Abstract
Background The detection of SARS-CoV-2 with rapid diagnostic tests has become an important tool to identify infected people and break infection chains. These rapid diagnostic tests are usually based on antigen detection in a lateral flow approach.
Aims & Methods While for PCR diagnostics the validation of a PCR assay is well established, for antigen tests e.g. rapid diagnostic tests there is no common validation strategy. Here we present the establishment of a panel of 50 pooled clinical specimens that cover a SARS-CoV-2 concentration range from approximately 1.1 × 109 to 420 genome copies per mL of specimen. The panel was used to evaluate 31 rapid diagnostic tests in up to 6 laboratories.
Results Our results show that there is significant variation in the detection limits and the clinical sensitivity of different rapid diagnostic tests. We conclude that the best rapid diagnostic tests can be applied to reliably identify infectious individuals who are presenting with SARS-CoV-2 loads correlated to 106 genome copies per mL of specimen. Infected individuals displaying SARS-CoV-2 genome loads corresponding to less than 106 genome copies per mL will be identified by only some rapid diagnostics tests, while many tests miss these viral loads to a large extent.
Conclusions Sensitive RDTs can be applied to identify infectious individuals with high viral loads, but not to identify infected individuals.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by the German Ministry of Health (Massnahmepaket 1 und 2)
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study obtained ethical approval by the Berliner Arztekammer (Berlin Chamber of Physicians, Eth 20/40)
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data are published and hence available.
