Comparative field study of Rapid-Antigen Detection (RAD) with Multiplex Real Time-PCR for COVID-19 diagnosis

Authors

  • Mr Hussan Department of Microbiology, University of Haripur, Pakistan
  • Fadia waheed Institute of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, Punjab University, Lahore, Pakistan
  • Habib Ullah Department of Life Sciences, School of Science, University of management and Technology Lahore, Pakistan
  • Muhammad Khurram Department of Life Sciences, School of Science, University of management and Technology Lahore, Pakistan
  • Ghadir Ali Department of Life Sciences, School of Science, University of management and Technology Lahore, Pakistan
  • Maryam Shahid Institute of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, Punjab University, Lahore, Pakistan
  • Faisal Zaman Department of Microbiology, University of Haripur, Pakistan
  • . Abdullah Department of Biotechnology International Islamic University Islamabad, Pakistan
  • Asraf Hussain Hashmi Institute of Biological and Genetic Engineering, Islamabad, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54393/pbmj.v5i4.397

Abstract

RT-PCR is a gold standard test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV2 (Covid-19) infection; however, it is an expensive, time consuming and technical demanding technique. Rapid antigen detection immunoassay (RAD) is cost-effective, quick as well as can be performed and interpreted easily. The rapid diagnosis of COVID-19 patients is essential to reduce cost and control the disease spread; however, the real world data of these tests must be validated with RT-PCR before they can be used at large scale. The objective of this study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of PanbioTMCOVID-19 Ag-Rapid test device (Abbot) with multiplex RT-PCR. METHODS:  A total of n=3509 samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 RAD and RT-PCR at Institute of Biomedical and Genetic Engineering, Islamabad. The rapid antigen tests were performed by PanbioTMCOVID-19 Ag-Rapid test device (Abbott) and compared with RT-PCR performed on Thermo Fisher (ABI) Quant Studio 5 using CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR protocol.  RESULTS: Total (n=3509), n=458 (7.60%) samples were reported positive by rapid antigen out of which n= 445 RT-PCR positive (13 false positive by rapid antigen), n=3051 (92.4%) were negative. True antigen negative tests n= 3051) were repeated with RT-PCR among these, n=25 were observed RT-PCR positive (rapid antigen false negative). The threshold cycle (CT) for the RT-PCR tests of these samples was >30. CONCLUSION: PanbioTMCOVID-19 Ag-Rapid test devices (Abbott) showed a sensitivity ratio 94.6% compared to RT-PCR. The PanbioTMCOVID-19 Ag-Rapid test device (Abbott) is reliable and can be used for screening and isolation of positive patients from the population.

References

Su, S., et al., Epidemiology, genetic recombination, and pathogenesis of coronaviruses. Trends in microbiology, 2016. 24(6): p. 490-502.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2016.03.003

WHO, C.O., World health organization. Responding to Community Spread of COVID-19. Reference WHO/COVID-19/Community_Transmission/2020.1, 2020.

Florez, H. and S. Singh, Online dashboard and data analysis approach for assessing COVID-19 case and death data. F1000Research, 2020. 9.

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.24164.1

Sohrabi, C. and Z. Alsafi, O′ Neill N., Khan M., Kerwan A., Al-Jabir A., Iosifidis C., Agha R. World Health Organization declares global emergency: A review of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19). International Journal of Surgery, 2020.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.02.034

Chaimayo, C., et al., Rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection assay in comparison with real-time RT-PCR assay for laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 in Thailand. Virology journal, 2020. 17(1): p. 1-7.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-020-01452-5

Tang, Y.-W., et al., Laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19: current issues and challenges. Journal of clinical microbiology, 2020. 58(6): p. e00512-20.

https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00512-20

van Kasteren, P.B., et al., Comparison of seven commercial RT-PCR diagnostic kits for COVID-19. Journal of Clinical Virology, 2020. 128: p. 104412.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104412

Graham, T.G., et al., Open-source RNA extraction and RT-qPCR methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection. PloS one, 2021. 16(2): p. e0246647.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246647

Randazzo, W., et al., SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater anticipated COVID-19 occurrence in a low prevalence area. Water research, 2020. 181: p. 115942.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.115942

Mak, G.C., et al., Evaluation of rapid antigen test for detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus. Journal of Clinical Virology, 2020. 129: p. 104500.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104500

Lambert-Niclot, S., et al., Evaluation of a rapid diagnostic assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen in nasopharyngeal swabs. Journal of clinical microbiology, 2020. 58(8): p. e00977-20.

https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00977-20

Zou, L., et al., SARS-CoV-2 viral load in upper respiratory specimens of infected patients. New England journal of medicine, 2020. 382(12): p. 1177-1179.

https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2001737

Cattelan, A.M., et al., Rapid Antigen Test LumiraDxTM vs. Real Time Polymerase Chain Reaction for the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Retrospective Cohort Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2022. 19(7): p. 3826.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19073826

Vojtkovská, V., et al., Direct Detection of Feline Coronavirus by Three Rapid Antigen Immunochromatographic Tests and by Real-Time PCR in Cat Shelters. Veterinary Sciences, 2022. 9(2): p. 35.

https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci9020035

Baldanti, F., et al., Choice of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test: challenges and key considerations for the future. Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences, 2022: p. 1-15.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10408363.2022.2045250

Albert, E., et al., Field evaluation of a rapid antigen test (Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device) for COVID-19 diagnosis in primary healthcare centres. Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 2021. 27(3): p. 472. e7-472. e10.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2020.11.004

Torres, I., et al., Evaluation of a rapid antigen test (Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag rapid test device) for SARS-CoV-2 detection in asymptomatic close contacts of COVID-19 patients. Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 2021. 27(4): p. 636. e1-636. e4.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2020.12.022

Winkel, B., et al., Screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection in asymptomatic individuals using the Panbio COVID-19 antigen rapid test (Abbott) compared with RT-PCR: a prospective cohort study. BMJ open, 2021. 11(10): p. e048206.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048206

Gremmels, H., et al., Real-life validation of the Panbio™ COVID-19 antigen rapid test (Abbott) in community-dwelling subjects with symptoms of potential SARS-CoV-2 infection. EClinicalMedicine, 2021. 31: p. 100677.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100677

Treggiari, D., et al., SARS‐CoV‐2 rapid antigen test in comparison to RT‐PCR targeting different genes: A real‐life evaluation among unselected patients in a regional hospital of Italy. Journal of Medical Virology, 2022. 94(3): p. 1190-1195.

https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.27378

Linares, M., et al., Panbio antigen rapid test is reliable to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first 7 days after the onset of symptoms. Journal of Clinical Virology, 2020. 133: p. 104659.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104659

Iqbal, B., et al., Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 antigen electrochemiluminescence immunoassay to RT-PCR assay for laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 in Peshawar. Diagnosis, 2021.

https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2021-0078

Downloads

Published

2022-04-30

How to Cite

Hussan, M., waheed, F. ., Ullah, H. ., Khurram, M. ., Ali, G. ., Shahid, M. ., Zaman, F. ., Abdullah, ., & Hashmi, A. H. . (2022). Comparative field study of Rapid-Antigen Detection (RAD) with Multiplex Real Time-PCR for COVID-19 diagnosis . Pakistan BioMedical Journal, 5(4), 214–217. https://doi.org/10.54393/pbmj.v5i4.397

Issue

Section

Original Article

Most read articles by the same author(s)