Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag Assay Evaluation for SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection Using 594 Nasopharyngeal Swab Samples from Different Testing Groups

Giulia Menchinelli, Licia Bordi, Flora Marzia Liotti, Ivana Palucci, Maria Rosaria Capobianchi, Giuseppe Sberna, Eleonora Lalle, Lucio Romano, Giulia De Angelis, Simona Marchetti, View ORCID ProfileMaurizio Sanguinetti, Paola Cattani, View ORCID ProfileBrunella Posteraro
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.26.21250533
Giulia Menchinelli
aDipartimento di Scienze Biotecnologiche di Base, Cliniche Intensivologiche e Perioperatorie, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma, Italy
bDipartimento di Scienze di Laboratorio e Infettivologiche, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Roma, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Licia Bordi
cIstituto Nazionale per le Malattie Infettive (INMI) Lazzaro Spallanzani IRCCS, Rome, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Flora Marzia Liotti
aDipartimento di Scienze Biotecnologiche di Base, Cliniche Intensivologiche e Perioperatorie, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma, Italy
bDipartimento di Scienze di Laboratorio e Infettivologiche, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Roma, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ivana Palucci
aDipartimento di Scienze Biotecnologiche di Base, Cliniche Intensivologiche e Perioperatorie, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma, Italy
bDipartimento di Scienze di Laboratorio e Infettivologiche, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Roma, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Maria Rosaria Capobianchi
cIstituto Nazionale per le Malattie Infettive (INMI) Lazzaro Spallanzani IRCCS, Rome, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Giuseppe Sberna
cIstituto Nazionale per le Malattie Infettive (INMI) Lazzaro Spallanzani IRCCS, Rome, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eleonora Lalle
cIstituto Nazionale per le Malattie Infettive (INMI) Lazzaro Spallanzani IRCCS, Rome, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lucio Romano
bDipartimento di Scienze di Laboratorio e Infettivologiche, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Roma, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Giulia De Angelis
aDipartimento di Scienze Biotecnologiche di Base, Cliniche Intensivologiche e Perioperatorie, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma, Italy
bDipartimento di Scienze di Laboratorio e Infettivologiche, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Roma, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Simona Marchetti
bDipartimento di Scienze di Laboratorio e Infettivologiche, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Roma, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Maurizio Sanguinetti
aDipartimento di Scienze Biotecnologiche di Base, Cliniche Intensivologiche e Perioperatorie, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma, Italy
bDipartimento di Scienze di Laboratorio e Infettivologiche, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Roma, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Maurizio Sanguinetti
  • For correspondence: maurizio.sanguinetti{at}unicatt.it
Paola Cattani
aDipartimento di Scienze Biotecnologiche di Base, Cliniche Intensivologiche e Perioperatorie, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma, Italy
bDipartimento di Scienze di Laboratorio e Infettivologiche, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Roma, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brunella Posteraro
aDipartimento di Scienze Biotecnologiche di Base, Cliniche Intensivologiche e Perioperatorie, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma, Italy
dDipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Roma, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Brunella Posteraro
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Compared to RT-PCR, lower performance of antigen detection assays, including the Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag assay, may depend on specific testing scenarios. We tested 594 nasopharyngeal swab samples from individuals with COVID-19 (RT-PCR cycle threshold [Ct] values ≤40) or non-COVID-19 (Ct values ≤40) diagnoses. RT-PCR positive samples were assigned to diagnostic, screening, or monitoring groups of testing. With a limit of detection of 1.2 × 104 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/ml, Lumipulse showed positive percent agreement (PPA) of 79.9% (155/194) and negative percent agreement of 99.3% (397/400), whereas PPAs were 100% for samples with Ct values of <18 or 18–<25 and 92.5% for samples with Ct values of 25–<30. By three groups, Lumipulse showed PPA of 87.0% (60/69), 81.1% (43/53), or 72.2% (52/72), respectively, whereas PPA was 100% for samples with Ct values of <18 or 18–<25, and was 94.4%, 80.0%, or 100% for samples with Ct values of 25–<30, respectively. RT-PCR positive samples were also tested for SARS-CoV-2 subgenomic RNA and, by three groups, testing showed that PPA was 63.8% (44/69), 62.3% (33/53), or 33.3% (24/72), respectively. PPAs dropped to 55.6%, 20.0%, or 41.7% for samples with Ct values of 25–<30, respectively. All 101 samples with a subgenomic RNA positive result had a Lumipulse assay’s antigen positive result, whereas only 54 (58.1%) of remaining 93 samples had a Lumipulse assay’s antigen positive result. In conclusion, Lumipulse assay was highly sensitive in samples with low RT-PCR Ct values, implying repeated testing to reduce consequences of false-negative results.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

The authors are grateful to the Reale Group and the Fondazione Valentino Garavani & Giancarlo Giammetti for providing financial support to the COVID-19 Research at the FPG (Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS) of Rome (Italy), or with the Italian Health Ministry for providing funds to the INMI (Istituto Nazionale per le Malattie Infettive Lazzaro Spallanzani IRCCS) of Rome (Italy).

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

This study was conducted at the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS (FPG) and was approved by the FPG Ethics Committee (reference number 49978/20)

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All the data presented in the study are available on request.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted January 29, 2021.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag Assay Evaluation for SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection Using 594 Nasopharyngeal Swab Samples from Different Testing Groups
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag Assay Evaluation for SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection Using 594 Nasopharyngeal Swab Samples from Different Testing Groups
Giulia Menchinelli, Licia Bordi, Flora Marzia Liotti, Ivana Palucci, Maria Rosaria Capobianchi, Giuseppe Sberna, Eleonora Lalle, Lucio Romano, Giulia De Angelis, Simona Marchetti, Maurizio Sanguinetti, Paola Cattani, Brunella Posteraro
medRxiv 2021.01.26.21250533; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.26.21250533
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag Assay Evaluation for SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection Using 594 Nasopharyngeal Swab Samples from Different Testing Groups
Giulia Menchinelli, Licia Bordi, Flora Marzia Liotti, Ivana Palucci, Maria Rosaria Capobianchi, Giuseppe Sberna, Eleonora Lalle, Lucio Romano, Giulia De Angelis, Simona Marchetti, Maurizio Sanguinetti, Paola Cattani, Brunella Posteraro
medRxiv 2021.01.26.21250533; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.26.21250533

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS)
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (349)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Anesthesia (181)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (2648)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (316)
  • Dermatology (223)
  • Emergency Medicine (399)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (942)
  • Epidemiology (12228)
  • Forensic Medicine (10)
  • Gastroenterology (759)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4103)
  • Geriatric Medicine (387)
  • Health Economics (680)
  • Health Informatics (2657)
  • Health Policy (1005)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (985)
  • Hematology (363)
  • HIV/AIDS (851)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13695)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (797)
  • Medical Education (399)
  • Medical Ethics (109)
  • Nephrology (436)
  • Neurology (3882)
  • Nursing (209)
  • Nutrition (577)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (739)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (695)
  • Oncology (2030)
  • Ophthalmology (585)
  • Orthopedics (240)
  • Otolaryngology (306)
  • Pain Medicine (250)
  • Palliative Medicine (75)
  • Pathology (473)
  • Pediatrics (1115)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (466)
  • Primary Care Research (452)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3432)
  • Public and Global Health (6527)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1403)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (814)
  • Respiratory Medicine (871)
  • Rheumatology (409)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (410)
  • Sports Medicine (342)
  • Surgery (448)
  • Toxicology (53)
  • Transplantation (185)
  • Urology (165)