Search

The relationship between N-antigen concentration and viral load within and across different specimens guides the clinical performance of rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) in different uses. A prospective study was conducted in Porto Velho, Brazil, to investigate RDT performance in different specimen types as a function of the correlation between antigen concentration and viral load. The study included 214 close contacts with recent exposures to confirmed cases, aged 12 years and older and with various levels of vaccination. Antigen concentration was measured in nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), anterior nares swab (ANS), and saliva specimens. Reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR was conducted on the NPS and saliva specimens, and two RDTs were conducted on ANS and one RDT on saliva. Antigen concentration correlated well with viral load when measured in the same specimen type but not across specimen types. Antigen levels were higher in symptomatic cases compared to asymptomatic/oligosymptomatic cases and lower in saliva compared to NPS and ANS samples. Discordant results between the RDTs conducted on ANS and the RT-PCR on NPS were resolved by antigen concentration values. The analytical limit-of-detection of RDTs can be used to predict the performance of the tests in populations for which the antigen concentration is known. The antigen dynamics across different sample types observed in SARS-CoV-2 disease progression support use of RDTs with nasal samples. Given lower antigen concentrations in saliva, rapid testing using saliva is expected to require improved RDT analytical sensitivity to achieve clinical sensitivity similar to rapid testing of nasal samples.

Introduction: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is a disease caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that emerged in China in late 2019. The rapid viral spread has made the disease a public health emergency of worldwide concern. The gold standard for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 is reverse transcription followed by qualitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR); however, the role of viral load quantification has not been thoroughly investigated yet. Objective: The aim of this study was to develop a high-precision quantitative one-step RT-qPCR reaction using the association of the viral target and the human target in the same reaction. Methods: The assay standardization involved the absolute quantification method, with serial dilutions of a plasmid with the N gene in a biological matrix to build a standard curve. Results and Discussion: The results demonstrated the possibility of quantifying as few as 2.5 copies/reaction and an analysis of 244 patients with known results selected by cross-section that revealed 100% agreement with a qualitative RT-qPCR assay registered by Anvisa. In this population, it was possible to quantify patients with between 2.59 and 3.5 × 107 copies per reaction and negative patients continued to indicate the same result. Conclusion: This assay can be a useful tool for a proper patient management, because the level and duration of viral replication are important factors to assess the risk of transmission and to guide decisions regarding the isolation and release of patients; an accurate diagnosis is critical information, whereas the current COVID-19 pandemic represents the biggest current global health problem.