Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Dec 14;13(24):3668.
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13243668.

Clinical Evaluation of Direct Reverse Transcription PCR for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Compared to Conventional RT-PCR in Patients with Positive Rapid Antigen Test Results during Circulation of Emerging Viral Variants

Ming-Jr Jian  1 , Chi-Sheng Chen  1 , Hsing-Yi Chung  1   2 , Chih-Kai Chang  1 , Cherng-Lih Perng  1 , Hung-Sheng Shang  1
Affiliations

Clinical Evaluation of Direct Reverse Transcription PCR for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Compared to Conventional RT-PCR in Patients with Positive Rapid Antigen Test Results during Circulation of Emerging Viral Variants

Ming-Jr Jian et al. Diagnostics (Basel). .

Abstract

The emergence of the Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of SARS-CoV-2 has precipitated a new global wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The rapid identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection is imperative for the effective mitigation of transmission. Diagnostic modalities such as rapid antigen testing and real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) offer expedient turnaround times of 10-15 min and straightforward implementation. This preliminary study assessed the correlation between outcomes of commercially available rapid antigen tests for home use and conventional reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays using a limited set of clinical specimens. Patients aged 5-99 years presenting to the emergency department for SARS-CoV-2 testing were eligible for enrollment (n = 5652). Direct PCR and conventional RT-PCR were utilized for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. The entire cohort of 5652 clinical specimens was assessed by both modalities to determine the clinical utility of the direct RT-PCR assay. Timely confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection may attenuate viral propagation and guide therapeutic interventions. Additionally, direct RT-PCR as a secondary confirmatory test for at-home rapid antigen test results demonstrated sensitivity comparable to conventional RT-PCR, indicating utility for implementation in laboratories globally, especially in resource-limited settings with constraints on reagents, equipment, and skilled personnel. In summary, direct RT-PCR enables the detection of SARS-CoV-2 with a sensitivity approaching that of conventional RT-PCR while offering expedient throughput and shorter turnaround times. Moreover, direct RT-PCR provides an open-source option for diagnostic laboratories worldwide, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.

Keywords: COVID-19; antigen test; at-home kit; direct RT-PCR; omicron variant.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funder had no role in the study design, data collection, interpretation, or decision to submit the work for publication.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Ct values obtained from RT-PCR and direct RT-PCR of positive at-home rapid antigen test samples. (A) RT-PCR Ct value plot ordered by Ct value. (B) Direct RT-PCR Ct value plot ordered by Ct value. (C) Comparison of RT-PCR and direct RT-PCR test results.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Correlation of Ct values of clinically positive specimens by RT-PCR and direct RT-PCR. The shade of the color represents the number of observations.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Flow chart for diagnosis of RAT-positive patients. RAT: rapid antigen test; RT-PCR: reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction; POCT: point-of-care testing.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Davies N.G., Jarvis C.I., Group C.C.-W., Edmunds W.J., Jewell N.P., Diaz-Ordaz K., Keogh R.H. Increased mortality in community-tested cases of SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7. Nature. 2021;593:270–274. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03426-1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Thye A.Y., Law J.W., Pusparajah P., Letchumanan V., Chan K.G., Lee L.H. Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs): An impending global crisis. Biomedicines. 2021;9:1303. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines9101303. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Boehm E., Kronig I., Neher R.A., Eckerle I., Vetter P., Kaiser L. Novel SARS-CoV-2 variants: The pandemics within the pandemic. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2021;27:1109–1117. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.05.022. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. van Ogtrop M.L., van de Laar T.J.W., Eggink D., Vanhommerig J.W., van der Reijden W.A. Comparison of the performance of the PanBio COVID-19 antigen test in SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 (alpha) variants versus non-B.1.1.7 variants. Microbiol. Spectr. 2021;9:e0088421. doi: 10.1128/Spectrum.00884-21. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alkhatib M., Salpini R., Carioti L., Ambrosio F.A., D’Anna S., Duca L., Costa G., Bellocchi M.C., Piermatteo L., Artese A., et al. Update on SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant of concern and its peculiar mutational profile. Microbiol. Spectr. 2022;10:e0273221. doi: 10.1128/spectrum.02732-21. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources