Evaluation of automated antigen detection test for detection of SARS-CoV-2
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved..
RT-PCR is the gold standard to detect SARS-CoV-2, however, its capacity is limited. We evaluated an automated antigen detection (AAD) test, Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen (Roche, Germany), for detecting SARS-CoV-2. We compared the limit of detection (LOD) between AAD test, rapid antigen detection (RAD) test; SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (SD Biosensor, Korea), and in-house RT-PCR test. LOD results showed that the AAD test was 100 fold more sensitive than the RAD test, while the sensitivity of the AAD test was comparable to the RT-PCR test. The AAD test detected between 85.7% and 88.6% of RT-PCR-positive specimens collected from COVID-19 patients, false negative results were observed for specimens with Ct values >30. Although clinical sensitivity for the AAD test was not superior or comparable to the RT-PCR test in the present study, the AAD test may be an alternative to RT-PCR test in terms of turn-around time and throughput.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2021 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2021 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:101 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease - 101(2021), 4 vom: 15. Dez., Seite 115490 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Mak, Gannon C K [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Antigens, Viral |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 10.11.2021 Date Revised 21.12.2022 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2021.115490 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM32943019X |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM32943019X | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231225205113.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2021.115490 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1098.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM32943019X | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)34399380 | ||
| 035 | |a (PII)S0732-8893(21)00183-8 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Mak, Gannon C K |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Evaluation of automated antigen detection test for detection of SARS-CoV-2 |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 10.11.2021 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 21.12.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. | ||
| 520 | |a RT-PCR is the gold standard to detect SARS-CoV-2, however, its capacity is limited. We evaluated an automated antigen detection (AAD) test, Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen (Roche, Germany), for detecting SARS-CoV-2. We compared the limit of detection (LOD) between AAD test, rapid antigen detection (RAD) test; SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (SD Biosensor, Korea), and in-house RT-PCR test. LOD results showed that the AAD test was 100 fold more sensitive than the RAD test, while the sensitivity of the AAD test was comparable to the RT-PCR test. The AAD test detected between 85.7% and 88.6% of RT-PCR-positive specimens collected from COVID-19 patients, false negative results were observed for specimens with Ct values >30. Although clinical sensitivity for the AAD test was not superior or comparable to the RT-PCR test in the present study, the AAD test may be an alternative to RT-PCR test in terms of turn-around time and throughput | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Automated Antigen Detection | |
| 650 | 4 | |a COVID-19 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a RT-PCR | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Rapid Antigen Detection | |
| 650 | 4 | |a SARS-CoV-2 | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Antigens, Viral |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Reagent Kits, Diagnostic |2 NLM | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Lau, Stephen S Y |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wong, Kitty K Y |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Chow, Nancy L S |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Lau, C S |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ng, Ken H L |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Lam, Edman T K |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Chan, Rickjason C W |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tsang, Dominic N C |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease |d 1986 |g 101(2021), 4 vom: 15. Dez., Seite 115490 |w (DE-627)NLM01262845X |x 1879-0070 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:101 |g year:2021 |g number:4 |g day:15 |g month:12 |g pages:115490 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2021.115490 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 101 |j 2021 |e 4 |b 15 |c 12 |h 115490 | ||