4.7 Article

Clinical Validation of GenBody COVID-19 Ag, Nasal and Nasopharyngeal Rapid Antigen Tests for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in European Adult Population

Journal

BIOMEDICINES
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11020493

Keywords

clinical trial; clinical validation; GenBody COVID-19 Ag; rapid antigen test (RAT); RT-qPCR

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Accurate and rapid identification of COVID-19 is critical. The GenBody COVID-19 Ag rapid antigen tests showed high sensitivity and specificity, making them suitable for diagnosis and timely isolation and treatment of COVID-19 patients, contributing to the better control of virus spread.
Accurate and rapid identification of COVID-19 is critical for effective patient treatment and disease outcomes, as well as the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Rapid antigen tests (RATs) for identifying SARS-CoV-2 are simpler, faster and less expensive than molecular assays. Any new product to be considered a medical device is subject to evaluation and data analysis to verify the in vitro diagnostic ability to achieve its intended purpose. Clinical validation of such a test is a prerequisite before clinical application. This study was a clinical validation on adult Europeans of GenBody COVID-19 Ag, nasal and nasopharyngeal RATs. A set of 103 positive and 301 negative from nose and nasopharynx samples confirmed by RT-qPCR were examined. The tests were safe to use and showed 100% specificity in both specimens, and high sensitivity of 94.17% (95%CI 87.75% to 97.83%) and 97.09% (95%CI 91.72% to 99.4%), respectively. The parameters were significantly better for samples with higher virus loads (the highest for CT <= 25). The GenBody COVID-19 Ag RATs are inexpensive (compared to RT-qPCR), reliable and rapid with high sensitivity and specificity, making them suitable for diagnosis and timely isolation and treatment of COVID-19 patients, contributing to the better control of virus spread.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available