Comparison of four commercial, automated antigen tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern
-
Published:2021-08-20
Issue:5-6
Volume:210
Page:263-275
-
ISSN:0300-8584
-
Container-title:Medical Microbiology and Immunology
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Med Microbiol Immunol
Author:
Osterman AndreasORCID, Iglhaut Maximilian, Lehner Andreas, Späth Patricia, Stern MarcelORCID, Autenrieth Hanna, Muenchhoff MaximilianORCID, Graf AlexanderORCID, Krebs StefanORCID, Blum HelmutORCID, Baiker Armin, Grzimek-Koschewa Natascha, Protzer UlrikeORCID, Kaderali LarsORCID, Baldauf Hanna-MariORCID, Keppler Oliver T.ORCID
Abstract
AbstractA versatile portfolio of diagnostic tests is essential for the containment of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Besides nucleic acid-based test systems and point-of-care (POCT) antigen (Ag) tests, quantitative, laboratory-based nucleocapsid Ag tests for SARS-CoV-2 have recently been launched. Here, we evaluated four commercial Ag tests on automated platforms and one POCT to detect SARS-CoV-2. We evaluated PCR-positive (n = 107) and PCR-negative (n = 303) respiratory swabs from asymptomatic and symptomatic patients at the end of the second pandemic wave in Germany (February–March 2021) as well as clinical isolates EU1 (B.1.117), variant of concern (VOC) Alpha (B.1.1.7) or Beta (B.1.351), which had been expanded in a biosafety level 3 laboratory. The specificities of automated SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests ranged between 97.0 and 99.7% (Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Fujirebio): 97.03%, Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Roche Diagnostics): 97.69%; LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Diasorin) and SARS-CoV-2 Ag ELISA (Euroimmun): 99.67%). In this study cohort of hospitalized patients, the clinical sensitivities of tests were low, ranging from 17.76 to 52.34%, and analytical sensitivities ranged from 420,000 to 25,000,000 Geq/ml. In comparison, the detection limit of the Roche Rapid Ag Test (RAT) was 9,300,000 Geq/ml, detecting 23.58% of respiratory samples. Receiver-operating-characteristics (ROCs) and Youden’s index analyses were performed to further characterize the assays’ overall performance and determine optimal assay cutoffs for sensitivity and specificity. VOCs carrying up to four amino acid mutations in nucleocapsid were detected by all five assays with characteristics comparable to non-VOCs. In summary, automated, quantitative SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests show variable performance and are not necessarily superior to a standard POCT. The efficacy of any alternative testing strategies to complement nucleic acid-based assays must be carefully evaluated by independent laboratories prior to widespread implementation.
Funder
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Bildung und Kultus, Wissenschaft und Kunst Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Microbiology (medical),Immunology,General Medicine,Immunology and Allergy
Reference43 articles.
1. Corman VM, Haage VC, Bleicker T, Schmidt ML, Mühlemann B, Zuchowski M, Jo WK, Tscheak P, Möncke-Buchner E, Müller MA, Krumbholz A, Drexler JF, Drosten C (2021) Comparison of seven commercial SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care antigen tests: a single-centre laboratory evaluation study. Lancet Microbe 2(7):e311–e319. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2666-5247(21)00056-2 2. Dinnes J, Deeks JJ, Berhane S, Taylor M, Adriano A, Davenport C, Dittrich S, Emperador D, Takwoingi Y, Cunningham J, Beese S, Domen J, Dretzke J, Ferrante di Ruffano L, Harris IM, Price MJ, Taylor-Phillips S, Hooft L, Leeflang MM, McInnes MD, Spijker R, Van den Bruel A (2021) Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3(3):Cd013705. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013705.pub2 3. Osterman A, Baldauf HM, Eletreby M, Wettengel JM, Afridi SQ, Fuchs T, Holzmann E, Maier A, Döring J, Grzimek-Koschewa N, Muenchhoff M, Protzer U, Kaderali L, Keppler OT (2021) Evaluation of two rapid antigen tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 in a hospital setting. Med Microbiol Immunol 210(1):65–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00430-020-00698-8 4. Toptan T, Eckermann L, Pfeiffer AE, Hoehl S, Ciesek S, Drosten C, Corman VM (2021) Evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test: potential to help reduce community spread? J Clin Virol 135:104713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104713 5. Hirotsu Y, Maejima M, Shibusawa M, Nagakubo Y, Hosaka K, Amemiya K, Sueki H, Hayakawa M, Mochizuki H, Tsutsui T, Kakizaki Y, Miyashita Y, Yagi S, Kojima S, Omata M (2020) Comparison of automated SARS-CoV-2 antigen test for COVID-19 infection with quantitative RT-PCR using 313 nasopharyngeal swabs, including from seven serially followed patients. Int J Infect Dis 99:397–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.08.029
Cited by
47 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|