Devy M. Emperador , Leanna Sayyad , Monica Brady , Jessica Rowland , Inna Krapiunaya , Isabella Eckerle , Emmanuel Agogo , Daniel G. Bausch , Joel M. Montgomery , John D. Klena
{"title":"检测埃博拉病毒和苏丹病毒的抗原快速诊断试验的实验室评价","authors":"Devy M. Emperador , Leanna Sayyad , Monica Brady , Jessica Rowland , Inna Krapiunaya , Isabella Eckerle , Emmanuel Agogo , Daniel G. Bausch , Joel M. Montgomery , John D. Klena","doi":"10.1016/j.jcv.2025.105830","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Nucleic acid-based assays are the diagnostic gold standard for filoviruses, including Ebola (EBOV) and Sudan (SUDV) viruses. However, outbreaks in areas with limited laboratory infrastructure highlight the need for simpler diagnostic tests that can be rapidly and safely used in the field.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We evaluated eight antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for their ability to detect EBOV and SUDV. Analytical panels using virus cell slurries were used to assess limit of detection, and clinical samples were tested to determine sensitivity and specificity.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Five Ag-RDTs detected EBOV and three detected SUDV, although clinical sensitivity was low (20–40 % for EBOV, 33 % for SUDV), improving only with higher viral loads. All assays demonstrated 100 % clinical specificity with no cross-reactivity.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>Although none of the evaluated Ag-RDTs are suitable for routine diagnosis, some may be useful in high viral load contexts such as cadaver testing. Our findings highlight the need to improve Ag-RDT sensitivity or develop high-sensitivity point-of-care molecular diagnostics.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15517,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Virology","volume":"179 ","pages":"Article 105830"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Laboratory evaluation of antigen rapid diagnostic tests to detect Ebola and Sudan viruses\",\"authors\":\"Devy M. Emperador , Leanna Sayyad , Monica Brady , Jessica Rowland , Inna Krapiunaya , Isabella Eckerle , Emmanuel Agogo , Daniel G. Bausch , Joel M. Montgomery , John D. Klena\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcv.2025.105830\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Nucleic acid-based assays are the diagnostic gold standard for filoviruses, including Ebola (EBOV) and Sudan (SUDV) viruses. However, outbreaks in areas with limited laboratory infrastructure highlight the need for simpler diagnostic tests that can be rapidly and safely used in the field.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We evaluated eight antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for their ability to detect EBOV and SUDV. Analytical panels using virus cell slurries were used to assess limit of detection, and clinical samples were tested to determine sensitivity and specificity.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Five Ag-RDTs detected EBOV and three detected SUDV, although clinical sensitivity was low (20–40 % for EBOV, 33 % for SUDV), improving only with higher viral loads. All assays demonstrated 100 % clinical specificity with no cross-reactivity.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>Although none of the evaluated Ag-RDTs are suitable for routine diagnosis, some may be useful in high viral load contexts such as cadaver testing. Our findings highlight the need to improve Ag-RDT sensitivity or develop high-sensitivity point-of-care molecular diagnostics.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15517,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Virology\",\"volume\":\"179 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105830\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Virology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386653225000721\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"VIROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Virology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386653225000721","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VIROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Laboratory evaluation of antigen rapid diagnostic tests to detect Ebola and Sudan viruses
Background
Nucleic acid-based assays are the diagnostic gold standard for filoviruses, including Ebola (EBOV) and Sudan (SUDV) viruses. However, outbreaks in areas with limited laboratory infrastructure highlight the need for simpler diagnostic tests that can be rapidly and safely used in the field.
Methods
We evaluated eight antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for their ability to detect EBOV and SUDV. Analytical panels using virus cell slurries were used to assess limit of detection, and clinical samples were tested to determine sensitivity and specificity.
Results
Five Ag-RDTs detected EBOV and three detected SUDV, although clinical sensitivity was low (20–40 % for EBOV, 33 % for SUDV), improving only with higher viral loads. All assays demonstrated 100 % clinical specificity with no cross-reactivity.
Discussion
Although none of the evaluated Ag-RDTs are suitable for routine diagnosis, some may be useful in high viral load contexts such as cadaver testing. Our findings highlight the need to improve Ag-RDT sensitivity or develop high-sensitivity point-of-care molecular diagnostics.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Clinical Virology, an esteemed international publication, serves as the official journal for both the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology and The European Society for Clinical Virology. Dedicated to advancing the understanding of human virology in clinical settings, the Journal of Clinical Virology focuses on disseminating research papers and reviews pertaining to the clinical aspects of virology. Its scope encompasses articles discussing diagnostic methodologies and virus-induced clinical conditions, with an emphasis on practicality and relevance to clinical practice.
The journal publishes on topics that include:
• new diagnostic technologies
• nucleic acid amplification and serologic testing
• targeted and metagenomic next-generation sequencing
• emerging pandemic viral threats
• respiratory viruses
• transplant viruses
• chronic viral infections
• cancer-associated viruses
• gastrointestinal viruses
• central nervous system viruses
• one health (excludes animal health)