Real-world accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection compared with qPCR: A cross-sectional study in Toledo - PR, Brazil

IF 3 4区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Carla Adriane Royer , Regis Goulart Rosa , Maicon Falavigna , Jaqueline Carvalho de Oliveira
{"title":"Real-world accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection compared with qPCR: A cross-sectional study in Toledo - PR, Brazil","authors":"Carla Adriane Royer ,&nbsp;Regis Goulart Rosa ,&nbsp;Maicon Falavigna ,&nbsp;Jaqueline Carvalho de Oliveira","doi":"10.1016/j.bjid.2025.104520","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Rapid Antigen Tests (Ag-RDTs) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 is an important diagnostic tool for containing virus spread. However, their accuracy ‒ the proportion of correct results (both true positives and true negatives) ‒ still needs to be proven when used in a real large-scale context. Accordingly, we provide data from a cross-sectional study conducted in Toledo - PR, Brazil, on the accuracy of rapid tests compared with qPCR within the Brazilian Unified Health System. A total of 2882 thousand individuals presenting symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 were screened. Overall, the antigen tests showed a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 59 % (0.56‒0.62), 99 % (0.98‒0.99), and 82 % (0.81‒0.84) respectively. However, a significant difference was found when analysing two brand tests individually. In addition, for patients with a low quantification Cycle (Cq) &lt; 20 (which indicates a high viral load), the agreement between test results was high (90.85 %). However, this agreement decreased significantly when the viral load decreased, dropping to 5.59 % for samples with Cq ≥ 33, which indicates a lower viral load. While rapid antigen tests are a valuable tool in combating virus spread, their accuracy can vary significantly between manufacturers and under conditions of low viral load.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56327,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases","volume":"29 3","pages":"Article 104520"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1413867025000236","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rapid Antigen Tests (Ag-RDTs) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 is an important diagnostic tool for containing virus spread. However, their accuracy ‒ the proportion of correct results (both true positives and true negatives) ‒ still needs to be proven when used in a real large-scale context. Accordingly, we provide data from a cross-sectional study conducted in Toledo - PR, Brazil, on the accuracy of rapid tests compared with qPCR within the Brazilian Unified Health System. A total of 2882 thousand individuals presenting symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 were screened. Overall, the antigen tests showed a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 59 % (0.56‒0.62), 99 % (0.98‒0.99), and 82 % (0.81‒0.84) respectively. However, a significant difference was found when analysing two brand tests individually. In addition, for patients with a low quantification Cycle (Cq) < 20 (which indicates a high viral load), the agreement between test results was high (90.85 %). However, this agreement decreased significantly when the viral load decreased, dropping to 5.59 % for samples with Cq ≥ 33, which indicates a lower viral load. While rapid antigen tests are a valuable tool in combating virus spread, their accuracy can vary significantly between manufacturers and under conditions of low viral load.
与qPCR相比,SARS-CoV-2抗原检测的真实世界准确性:巴西托莱多- PR的横断面研究
检测SARS-CoV-2的快速抗原试验(Ag-RDTs)是遏制病毒传播的重要诊断工具。然而,它们的准确性——正确结果的比例(包括真阳性和真阴性)——仍然需要在真正的大规模环境中得到证明。因此,我们提供了在巴西托莱多- PR进行的横断面研究的数据,比较了巴西统一卫生系统内快速检测与qPCR的准确性。总共筛查了28.2万名出现COVID-19症状的人。总体而言,抗原检测的敏感性、特异性和准确性分别为59%(0.56-0.62)、99%(0.98-0.99)和82%(0.81-0.84)。然而,当分别分析两个品牌测试时,发现了显著的差异。此外,对于量化周期(Cq) <;20(表明病毒载量高),检测结果之间的一致性很高(90.85%)。然而,当病毒载量降低时,这种一致性显著降低,Cq≥33的样本下降到5.59%,表明病毒载量较低。虽然快速抗原检测是对抗病毒传播的宝贵工具,但其准确性在不同制造商和低病毒载量条件下可能有很大差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
925
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: The Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases is the official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI). It aims to publish relevant articles in the broadest sense on all aspects of microbiology, infectious diseases and immune response to infectious agents. The BJID is a bimonthly publication and one of the most influential journals in its field in Brazil and Latin America with a high impact factor, since its inception it has garnered a growing share of the publishing market.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信