• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

J Infect Chemother . Efficacy and validity of automated quantitative chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay for SARS-CoV-2 antigen test from saliva sp

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
J Infect Chemother


. 2021 Apr 2;S1341-321X(21)00102-1.
doi: 10.1016/j.jiac.2021.03.021. Online ahead of print.
Efficacy and validity of automated quantitative chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay for SARS-CoV-2 antigen test from saliva specimen in the diagnosis of COVID-19


Nobuhiro Asai[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Daisuke Sakanashi[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Wataru Ohashi[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Akiko Nakamura[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Yuzuka Kawamoto[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Narimi Miyazaki[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Tomoko Ohno[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Atsuko Yamada[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Sumie Chida[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Yuichi Shibata[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Hideo Kato[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Arufumi Shiota[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Mao Hagihara[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Isao Koita[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Yuka Yamagishi[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Hiroyuki Suematsu[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Hirotoshi Ohta[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Hiroshige Mikamo[SUP] 6 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Introduction: The pandemic of a novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by a severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has been problematic worldwide. A new SARS-CoV-2 antigen test (LUMIPULSE[SUP]?[/SUP]) was licensed and widely used in Japan since May 2020. We conducted this study intending to whether the automated quantitative CLEIA antigen test using a saliva sample is effective and valid for the diagnosis of COVID-19.
Patients and methods: We analyzed and compared the diagnostic accuracy of both the automated quantitative CLEIA antigen test and real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR) using a saliva sample from individuals suspected as having COVID-19.
Results: A total of 305 samples were collected and tested in Aichi Medical University Hospital and affiliated facilities from December 2020 until January 2021 at our institute. Using reverse-transcription PCR as a reference, the AUROC of the automated quantitative CLEIA antigen test was 0.903 (95% confidential interval 0.845-0.962, p < 0.001). The appropriate cut-off antigen level was 4.0 pg/mL and had a sensitivity of 77.8%, a specificity of 99.6%, a positive predictive value of 98%, and a negative predictive value of 94.5%. On the other hand, the diagnostic accuracy of the antigen test decreased among patients among patients with COVID-19 with threshold cycle (Ct-value)?27, which shows the AUROC was 0.795 (95%CI 0.687-0.907, p < 0.001).
Conclusion: While the automated quantitative CLEIA antigen test from saliva specimen could be one of the most useful diagnostic tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in general practice, clinicians should know the limitations of the antigen test.

Keywords: COVID-19; Quantitative chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay; RT-PCR; SARS-CoV-2; Saliva.
 
Back
Top Bottom