Automated antigen assays display a high heterogeneity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including several Omicron sublineages
-
Published:2023-08-10
Issue:5
Volume:212
Page:307-322
-
ISSN:0300-8584
-
Container-title:Medical Microbiology and Immunology
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Med Microbiol Immunol
Author:
Osterman Andreas, Krenn Franziska, Iglhaut Maximilian, Badell Irina, Lehner Andreas, Späth Patricia M., Stern Marcel, Both Hanna, Bender Sabine, Muenchhoff Maximilian, Graf Alexander, Krebs Stefan, Blum Helmut, Grimmer Timo, Durner Jürgen, Czibere Ludwig, Dächert Christopher, Grzimek-Koschewa Natascha, Protzer Ulrike, Kaderali Lars, Baldauf Hanna-Mari, Keppler Oliver T.ORCID
Abstract
AbstractDiagnostic tests for direct pathogen detection have been instrumental to contain the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Automated, quantitative, laboratory-based nucleocapsid antigen (Ag) tests for SARS-CoV-2 have been launched alongside nucleic acid-based test systems and point-of-care (POC) lateral-flow Ag tests. Here, we evaluated four commercial Ag tests on automated platforms for the detection of different sublineages of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant of concern (VoC) (B.1.1.529) in comparison with “non-Omicron” VoCs. A total of 203 Omicron PCR-positive respiratory swabs (53 BA.1, 48 BA.2, 23 BQ.1, 39 XBB.1.5 and 40 other subvariants) from the period February to March 2022 and from March 2023 were examined. In addition, tissue culture-expanded clinical isolates of Delta (B.1.617.2), Omicron-BA.1, -BF.7, -BN.1 and -BQ.1 were studied. These results were compared to previously reported data from 107 clinical “non-Omicron” samples from the end of the second pandemic wave (February to March 2021) as well as cell culture-derived samples of wildtype (wt) EU-1 (B.1.177), Alpha VoC (B.1.1.7) and Beta VoC (B.1.351)). All four commercial Ag tests were able to detect at least 90.9% of Omicron-containing samples with high viral loads (Ct < 25). The rates of true-positive test results for BA.1/BA.2-positive samples with intermediate viral loads (Ct 25–30) ranged between 6.7% and 100.0%, while they dropped to 0 to 15.4% for samples with low Ct values (> 30). This heterogeneity was reflected also by the tests’ 50%-limit of detection (LoD50) values ranging from 44,444 to 1,866,900 Geq/ml. Respiratory samples containing Omicron-BQ.1/XBB.1.5 or other Omicron subvariants that emerged in 2023 were detected with enormous heterogeneity (0 to 100%) for the intermediate and low viral load ranges with LoD50 values between 23,019 and 1,152,048 Geq/ml. In contrast, detection of “non-Omicron” samples was more sensitive, scoring positive in 35 to 100% for the intermediate and 1.3 to 32.9% of cases for the low viral loads, respectively, corresponding to LoD50 values ranging from 6181 to 749,792 Geq/ml. All four assays detected cell culture-expanded VoCs Alpha, Beta, Delta and Omicron subvariants carrying up to six amino acid mutations in the nucleocapsid protein with sensitivities comparable to the non-VoC EU-1. Overall, automated quantitative SARS-CoV-2 Ag assays are not more sensitive than standard rapid antigen tests used in POC settings and show a high heterogeneity in performance for VoC recognition. The best of these automated Ag tests may have the potential to complement nucleic acid-based assays for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics in settings not primarily focused on the protection of vulnerable groups. In light of the constant emergence of new Omicron subvariants and recombinants, most recently the XBB lineage, these tests’ performance must be regularly re-evaluated, especially when new VoCs carry mutations in the nucleocapsid protein or immunological and clinical parameters change.
Funder
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
Reference66 articles.
1. Favresse J, Gillot C, Oliveira M, Cadrobbi J, Elsen M, Eucher C et al (2021) Head-to-head comparison of rapid and automated antigen detection tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. J Clin Med. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10020265 2. Brümmer LE, Katzenschlager S, McGrath S, Schmitz S, Gaeddert M, Erdmann C et al (2022) 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 19(5):e1004011 3. Dinnes J, Sharma P, Berhane S, van Wyk SS, Nyaaba N, Domen J et al (2022) Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7(7):Cd013705 4. Parikh A, Cooper L, Frogel D, Le Benger K, Cooper CK, Parvu V (2022) Large-scale SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing with real-world specimens. Front Public Health 10:836328 5. Petonnet D, Marot S, Leroy I, Cohier J, Ramahefasolo C, Mansaly S et al (2022) Comparison of rapid and automated antigen detection tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Diagnostics (Basel) 12(1):104
Cited by
1 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
|
|