Abstract
Background Currently, more than 500 different AgPOCTs for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics are on sale, for many of which no data about sensitivity other than self-acclaimed values by the manufacturers are available. In many cases these do not reflect real-life diagnostic sensitivities. Therefore, manufacturer-independent quality checks of available AgPOCTs are needed, given the potential implications of false-negative results.
Objective The objective of this study was to develop a scalable approach for direct comparison of the analytical sensitivities of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antigen point-of-care tests (AgPOCTs) in order to rapidly identify poor performing products.
Methods We present a methodology for quick assessment of the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow test stripes suitable for quality evaluation of many different products. We established reference samples with high, medium and low SARS-CoV-2 viral loads along with a SARS-CoV-2 negative control sample. Test samples were used to semi-quantitatively assess the analytical sensitivities of 32 different commercial AgPOCTs in a head-to-head comparison.
Results Among 32 SARS-CoV-2 AgPOCTs tested, we observe sensitivity differences across a broad range of viral loads (∼7.0*108 to ∼1.7*105 SARS-CoV-2 genome copies per ml). 23 AgPOCTs detected the Ct25 test sample (∼1.4*106 copies/ ml), while only five tests detected the Ct28 test sample (∼1.7*105 copies/ ml). In the low range of analytical sensitivity we found three saliva spit tests only delivering positive results for the Ct21 sample (∼2.2*107 copies/ ml). Comparison with published data support our AgPOCT ranking. Importantly, we identified an AgPOCT offered in many local drugstores and supermarkets, which did not reliably recognize the sample with highest viral load (Ct16 test sample with ∼7.0*108 copies/ ml) leading to serious doubts in its usefulness in SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics.
Conclusion The rapid sensitivity assessment procedure presented here provides useful estimations on the analytical sensitivities of 32 AgPOCTs and identified a widely-spread AgPOCT with concerningly low sensitivity.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The study was supported by the Ministry of Science, Research and Arts of the State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany as well as internal funds from the Heidelberg University Hospital. The corresponding authors had access to all data at all time
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 ethics committee of the medical faculty at University of Heidelberg approved the research study.
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
Footnotes
Funding: The study was supported by the Ministry of Science, Research and Arts of the State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany as well as internal funds from the Heidelberg University Hospital. The corresponding authors had access to all data at all time.
Paper in collection COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.