• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

PLoS One . Performance differences among commercially available antigen rapid tests for COVID-19 in Brazil

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
PLoS One


. 2022 Jun 16;17(6):e0269997.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269997. eCollection 2022.
Performance differences among commercially available antigen rapid tests for COVID-19 in Brazil


Mariana Lourenço Freire[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Lindicy Leidicy Alves[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Carolina Senra de Souza[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Juliana Wilke Saliba[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Verônica Faria[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Mariana Junqueira Pedras[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Nara de Oliveira Carvalho[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Gláucia Queiroz Andrade[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Ana Rabello[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Daniel Moreira Avelar[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Gláucia Cota[SUP] 1 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

A rapid and accurate diagnosis is a crucial strategy for containing the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Considering the obstacles to upscaling the use of RT-qPCR, rapid tests based on antigen detection (Ag-RDT) have become an alternative to enhance mass testing, reducing the time for a prompt diagnosis and virus spreading. However, the performances of several commercially available Ag-RDTs have not yet been evaluated in several countries. Here, we evaluate the performance of eight Ag-RDTs available in Brazil to diagnose COVID-19. Patients admitted to tertiary hospitals with moderate or mild COVID-19 symptoms and presenting risk factors for severe disease were included. The tests were performed using a masked protocol, strictly following the manufacturer's recommendations and were compared with RT-qPCR. The overall sensitivity of the tests ranged from 9.8 to 81.1%, and specificity greater than 83% was observed for all the evaluated tests. Overall, slight or fair agreement was observed between Ag-RDTs and RT-PCR, except for the Ag-RDT COVID-19 (Acro Biotech), in which moderate agreement was observed. Lower sensitivity of Ag-RDTs was observed for patients with cycle threshold > 25, indicating that the sensitivity was directly affected by viral load, whereas the effect of the disease duration was unclear. Despite the lower sensitivity of Ag-RDTs compared with RT-qPCR, its easy fulfillment and promptness still justify its use, even at hospital admission. However, the main advantage of Ag-RDTs seems to be the possibility of increasing access to the diagnosis of COVID-19 in patients with a high viral load, allowing immediate clinical management and reduction of infectivity and community transmission.
 
Back
Top Bottom