Microbiol Spectr. 2024. PMID: 38683014 Free PMC article.
-
Rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection assay in comparison with real-time RT-PCR assay for laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 in Thailand.Virol J. 2020 Nov 13;17(1):177. doi: 10.1186/s12985-020-01452-5. Virol J. 2020. PMID: 33187528 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical assessment of the Roche SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test.Diagnosis (Berl). 2021 Jan 18;8(3):322-326. doi: 10.1515/dx-2020-0154. Print 2021 Aug 26. Diagnosis (Berl). 2021. PMID: 33554511
-
Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen tests for COVID-19 compared to the viral genetic test in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.JBI Evid Synth. 2024 Oct 1;22(10):1939-2002. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-23-00291. JBI Evid Synth. 2024. PMID: 39188132 Free PMC article.
-
A systematic review of the sensitivity and specificity of lateral flow devices in the detection of SARS-CoV-2.BMC Infect Dis. 2021 Aug 18;21(1):828. doi: 10.1186/s12879-021-06528-3. BMC Infect Dis. 2021. PMID: 34407759 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test Based on a New Anti-Nucleocapsid Protein Monoclonal Antibody: Development and Real-Time Validation.Microorganisms. 2023 Sep 28;11(10):2422. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms11102422. Microorganisms. 2023. PMID: 37894080 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical accuracy of instrument-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen diagnostic tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Virol J. 2024 Apr 29;21(1):99. doi: 10.1186/s12985-024-02371-5. Virol J. 2024. PMID: 38685117 Free PMC article.
-
Accuracy of rapid point-of-care antigen-based diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression analyzing influencing factors.PLoS Med. 2022 May 26;19(5):e1004011. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004011. eCollection 2022 May. PLoS Med. 2022. PMID: 35617375 Free PMC article.
-
A method comparison study of the high throughput automated HISCL® SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay using nasopharyngeal swab samples from symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects against conventional RT-PCR.J Med Virol. 2022 Jul;94(7):3070-3080. doi: 10.1002/jmv.27679. Epub 2022 Mar 8. J Med Virol. 2022. PMID: 35218042 Free PMC article.
-
Performance of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19 Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel). 2022 Jan 4;12(1):110. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12010110. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022. PMID: 35054277 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Diao B, Wen K, Chen J, et al. Diagnosis of acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection by detection of nucleocapsid protein [published online ahead of print March 13, 2020]. Epidemiology. 2020. 10.1101/2020.03.07.20032524 - DOI
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous