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

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 prom...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Mariana Lourenço Freire, Daniel Moreira Avelar, Glaucia Fernandes Cota, Lindicy Leidicy Alves, Carolina Senra de Souza, Juliana Wilke Saliba, Verônica Faria, Mariana Junqueira Pedras, Nara de Oliveira Carvalho, Gláucia Queiroz Andrade, Ana Rabello
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Estado:Versión publicada
Fecha de publicación:2022
País:Brasil
Institución:Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)
Repositorio:Repositório Institucional da UFMG
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:repositorio.ufmg.br:1843/61859
Acceso en línea:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0269997
http://hdl.handle.net/1843/61859
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0538-7403
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Antigen rapid tests
COVID-19
Brazil
Testes de Diagnóstico Rápido
Teste para COVID-19
Brasil
Descripción
Sumario: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.