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.

Efficient and rapid identification of active SARS-CoV-2 infections has been key to monitoring and mitigating the spread of the virus. The implementation of nucleic acid testing (e.g., RT-PCR) was broadly adopted by most public health organizations at the national and community levels across the globe, which was followed by more accessible means of home testing including lateral flow immunochromatographic assay (LFA), also known as a rapid antigen test. Here we report the case of an adult female who repeatedly and consecutively tested positive by RAT (BTNX inc). This sustained false positive was not linked with an active SARS-CoV-2 infection, which was ruled out by RT-PCR and serological analyses. SARS-CoV-2 serology revealed no detectable levels of antibodies against the nucleocapsid suggesting no recent prior infection by SARS-CoV-2. This continuous false positive was limited to BTNX testing devices. This case report aims to describe that such continuous false positives can occur and describes alternative testing approaches that can be performed to confirm RAT results. In addition, broader awareness of such occurrences is warranted in the healthcare and public health community to avoid unnecessary negative impacts on individual’s day to day life.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

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.)