{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02536997885835095, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010570824524312896, 'mean_word_length': 5.200873362445415, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Performance of antigenic detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal samples

Objectives: SARS-CoV-2 virus detection on nasopharyngeal specimens to infected individuals has become a challenge for the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. We aim at comparing the performance of antigenic detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal samples via an immunochromatographic method to molecular detection via qRT-PCR. Materials and Methods: 47 nasopharyngeal exudates were collected from suspicious COVID-19 cases. The samples were performed both via the qualitative immuno-chromatographic method for S protein detection in the SARS-CoV-2 structure, using fluorescent labelled anti-protein S antibodies and via qRT-PCR test for the qualitative detection of the screening gene E and the specific ORF1ab region of the RNA-SARS-CoV-2. Results: There was a fair correlation between the positive antigen tests and the positive PCR assays measured through threshold cycle ORF1ab region (Ct orf). A better correlation was obtained between the antigen test results and the Ct orf when including patients with Ct orf below 25. Conclusions: Using antigen tests as screening tests is useful on symptomatic persons during the viral replication period, therefore during the contagious period. A positive test shows a high predictive value for infection, while a negative antigen test result via immuno-chromatography must be confirmed by a qRT-PCR test.