ArticleJournal of clinical virology plus2022
Development and performance of a point-of-care rapid antigen test for detection of SARS-COV-2 variants.
Article in Journal of clinical virology plus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nasal swab is a good alternative sample for detecting SARS-CoV-2 with rapid antigen test: A meta-analysis.Travel medicine and infectious diseasePooled it
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
33 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: SARS-CoV-2 antigen-based tests are well-calibrated to infectiousness and have a critical role to play in the COVID-19 public health response. We report the development and performance of a unique lateral flow immunoassay (LFA). Methods: Combinations of several monoclonal antibodies targeting multiple antigenic sites on the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (NP) were isolated, evaluated, and chosen for the development of a LFA termed CoV-SCAN (BioMedomics, Inc.). Clinical point-of-care studies in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals were conducted to evaluate positive predictive agreement (PPA) and negative predictive agreement (NPA) with RT-PCR as comparator. Results: In laboratory testing, CoV-SCAN detected 14 recombinant N-proteins of SARS-CoV-2 variants with sensitivity in the range of 0.2-3.2 ng/mL, and 10 authentic SARS-CoV-2 variants with sensitivity in the range of 1.6-12.5 TCID50/swab. No cross reactivity was observed with other human coronaviruses or other respiratory pathogens. In clinical point-of-care testing on 148 individuals over age 2 with symptoms of ≤5 days, PPA was 87.2% (CI 95: 78.3-94.8%) and NPA was 100% (CI 95: 94.2-100%). In another 884 asymptomatic individuals, PPA was 85.7% (CI 95: 42.1-99.6%) and 99.7% (99.0-99.9%). Overall, CoV-SCAN detected over 97.2% of specimens with CT values <30 and 93.8% of nasal swab specimens with the Omicron variant, even within the first 2 days after symptom onset. Conclusions: The unique construction of CoV-SCAN using two pairs of monoclonal antibodies has resulted in a test with high performance that remains durable across multiple variants in both laboratory and clinical evaluations. CoV-SCAN should identify almost all individuals harboring infectious SARS-CoV-2. Summary: Unique construction of a point-of-care rapid antigen test using two pairs of monoclonal antibodies has led to good performance that remained durable across multiple variants in laboratory and clinical evaluations. Test should identify almost all individuals harboring infectious SARS-CoV-2.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.