Tools
Tools
Palomino-Padilla, Sandra, Finch, Lorna, de Vos, Margaretha, Savage, Helen, Villa-Castillo, Luz, Hayward, Gail, Cook, Eloïse, Escadafal, Camille, Body, Richard, Adams, Emily R., Ugarte-Gil, Cesar and CubasAtienzar, Ana (2023) 'Diagnostic performance of GENEDIA W and ActiveXpress+ COVID-19 antigens tests among symptomatic individuals in Peru and The United Kingdom'. PLoS ONE, Vol 18, Issue 3, e0281925.
|
Text
pone.0281925.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (481kB) | Preview |
Abstract
Objectives: In order to generate independent performance data regarding accuracy of COVID-19 antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs), prospective diagnostic evaluation studies across multiple sites are required to evaluate their performance in different clinical settings. This report describes the clinical evaluation the GENEDIA W COVID-19 Ag Device (Green Cross Medical Science Corp., Chungbuk, Korea) and the ActiveXpress+ COVID-19 Complete Testing Kit (Edinburgh Genetics Ltd, UK), in two testing sites Peru and the United Kingdom.
Methods: Nasopharyngeal swabs collected from 456 symptomatic patients at primary points of care in Lima, Peru and 610 symptomatic participants at a COVID-19 Drive-Through testing site in Liverpool, England were analyzed by Ag-RDT and compared to RT-PCR. Analytical evaluation of both Ag-RDTs was assessed using serial dilutions of direct culture supernatant of a clinical SARS-CoV-2 isolate from the B.1.1.7 lineage.
Results: For GENEDIA brand, the values of overall sensitivity and specificity were 60.4% [95% CI 52.4–67.9%], and 99.2% [95% CI 97.6–99.7%] respectively; and for Active Xpress+ the overall values of sensitivity and specificity were 66.2% [95% CI 54.0–76.5%], and 99.6% [95% CI 97.9–99.9%] respectively. The analytical limit of detection was determined at 5.0 x 102 pfu/ml what equals to approximately 1.0 x 104 gcn/ml for both Ag-RDTs. The UK cohort had lower median Ct values compared to that of Peru during both evaluations. When split by Ct, both Ag-RDTs had optimum sensitivities at Ct<20 (in Peru; 95% [95% CI 76.4–99.1%] and 100.0% [95% CI 74.1–100.0%] and in the UK; 59.2% [95% CI 44.2–73.0%] and 100.0% [95% CI 15.8–100.0%], for the GENDIA and the ActiveXpress+, respectively).
Conclusions: Whilst the overall clinical sensitivity of the Genedia did not meet WHO minimum performance requirements for rapid immunoassays in either cohort, the ActiveXpress+ did so for the small UK cohort. This study illustrates comparative performance of Ag-RDTs across two global settings and considers the different approaches in evaluation methods.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Subjects: | QW Microbiology and Immunology > Antigens and Antibodies. Toxins and Antitoxins > QW 573 Antigens WC Communicable Diseases > Virus Diseases > Viral Respiratory Tract Infections. Respirovirus Infections > WC 506 COVID-19 |
| Faculty: Department: | Biological Sciences > Department of Tropical Disease Biology |
| Digital Object Identifer (DOI): | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281925 |
| SWORD Depositor: | JISC Pubrouter |
| Depositing User: | JISC Pubrouter |
| Date Deposited: | 07 Mar 2023 14:51 |
| Last Modified: | 30 Jun 2023 12:22 |
| URI: | https://archive.lstmed.ac.uk/id/eprint/22072 |
Statistics
Actions (login required)
 |
Edit Item |