No abstract

Background Since COVID-19 pandemic is a global crisis, tests with high sensitivity and specificity are crucial for the identification and management of COVID-19 patients. There is an urgent need for low-cost rapid antigen COVID-19 test with a good diagnostic performance. Although various antigen rapid detection tests are widely available, strong evidence of their usefulness in clinical practice are still limited. Therefore, our aim was to evaluate clinical performance of STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test (SD Biosensor, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea). Methods The performance of the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen was evaluated in comparison to RT-qPCR results in 120 symptomatic patients (median age 49, IQR 36–70) who presented to health care facility in Novi Sad, Vojvodina, Serbia. Results Twenty five out of 120 samples have been tested positive using STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test, and all of them were also positive on RT-qPCR. Overall, the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test showed sensitivity of 58.1% (95% CI 42.1–73.0) but it was higher in the early days of disease, when the highest viral loads were detected. During the first five days after the symptom onset, the sensitivity ranged from 66.7% to 100% and the pooled accuracy and Kappa values were high (0.92 and 0.852). Conclusions A strong agreement between performance of STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test and RT-qPCR was observed during the first five days of illness, suggesting that this rapid antigenic test can be very useful for COVID-19 diagnosis in the early phase of disease.

Background Mass vaccination is the key element in controlling current COVID-19 pandemic. Studies comparing immunogenicity of different COVID-19 vaccines are largely lacking. We aimed at measuring anti-S antibody (Ab) levels in individuals fully vaccinated with BNT162b2, BBIBP-CorV and Gam-COVID-Vac, as well as in COVID-19 convalescents. Methods In this cross-sectional study, serum was collected from 400 age- and sex-matched participants, 100 fully vaccinated with BNT162b2, 100 with BBIBP-CorV and 100 with Gam-COVID-Vac on the 28th day after the second vaccine dose, and 100 recovered from COVID-19 at least 28 days after symptom(s) resolution. Sera were analyzed using the LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG assay (DiaSorin, Saluggia, Italy). Wilcoxon rank-sum or Kruskal–Wallis tests was used for comparison of Ab levels. Results Highest mean value (210.11, SD = 100.42) was measured in the BNT162b2 group, followed by Gam-COVID-Vac (171.11, SD = 120.69) and BBIBP-CorV (68.50, SD = 72.78) AU/mL (p<0.001). Significant differences in antibody levels were found between BNT162b2 and BBIBP-CorV (p<0.001), BNT162b2 and Gam-COVID-Vac (p = 0.001), as well as BBIBP-CorV and Gam-COVID-Vac groups (p<0.001). Percentage of seropositive was 81% in the convalescent group, 83% in BBIBP-CorV vaccinated and 100% in BNT162b2 and Gam-COVID-Vac. When comparing measured antibody levels in vaccinated to those in COVID-19 recovered, significantly higher antibody levels were found for vaccinated with BNT162b2 (p<0.001), and with Gam-COVID-Vac (p<0.001), while for BBIBP-CorV there was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.641). Conclusions All three investigated vaccines, BNT162b2, BBIBP-CorV and Gam-COVID-Vac, provide robust immune response 28 days after the second dose of vaccine, in the majority of participants. All individuals vaccinated with BNT162b2 and Gam-COVID-Vac seroconverted, while in vaccinated with BBIBP-CorV and COVID-19 recovered seroconversion rates were lower. Although less potent compared to other two vaccines, immune response after BBIBP-CorV was similar to response measured in convalescents. Challenge still remains to examine dynamics and durability of immunoprotection.