Search

The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical performance of STANDARD F COVID-19 Ag FIA (SD Biosensor Inc., Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea), a rapid antigen detection test (RADT) for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2, in patients attended at the Emergency Department with signs or symptoms compatible with COVID-19 that had started in the last 5 days. The clinical performance of the antigen test was compared with RT-PCR, the reference standard. We included 663 specimens from non-repetitive patients. Clinical sensitivity and specificity were 84.0% (95% CI 76.1−89.7) and 99.6% (95% CI 98.5−99.9), respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 98.1% (95% CI 92.7−99.7) and 96.4% (95% CI 94.4−97.7), respectively. The kappa index agreement between RT-PCR and the RADT was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84−0.93). We concluded that STANDARD F COVID-19 Ag FIA is an excellent first-line RADT method to diagnose symptomatic patients in the emergency department. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

RT-PCR is the gold standard to detect SARS-CoV-2, however, its capacity is limited. We evaluated an automated antigen detection (AAD) test, Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen (Roche, Germany), for detecting SARS-CoV-2. We compared the limit of detection (LOD) between AAD test, rapid antigen detection (RAD) test; SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (SD Biosensor, Korea), and in-house RT-PCR test. LOD results showed that the AAD test was 100 fold more sensitive than the RAD test, while the sensitivity of the AAD test was comparable to the RT-PCR test. The AAD test detected between 85.7% and 88.6% of RT-PCR-positive specimens collected from COVID-19 patients, false negative results were observed for specimens with Ct values >30. Although clinical sensitivity for the AAD test was not superior or comparable to the RT-PCR test in the present study, the AAD test may be an alternative to RT-PCR test in terms of turn-around time and throughput. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]