Search

Rapid antigen test (RAT) is widely used for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnostics. However, test sensitivity has decreased recently due to the emergence of the Omicron variant and its sublineages. Here we developed a panel of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (NP) specific mouse monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and assessed their sensitivity and specificity to important SARS-CoV-2 variants. We identified seven mAbs that exhibited strong reactivity to SARS-CoV-2 variants and recombinant NP (rNP) by Western immunoblot or ELISA. Their specificity to SARS-CoV-2 was confirmed by negative or low reactivity to rNPs from SARS-CoV-1, MERS, and common human coronaviruses (HCoV-HKU1, HCoV-CO43, HCoV-NL63, and HCoV-229E). These seven mAbs were further tested by immunoplaque assay against selected variants of concern (VOCs), including two Omicron sublineages, and five mAbs (F461G13, F461G7, F459G7, F457G3, and F461G6), showed strong reactions, warranting further suitability testing for the development of diagnostic assay., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Crown Copyright © 2024 Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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.

Background: Rapid antigen tests (RATs) may be included in national strategies for handling the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, as they provide test results rapidly, are easily performed outside laboratories, and enable immediate contract tracing. However, before implementation further clinical evaluation of test sensitivity is warranted., Objectives: To examine the performance of Abbott's Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device for SARS-CoV-2 testing in a low to medium prevalence setting in Norway., Study Design: A prospective study comparing the results of the Panbio RAT with PCR in 4857 parallel samples collected at a SARS-CoV-2 test station in Oslo, and from COVID-19 outbreaks in six Norwegian municipalities., Results: A total of 4857 cases were included in the study; 3991 and 866 cases from the test station and the outbreak municipalities, respectively. The prevalence at the test station in Oslo was 6.3 %, and the overall sensitivity of the RAT was 74 %. Increased sensitivity was observed in patients who experienced symptoms (79 %) and when considering samples with viral loads above estimated level of infectivity (84 %), while it was lower in asymptomatic persons (55 %). In the outbreak municipalities, the overall prevalence was 6.9 %, and the total sensitivity of the RAT was 70 %., Conclusions: Our results indicate that the test correctly identified most infectious individuals. Nevertheless, the sensitivity is considerably lower than for PCR, and it is important that the limitations of the test are kept in mind in the follow-up of tested individuals., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)