Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases (May 2025)

Real-world accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection compared with qPCR: A cross-sectional study in Toledo - PR, Brazil

  • Carla Adriane Royer,
  • Regis Goulart Rosa,
  • Maicon Falavigna,
  • Jaqueline Carvalho de Oliveira,
  • Mariana Motta Dias da Silva,
  • Carolina Gracia Poitevin,
  • Hellen Abreu,
  • Valter Antonio Baura,
  • Ana Claudia Bonatto,
  • Daniela Fiori Gradia,
  • Cristina de Oliveira Rodrigues,
  • Rafael Messias Luiz,
  • Ana Paula Carneiro Brandalize,
  • Josélia Larger Manfio,
  • Cintia Laura Pereira de Araujo,
  • Ana Paula de Souza,
  • Daniel Sganzerla,
  • Caroline Cabral Robinson,
  • Fernanda Kelly Romeiro Silva,
  • Gabriela Almeida Kucharski,
  • Fernando Pedrotti,
  • Srinivas Rao Valluri,
  • Amit Srivastava,
  • Viviane Wal Julião,
  • Olga Chameh Melone,
  • Florence Lefebvre d'Hellencourt,
  • Moe H Kyaw,
  • Julia Spinardi,
  • Graciela del Carmen Morales Castillo,
  • Emanuel Maltempi de Souza

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjid.2025.104520
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 29, no. 3
p. 104520

Abstract

Read online

Rapid Antigen Tests (Ag-RDTs) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 is an important diagnostic tool for containing virus spread. However, their accuracy ‒ the proportion of correct results (both true positives and true negatives) ‒ still needs to be proven when used in a real large-scale context. Accordingly, we provide data from a cross-sectional study conducted in Toledo - PR, Brazil, on the accuracy of rapid tests compared with qPCR within the Brazilian Unified Health System. A total of 2882 thousand individuals presenting symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 were screened. Overall, the antigen tests showed a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 59 % (0.56‒0.62), 99 % (0.98‒0.99), and 82 % (0.81‒0.84) respectively. However, a significant difference was found when analysing two brand tests individually. In addition, for patients with a low quantification Cycle (Cq) < 20 (which indicates a high viral load), the agreement between test results was high (90.85 %). However, this agreement decreased significantly when the viral load decreased, dropping to 5.59 % for samples with Cq ≥ 33, which indicates a lower viral load. While rapid antigen tests are a valuable tool in combating virus spread, their accuracy can vary significantly between manufacturers and under conditions of low viral load.

Keywords