Evaluation of the Roche antigen rapid test and a cell culture-based assay compared to rRT- PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: A contribution to the discussion about SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests and contagiousness

Background: The most sensitive method to detect SARS-CoV-2 relies on rRT-PCR; however, viral RNA can be detected weeks/months after clinical resolution. Since rRT-PCR cannot discern between non- and infectious virus, it is unclear whether the presence of viral RNA after recovery reflects infectious...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jacqueline Steinlin-Schopfer, Maria Teresa Barbani, Richard Kamgang, Martina Zwahlen, Franziska Suter-Riniker, Ronald Dijkman
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2021-06-01
Series:Journal of Clinical Virology Plus
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667038021000120
id doaj-e3904a50e615434fa9ab617cd900c5c9
record_format Article
spelling doaj-e3904a50e615434fa9ab617cd900c5c92021-07-08T04:05:33ZengElsevierJournal of Clinical Virology Plus2667-03802021-06-0111100020Evaluation of the Roche antigen rapid test and a cell culture-based assay compared to rRT- PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: A contribution to the discussion about SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests and contagiousnessJacqueline Steinlin-Schopfer0Maria Teresa Barbani1Richard Kamgang2Martina Zwahlen3Franziska Suter-Riniker4Ronald Dijkman5Institute for Infectious Diseases, University of Bern, Friedbühlstrasse 51, 3001 Bern, SwitzerlandInstitute for Infectious Diseases, University of Bern, Friedbühlstrasse 51, 3001 Bern, Switzerland; Corresponding author.Institute for Infectious Diseases, University of Bern, Friedbühlstrasse 51, 3001 Bern, SwitzerlandInstitute for Infectious Diseases, University of Bern, Friedbühlstrasse 51, 3001 Bern, SwitzerlandInstitute for Infectious Diseases, University of Bern, Friedbühlstrasse 51, 3001 Bern, SwitzerlandInstitute for Infectious Diseases, University of Bern, Friedbühlstrasse 51, 3001 Bern, Switzerland; Institute of Virology and Immunology, Bern &amp; Mittelhäusern, Switzerland; Department of Infectious Diseases and Pathobiology, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, SwitzerlandBackground: The most sensitive method to detect SARS-CoV-2 relies on rRT-PCR; however, viral RNA can be detected weeks/months after clinical resolution. Since rRT-PCR cannot discern between non- and infectious virus, it is unclear whether the presence of viral RNA after recovery reflects infectious SARS-CoV-2. However, recent studies suggest a positive correlation between antigen rapid tests (Ag-RDT) and virus isolation that is more suited to assess contagiousness. Objectives: To assess the utility of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests in different settings we evaluated the performance of Ag-RDT-based and a cell culture-based SARS-CoV-2 assay in comparison to rRT-PCR. Study design: A total of 61 Nasopharyngeal-Swabs tested positive by cobasⓇ SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR were in parallel evaluated with the Roche Ag-RDT and a cell culture-based assay to detect SARS-CoV-2. Results: SARS-CoV-2 was successfully isolated in 51/61 samples corresponding to 83.6%, which was 97.3% or 96.2% when considering samples with E-gene Ct-value <25 and <28, respectively. In comparison, the Ag-RDT showed an overall sensitivity of 85.2%, that increased to 100% and 96.2% using an E-gene Ct-value cut-off of <25 and <28, respectively. There was an overall good agreement between the commercial Ag-RDT and our in-house cell culture-based SARS-CoV-2 detection assay. However, SARS-CoV-2 could be isolated from two samples that tested negative by Ag-RDT. Conclusions: Our results support the use of the Roche Ag-RDT to detect SARS-CoV-2 exposure in large scale populations. However, it is recommended to use rRT-PCR, potentially in conjunction with cell culture-based SARS-CoV-2 assay, to support clinicians in making decisions regarding fragile patient groups.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667038021000120SARS-CoV-2Antigen rapid testVirus isolationDiagnostics
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Jacqueline Steinlin-Schopfer
Maria Teresa Barbani
Richard Kamgang
Martina Zwahlen
Franziska Suter-Riniker
Ronald Dijkman
spellingShingle Jacqueline Steinlin-Schopfer
Maria Teresa Barbani
Richard Kamgang
Martina Zwahlen
Franziska Suter-Riniker
Ronald Dijkman
Evaluation of the Roche antigen rapid test and a cell culture-based assay compared to rRT- PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: A contribution to the discussion about SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests and contagiousness
Journal of Clinical Virology Plus
SARS-CoV-2
Antigen rapid test
Virus isolation
Diagnostics
author_facet Jacqueline Steinlin-Schopfer
Maria Teresa Barbani
Richard Kamgang
Martina Zwahlen
Franziska Suter-Riniker
Ronald Dijkman
author_sort Jacqueline Steinlin-Schopfer
title Evaluation of the Roche antigen rapid test and a cell culture-based assay compared to rRT- PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: A contribution to the discussion about SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests and contagiousness
title_short Evaluation of the Roche antigen rapid test and a cell culture-based assay compared to rRT- PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: A contribution to the discussion about SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests and contagiousness
title_full Evaluation of the Roche antigen rapid test and a cell culture-based assay compared to rRT- PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: A contribution to the discussion about SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests and contagiousness
title_fullStr Evaluation of the Roche antigen rapid test and a cell culture-based assay compared to rRT- PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: A contribution to the discussion about SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests and contagiousness
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of the Roche antigen rapid test and a cell culture-based assay compared to rRT- PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: A contribution to the discussion about SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests and contagiousness
title_sort evaluation of the roche antigen rapid test and a cell culture-based assay compared to rrt- pcr for the detection of sars-cov-2: a contribution to the discussion about sars-cov-2 diagnostic tests and contagiousness
publisher Elsevier
series Journal of Clinical Virology Plus
issn 2667-0380
publishDate 2021-06-01
description Background: The most sensitive method to detect SARS-CoV-2 relies on rRT-PCR; however, viral RNA can be detected weeks/months after clinical resolution. Since rRT-PCR cannot discern between non- and infectious virus, it is unclear whether the presence of viral RNA after recovery reflects infectious SARS-CoV-2. However, recent studies suggest a positive correlation between antigen rapid tests (Ag-RDT) and virus isolation that is more suited to assess contagiousness. Objectives: To assess the utility of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests in different settings we evaluated the performance of Ag-RDT-based and a cell culture-based SARS-CoV-2 assay in comparison to rRT-PCR. Study design: A total of 61 Nasopharyngeal-Swabs tested positive by cobasⓇ SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR were in parallel evaluated with the Roche Ag-RDT and a cell culture-based assay to detect SARS-CoV-2. Results: SARS-CoV-2 was successfully isolated in 51/61 samples corresponding to 83.6%, which was 97.3% or 96.2% when considering samples with E-gene Ct-value <25 and <28, respectively. In comparison, the Ag-RDT showed an overall sensitivity of 85.2%, that increased to 100% and 96.2% using an E-gene Ct-value cut-off of <25 and <28, respectively. There was an overall good agreement between the commercial Ag-RDT and our in-house cell culture-based SARS-CoV-2 detection assay. However, SARS-CoV-2 could be isolated from two samples that tested negative by Ag-RDT. Conclusions: Our results support the use of the Roche Ag-RDT to detect SARS-CoV-2 exposure in large scale populations. However, it is recommended to use rRT-PCR, potentially in conjunction with cell culture-based SARS-CoV-2 assay, to support clinicians in making decisions regarding fragile patient groups.
topic SARS-CoV-2
Antigen rapid test
Virus isolation
Diagnostics
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667038021000120
work_keys_str_mv AT jacquelinesteinlinschopfer evaluationoftherocheantigenrapidtestandacellculturebasedassaycomparedtorrtpcrforthedetectionofsarscov2acontributiontothediscussionaboutsarscov2diagnostictestsandcontagiousness
AT mariateresabarbani evaluationoftherocheantigenrapidtestandacellculturebasedassaycomparedtorrtpcrforthedetectionofsarscov2acontributiontothediscussionaboutsarscov2diagnostictestsandcontagiousness
AT richardkamgang evaluationoftherocheantigenrapidtestandacellculturebasedassaycomparedtorrtpcrforthedetectionofsarscov2acontributiontothediscussionaboutsarscov2diagnostictestsandcontagiousness
AT martinazwahlen evaluationoftherocheantigenrapidtestandacellculturebasedassaycomparedtorrtpcrforthedetectionofsarscov2acontributiontothediscussionaboutsarscov2diagnostictestsandcontagiousness
AT franziskasuterriniker evaluationoftherocheantigenrapidtestandacellculturebasedassaycomparedtorrtpcrforthedetectionofsarscov2acontributiontothediscussionaboutsarscov2diagnostictestsandcontagiousness
AT ronalddijkman evaluationoftherocheantigenrapidtestandacellculturebasedassaycomparedtorrtpcrforthedetectionofsarscov2acontributiontothediscussionaboutsarscov2diagnostictestsandcontagiousness
_version_ 1721314481774002176