Clinical Evaluation and Comparison of Two Microfluidic Antigenic Assays for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Virus
-
Published:2023-11-05
Issue:11
Volume:11
Page:2709
-
ISSN:2076-2607
-
Container-title:Microorganisms
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Microorganisms
Author:
Bottino Paolo1ORCID, Pizzo Valentina1, Castaldo Salvatore1, Scomparin Elisabetta1, Bara Cristina1, Cerrato Marcella1, Sisinni Sabrina2, Penpa Serena2, Roveta Annalisa2ORCID, Gerbino Maria3, Maconi Antonio2ORCID, Rocchetti Andrea1ORCID
Affiliation:
1. Microbiology and Virology Laboratory, A.O. “SS Antonio e Biagio e C. Arrigo”, Via Venezia 16, 15121 Alessandria, Italy 2. Research and Innovation Department (DAIRI), A.O. “SS. Antonio e Biagio e C. Arrigo”, Via Venezia 16, 15121 Alessandria, Italy 3. Department of Science and Technological Innovation (DISIT), University of Eastern Piedmont, Viale Teresa Michel 11, 15121 Alessandria, Italy
Abstract
Given the ongoing pandemic, there is a need to identify SARS-CoV-2 and differentiate it from other respiratory viral infections in various critical settings. Since its introduction, rapid antigen testing is spreading worldwide, but diagnostic accuracy is extremely variable and often in disagreement with the manufacturer’s specifications. Our study compared the clinical performances of two microfluidic rapid antigen tests towards a molecular assay, starting from positive samples. A total of 151 swabs collected at the Microbiology and Virology Laboratory of A.O. “SS Antonio e Biagio e C. Arrigo” (Alessandria, Italy) for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 were simultaneously tested to evaluate accuracy, specificity, and agreement with the RT-qPCR results. Both assays showed an overall agreement of 100% for negative specimens, while positive accuracy comprised between 45.10% and 54.90%. According to the manufacturer’s instructions, the greatest correlation between the antigenic and molecular assays was observed for the subset with high viral load (18/19, 94.74%), while it dramatically decreased for other subsets. Moreover, the ability to differentiate between SARS-CoV-2 and Flu provides an added value and could be addressed in an epidemic context. However, an in-house validation should be performed due to differences observed in performance declared by manufacturers and those actually obtained.
Subject
Virology,Microbiology (medical),Microbiology
Reference20 articles.
1. Naqvi, A.A.T., Fatima, K., Mohammad, T., Fatima, U., Singh, I.K., Singh, A., Atif, S.M., Hariprasad, G., Hasan, G.M., and Hassan, I. (2020). Insights into SARS-CoV-2 genome, structure, evolution, pathogenesis and therapies: Structural genomics approach. Biochim. Biophys. Acta-Mol. Basis Dis., 1866. 2. MERS, SARS and other coronaviruses as causes of pneumonia;Yin;Respirology,2018 3. Bottino, P., Zanotto, E., Sidoti, F., Pastrone, L., Piva, R., Mereu, E., Costa, C., and Cavallo, R. (2023). Extraction Bottleneck in the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2: Evaluation of an Alternative Protocol Derived from Veterinary Use. Microorganisms, 11. 4. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR;Corman;Euro. Surveill. Bull. Eur. Sur. Les Mal. Transm. Eur. Commun. Dis. Bull.,2020 5. Performance of a SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid immunoassay in patients admitted to the emergency department;Leli;Int. J. Infect. Dis.,2021
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
|
|