Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
The evaluation results of proposed antigen rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19: some possible factors might influence.
Furqoni, Abdul Hadi; Amin, Mochamad; Restifan, Yanna Debby; Putri, Serius Miliyani Dwi; Ferandra, Virginia Ayu; Lusida, Maria Inge.
Afiliación
  • Juniastuti; Department of Medical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia.
  • Furqoni AH; Clinical Microbiology Residency Program, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga - Dr. Soetomo General Hospital, Surabaya, Indonesia.
  • Amin M; Institute of Tropical Disease, Universitas Airlangga, Campus C Jalan Mulyorejo, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia.
  • Restifan YD; Institute of Tropical Disease, Universitas Airlangga, Campus C Jalan Mulyorejo, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia.
  • Putri SMD; Institute of Tropical Disease, Universitas Airlangga, Campus C Jalan Mulyorejo, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia.
  • Ferandra VA; Institute of Tropical Disease, Universitas Airlangga, Campus C Jalan Mulyorejo, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia.
  • Lusida MI; Institute of Tropical Disease, Universitas Airlangga, Campus C Jalan Mulyorejo, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia.
Infection ; 51(5): 1285-1291, 2023 Oct.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36592297
PURPOSE: In addition to existing gold standard qRT-PCR methods, there is a need to develop reliable rapid tests for infection control with early notification of COVID-19 cases to enable effective outbreak management. We evaluated the validity of the three Ag-RDT kits proposed by some companies in different countries by using qRT-PCR and analyzed its results. METHODS: Each of the three Ag-RDT kits (namely A, B, and C) was tested with 90 samples, consisting of samples with Ct ≤ 25, samples with Ct > 25, and negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR samples. RESULTS: This study showed that for samples with Ct > 25, all the three kits could not detect SARS-CoV-2 Ag (0% sensitivity) but showed 100% specificity. Meanwhile, for samples with Ct ≤ 25, kit C was the best (76.7% sensitivity and 100% specificity). The PPV of the three kits was 100%, but their NPV ranged 63-84.8%. Kit C showed the best accuracy (89.9%). Some factors might influence the results of evaluation, such as variation of virus proteins and transportation-storage of the kits. CONCLUSION: The overall specificity of the three kits for all samples was high; however, all of them have not met the minimum performance requirements of ≥ 80% sensitivity for samples with Ct ≤ 25. The validation test is much necessary to be carried out by the authority in national health care to ensure the feasibility of the kit for point-of-care testing (POCT) of COVID-19. Some factors that might influence should be anticipated to increase their sensitivities and specificities.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: COVID-19 Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Infection Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Indonesia Pais de publicación: Alemania

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: COVID-19 Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Infection Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Indonesia Pais de publicación: Alemania