3.8 Article

Analytical and clinical performances of seven direct detection assays for SARS-CoV-2

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL VIROLOGY PLUS
Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcvp.2023.100138

Keywords

SARS-CoV-2; RT-PCR; Lateral flow antigen assay; Direct detection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Direct detection tests for SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples show promising potential for rapid diagnosis of COVID-19. However, there are large differences in the performance of different assays, and laboratories need to consider these characteristics before implementing them.
Background: Direct detection tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that bypass complicated nucleic acid/antigen purification steps are promising tools for the rapid diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).Methods: To determine the analytical and clinical diagnostic performances of the direct detection assays, we compared 6 direct molecular detection assays, including two loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assays and one lateral flow antigen assay, against the reference extraction-based RT-PCR assay using 183 respiratory samples (87 nasopharyngeal swabs, 51 saliva samples, and 45 sputum samples). Results: Analytical sensitivity analysis showed that the direct RT-PCR assay of Toyobo exhibited the lowest LOD of 1,000 copies/mL. Compared with the 80 positive and 103 negative samples based on the reference assay, the Toyobo assay had the highest positive percent agreement (PPA) of 96.3%, followed by the two direct RT-PCR assays of Takara and Shimadzu and one LAMP assay of Eiken (86.3-87.5%). The Fujirebio antigen assay had the lowest PPA of 44.7% among the assays tested. The negative percent agreement of these direct detection assays was 100%, except for the Eiken assay (96.3%).Conclusions: Large differences in PPA existed among the direct detection tests. Laboratories need to take these characteristics into consideration before implementing these assays.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available