Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 14, 2025
A Rapid, Multiplex Dual Reporter IgG and IgM SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Assay for a Multiplexed Bead-Based Flow Analysis System
Published on: April 6, 2021
Diagnostic performance of a novel digital immunoassay (RapidTesta SARS-CoV-2): A prospective observational study with
Hiromichi Suzuki1, Yusaku Akashi2, Atsuo Ueda3
1Department of Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8575, Japan; Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Tsukuba Medical Center Hospital, 1-3-1 Amakubo Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8558, Japan; Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Tsukuba Hospital, 2-1-1 Amakubo, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8576, Japan.
Introduction:
Digital immunoassays are generally regarded as superior tests for the detection of infectious disease pathogens, but there have been insufficient data concerning SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays.
Methods:
We prospectively evaluated a novel digital immunoassay (RapidTesta SARS-CoV-2). Two nasopharyngeal samples were simultaneously collected for antigen tests and Real-time RT-PCR.
Results:
During the study period, 1127 nasopharyngeal samples (symptomatic patients: 802, asymptomatic patients: 325) were evaluated. For digital immunoassay antigen tests, the sensitivity was 78.3% (95% CI: 67.3%-87.1%) and the specificity was 97.6% (95% CI: 96.5%-98.5%). When technicians visually analyzed the antigen test results, the sensitivity was 71.6% (95% CI: 59.9%-81.5%) and the specificity was 99.2% (95% CI: 98.5%-99.7%). Among symptomatic patients, the sensitivity was 89.4% (95% CI; 76.9%-96.5%) with digital immunoassay antigen tests, and 85.1% (95% CI; 71.7%-93.8%) with visually analyzed the antigen test, respectively.
Conclusions:
The sensitivity of digital immunoassay antigen tests was superior to that of visually analyzed antigen tests, but the rate of false-positive results increased with the introduction of a digital immunoassay device.
