• 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.

Viruses . Comparison of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Viruses


. 2020 Dec 10;12(12):E1420.
doi: 10.3390/v12121420.
Comparison of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19


Seiya Yamayoshi[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Yuko Sakai-Tagawa[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Michiko Koga[SUP] 2 3 [/SUP], Osamu Akasaka[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Ichiro Nakachi[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Hidefumi Koh[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Kenji Maeda[SUP] 7 [/SUP], Eisuke Adachi[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Makoto Saito[SUP] 2 3 [/SUP], Hiroyuki Nagai[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Kazuhiko Ikeuchi[SUP] 2 3 [/SUP], Takayuki Ogura[SUP] 8 [/SUP], Rie Baba[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Kensuke Fujita[SUP] 8 [/SUP], Takahiro Fukui[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Fumimaro Ito[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Shin-Ichiro Hattori[SUP] 7 [/SUP], Kei Yamamoto[SUP] 9 [/SUP], Takato Nakamoto[SUP] 9 [/SUP], Yuri Furusawa[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Atsuhiro Yasuhara[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Michiko Ujie[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Shinya Yamada[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Mutsumi Ito[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Hiroaki Mitsuya[SUP] 7 [/SUP], Norio Omagari[SUP] 9 [/SUP], Hiroshi Yotsuyanagi[SUP] 2 3 [/SUP], Kiyoko Iwatsuki-Horimoto[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Masaki Imai[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Yoshihiro Kawaoka[SUP] 1 10 11 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR)-based tests are widely used to diagnose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). As a result that these tests cannot be done in local clinics where RT-qPCR testing capability is lacking, rapid antigen tests (RATs) for COVID-19 based on lateral flow immunoassays are used for rapid diagnosis. However, their sensitivity compared with each other and with RT-qPCR and infectious virus isolation has not been examined. Here, we compared the sensitivity among four RATs by using severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) isolates and several types of COVID-19 patient specimens and compared their sensitivity with that of RT-qPCR and infectious virus isolation. Although the RATs read the samples containing large amounts of virus as positive, even the most sensitive RAT read the samples containing small amounts of virus as negative. Moreover, all RATs tested failed to detect viral antigens in several specimens from which the virus was isolated. The current RATs will likely miss some COVID-19 patients who are shedding infectious SARS-CoV-2.

Keywords: COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; diagnosis; rapid antigen test.
 
Back
Top Bottom