RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Evaluation and modelling of the performance of an automated SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay according to sample type, target population and epidemic trends JF medRxiv FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press SP 2022.01.14.22269064 DO 10.1101/2022.01.14.22269064 A1 Nicolas Yin A1 Cyril Debuysschere A1 Valery Daubie A1 Marc Hildebrand A1 Charlotte Martin A1 Sonja Curac A1 Fanny Ponthieux A1 Marie-Christine Payen A1 Olivier Vandenberg A1 Marie Hallin YR 2022 UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/14/2022.01.14.22269064.abstract AB The Lumipulse® G SARS-CoV-2 Ag assay performance was evaluated on prospectively collected saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) of recently ill in- and outpatients and according to the estimated viral load. Performances were calculated using RT-PCR positive NPS from patients with symptoms ≤ 7 days and RT-PCR negative NPS as gold standard. In addition, non-selected positive NPS were analyzed to assess the performances on various viral loads. This assay yielded a sensitivity of 93.1% on NPS and 71.4% on saliva for recently ill patients. For NPS with a viral load > 103 RNA copies/mL, sensitivity was 96.4%. A model established on our daily routine showed fluctuations of the performances depending on the epidemic trends but an overall good negative predictive value. Lumipulse® G SARS-CoV-2 assay yielded good performance for an automated antigen detection assay on NPS. Using it for the detection of recently ill patient or to screen high-risk patients could be an interesting alternative to the more expensive RT-PCR.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis research was funded by Fujirebio. The authors did not perceive any personal grants or funding.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Erasme university hospital ethics' committee approved and reviewed the comparative performance evaluation study on saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs. Ethics' comittee of Saint-Pierre hospital waived ethical approval for the use of residual human body material for evaluation purpose.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAll data produced in the present work are contained in the supplementary material.