RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comparative sensitivity evaluation for 122 CE-marked SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid tests
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.05.11.21257016
DO 10.1101/2021.05.11.21257016
A1 Heinrich Scheiblauer
A1 Angela Filomena
A1 Andreas Nitsche
A1 Andreas Puyskens
A1 Victor M Corman
A1 Christian Drosten
A1 Katrin Zwirglmaier
A1 Constanze Lange
A1 Petra Emmerich
A1 Michael Müller
A1 Olivia Knauer
A1 C Micha Nübling
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/12/2021.05.11.21257016.abstract
AB Objective Independent evaluation of the sensitivity of CE-marked SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag RDT) offered in Germany.Method The sensitivity of 122 Ag RDT was adressed using a common evaluation panel. Minimum sensitivity of 75% for panel members with CT<25 was used for differentiation of devices eligible for reimbursement in in the German healthcare system.Results The sensitivity of different SARS-CoV-2 Ag RDT varied over a wide range. The sensitivity limit of 75% for panel members with CT <25 was met by 96 of the 122 tests evaluated; 26 tests exhibited lower sensitivity, few of which were completely failing. Some devices exhibited high sensitivity, e.g. 100% for CT<30.Conclusion This comparative evaluation succeeded to distinguish less sensitive from better performing Ag RDT. Most of the Ag RDT evaluated appear to be suitable for fast identification of acute infections associated with high viral loads. Market access of SARS-CoV-2 Ag RDT should be based on minimal requirements for sensitivity and specificity.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe study was funded by the German Ministry of Health. PEI is a governmental authority under the MOH. There was no other funding or payment receivedAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe 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 Aerztekammer (Eth 20/40)All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as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).YesI 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.YesAll relevant data are contained in the manuscript