Search

Objective The purpose of this study was to compare Quidel's rapid antigen test Sofia SARS antigen Fluorescent Immunoassay (FIA) (Sofia) with the real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) test. Methods Two samples were taken from each test subject—1 for testing with the Sofia test and 1 for testing with the rRT-PCR test. In total, swabs were taken from 146 subjects who presented symptoms of infection (group 1) and 672 subjects who were tested regardless of symptoms (group 2). Results In group 1, the sensitivity of the antigen test was 90.0% and its specificity 97.5%. In group 2, however, the sensitivity of the antigen test was 81.4% and the specificity 98.9%. In addition to asymptomatic patients, false-negative results of rapid antigen tests also occurred in subjects with high threshold values (cycle threshold > 30). Conclusion Our results show that the Sofia test meets the standards for diagnostic tests according to the criteria of the World Health Organization, as they show high sensitivity and specificity, and perhaps most importantly, a high negative predictive value (> 95%). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) and antigen tests are important diagnostics for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Sensitivity of antigen tests has been shown to be lower than that of rRT-PCR; however, data to evaluate epidemiologic characteristics that affect test performance are limited. Methods Paired mid-turbinate nasal swabs were collected from university students and staff and tested for SARS-CoV-2 using both Quidel Sofia SARS Antigen Fluorescent Immunoassay (FIA) and rRT-PCR assay. Specimens positive by either rRT-PCR or antigen FIA were placed in viral culture and tested for subgenomic RNA (sgRNA). Logistic regression models were used to evaluate characteristics associated with antigen results, rRT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, sgRNA, and viral culture. Results Antigen FIA sensitivity was 78.9% and 43.8% among symptomatic and asymptomatic participants, respectively. Among rRT-PCR positive participants, negative antigen results were more likely among asymptomatic participants (odds ratio [OR] 4.6, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3–15.4) and less likely among participants reporting nasal congestion (OR 0.1, 95% CI:.03–.8). rRT-PCR-positive specimens with higher Ct values (OR 0.5, 95% CI:.4–.8) were less likely, and specimens positive for sgRNA (OR 10.2, 95% CI: 1.6–65.0) more likely, to yield positive virus isolation. Antigen testing was >90% positive in specimens with Ct values < 29. Positive predictive value of antigen test for positive viral culture (57.7%) was similar to that of rRT-PCR (59.3%). Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 antigen test advantages include low cost, wide availability and rapid turnaround time, making them important screening tests. The performance of antigen tests may vary with patient characteristics, so performance characteristics should be accounted for when designing testing strategies and interpreting results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]