A cross-sectional observational study was done on 180 fever patients to assess the diagnostic accuracy of rapid serological tests in early detection (<5 days of fever) of S. typhi and S. paratyphi in comparison to blood culture and Widal test Blood culture was positive in 58 (32.22%) cases. The diagnostic accuracy (<5 days of fever) of rapid antigen test, rapid antibody test, and Widal test was 45.56%, 42.22%, and 41.11% (p = 0.675) while sensitivity was 68.97%, 48.28%, and 46.55%, respectively. In conclusion, rapid antigen test holds moderately higher sensitivity in the first five days of fever as compared to rapid antibody and Widal tests. It is recommended that the antigen detection tests should be used for screening enteric fever in the first week of presentation.

Evaluation of three different rapid card tests for the detection of hepatitis B surface antigen

Rapid diagnostic card tests are crucial steps on the road to hepatitis B elimination and should be incorporated into diagnostic algorithms. However, all commercial rapid diagnostic card tests are not equal and require evaluation before clinical use. Thus, we aimed to compare the performance characteristics of three different rapid diagnostic card tests with chemiluminescence-based assay (CLIA) for the detection of hepatitis B surface antigen.We concluded rapid diagnostic card tests can be used to identify patients with high signal/cut-off ratio on CLIA, but patients with signal/cut-off ratio <200 may be missed. Rapid diagnostic card tests may help pave the way for decentralised testing, but should be used only after evaluation in the community.

Evaluation of the Roche-SD Biosensor rapid antigen testAntigen is not reliable in detecting SARS-CoV-2 at the early stage of infection with respiratory symptoms

We evaluated a rapid antigen test against SARS-CoV-2 virus (Roche-SD Biosensor; RSDB-RAT) in children and adults with respiratory symptoms compared to those with nonrespiratory symptoms or asymptomatic. Also the performance of RSDB-RAT with respect to the duration of respiratory symptoms was assessed. A viral cross-reactivity panel was included. RSDB-RAT was reliable in detecting SARS-CoV-2 in children and adults if the respiratory symptoms had endured 1 to 7 days. If the respiratory symptoms had lasted less than 1 day, the sensitivity was significantly lower. No cross-reactivity with other respiratory viruses was observed.

Comparison of Antigen Tests and qPCR in Rapid Diagnostics of Infections Caused by SARS-CoV-2 Virus

Diagnostics of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using molecular techniques from the collected respiratory swab specimens requires well-equipped laboratory and qualified personnel, also it needs several hours of waiting for results and is expensive. Antigen tests appear to be faster and cheaper but their sensitivity and specificity are debatable. The aim of this study was to compare a selected antigen test with quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) tests results. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from 192 patients with COVID-19 symptoms. All samples were tested using Vitassay qPCR SARS-CoV-2 kit and the Humasis COVID-19 Ag Test (MedSun) antigen immunochromatographic test simultaneously. Ultimately, 189 samples were tested; 3 samples were excluded due to errors in taking swabs. The qPCR and antigen test results were as follows: 47 positive and 142 negative, and 45 positive and 144 negative, respectively. Calculated sensitivity of 91.5% and specificity of 98.6% for the antigen test shows differences which are not statistically significant in comparison to qPCR. Our study showed that effectiveness of the antigen tests in rapid laboratory diagnostics is high enough to be an alternative and support for nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) in the virus replication phase in the course of COVID-19.

Comparison of Rapid and Automated Antigen Detection Tests for the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection

SARS-CoV-2 viral antigen detection may be an interesting alternative to RT-PCR for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection as a less laborious or expensive method but requires validation. This study aimed to compare the performance of the DiaSorin™ LiaisonXL automated quantitative antigen test (QAT) and the AAZ rapid antigen test (RAT) to the DiaSorin™ MDX RT-PCR assay. A total of 242 nasopharyngeal samples were tested at La Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital (Paris, France). Performances for the detection of variants of SARS-CoV-2 were further investigated. RATs were visually read for qualitative results and band intensity was determined. Overall sensitivity was 63.2% for QAT and 58.6% for RAT. For RT-PCR Ct value 25, sensitivity was 89.8% for both tests. Both tests showed comparable sensitivity for detection of variants. There was a strong relationship between antigen concentration and band positivity. On the same set of samples these tests share similar performances.

Performance of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19 Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The identification of viral RNA using reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is the gold standard for identifying an infection caused by SARS-CoV-2. The limitations of RT-qPCR such as requirement of expensive instruments, trained staff and laboratory facilities led to development of rapid antigen tests (RATs). The performance of RATs has been widely evaluated and found to be varied in different settings. The present systematic review aims to evaluate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of the commercially available RATs. This review was registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021278105). Literature search was performed through PubMed, Embase and Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to search studies published up to 26 August 2021. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of RATs and subgroup analyses were calculated. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) was used to assess the risk of bias in each study.
The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of RATs were 70% (95% CI: 69-71) and 98% (95% CI: 98-98), respectively. In subgroup analyses, nasal swabs showed the highest sensitivity of 83% (95% CI: 80-86) followed by nasopharyngeal swabs 71% (95% CI: 70-72), throat swabs 69% (95% CI: 63-75) and saliva 68% (95% CI: 59-77). Samples from symptomatic patients showed a higher sensitivity of 82% (95% CI: 82-82) as compared to asymptomatic patients at 68% (95% CI: 65-71), while a cycle threshold (Ct) value ≤25 showed a higher sensitivity of 96% (95% CI: 95-97) as compared to higher Ct value. Although the sensitivity of RATs needs to be enhanced, it may still be a viable option in places where laboratory facilities are lacking for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease.

Saliva-based COVID-19 detection: a rapid antigen test of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein using an electrical-double-layer gated field-effect transistor-based biosensing system

Facing the unstopped surges of COVID-19, an insufficient capacity of diagnostic testing jeopardizes the control of disease spread. Due to a centralized setting and a long turnaround, real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (real-time RT-PCR), the gold standard of viral detection, has fallen short in timely reflecting the epidemic status quo during an urgent outbreak. As such, a rapid screening tool is necessitated to help contain the spread of COVID-19 amid the countries where the vaccine implementations have not been widely deployed.
CoV2Ag-1

SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test Kit

| UnScience | 1T: 8.00 EUR
CoV2Ag-25

SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test Kit

| UnScience | 25T/kit: 35.00 EUR
9901-NCOV-03G

SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test Nasal

| Roche Diagnostics | 25 Tests/Kit: 94.00 EUR
abx092096-20tests

Human Streptococcus Pneumoniae (SP) Antigen Rapid Test Kit

| Abbexa | 20 tests: 398.00 EUR
RG15-03

NDV rapid test kit

| Bionote | 1 box: 139.05 EUR
RG15-04

IBD rapid test strip

| Bionote | 10 boxes: 148.00 EUR
RG18-01

Rabies rapid test strip

| Bionote | 10 boxes: 151.92 EUR
abx092011-50tests

Melamine Rapid Test Kit

| Abbexa | 50 tests: 370.00 EUR
GEN-B352-20tests

Accu-Tell COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test

| Accu test | 20 tests: 236.00 EUR
GEN-B352-40tests

Accu-Tell COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test

| Accu test | 40 tests: 321.00 EUR
abx092015-40tests

Avian Influenza Virus Antigen Rapid Test Kit (Colloidal gold)

| Abbexa | 40 tests: 432.00 EUR
abx092016-40tests

Newcastle Disease Virus Antigen Rapid Test Kit (Colloidal gold)

| Abbexa | 40 tests: 432.00 EUR
abx092049-20tests

Human Chlamydia Trachomatis Antigen Rapid Test Kit (Colloidal gold)

| Abbexa | 20 tests: 230.00 EUR
IOV87952

Coronavirus (SARS-Cov-2) Antigen Rapid Test Device (Saliva)

| INVBIO | 20T/kit: 39.00 EUR
RB2104

Rapid Leishmania Ab Test Kit

| Bionote | 1 box: 127.00 EUR
RG14-01

Rapid PED Ag Test Kit

| Bionote | 1 box: 159.90 EUR
abx092057-50tests

Melamine (MEL) Rapid Test Kit

| Abbexa | 50 tests: 370.00 EUR
abx092058-50tests

Clenbuterol (CLE) Rapid Test Kit

| Abbexa | 50 tests: 244.00 EUR
abx092059-50tests

Ractopamine (RAC) Rapid Test Kit

| Abbexa | 50 tests: 244.00 EUR
abx092060-50tests

Salbutamol (SAL) Rapid Test Kit

| Abbexa | 50 tests: 244.00 EUR
abx092063-50tests

Tetracycline (TCs) Rapid Test Kit

| Abbexa | 50 tests: 398.00 EUR
In this work, we propose a saliva-based COVID-19 antigen test using the electrical double layer (EDL)-gated field-effect transistor-based biosensor (BioFET). The detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) protein is validated with limits of detection (LoDs) of 0.34 ng/mL (7.44 pM) and 0.14 ng/mL (2.96 pM) in 1× PBS and artificial saliva, respectively. The specificity is inspected with types of antigens, exhibiting low cross-reactivity among MERS-CoV, Influenza A virus, and Influenza B virus. This portable system is embedded with Bluetooth communication and user-friendly interfaces that are fully compatible with digital health, feasibly leading to an on-site turnaround, an effective management, and a proactive response taken by medical providers and frontline health workers.