Abstract
Objective Evaluation of the specificity and accuracy of four CE-approved SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid self-tests (AG-ST) Anbio, Clungene, Hotgene and Mexacare.
Method 1015 asymptomatic volunteers were screened for SARS-CoV-2 by means of an oropharyngeal swab taken by qualified personnel and subsequent RT-PCR testing. Each participant additionally performed nasal self-swabs for two of the four rapid antigen tests at the same day according to the manufacturers’ instructions. Study participants transmitted a photo and own interpretation of their test results to the study center. The results of the two self-tests provided by the participants were correlated with the results of the SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and independently assessed and evaluated by the study center.
Results None of the volunteers tested positive upon RT-PCR, whereas 13 AG-ST showed a false positive test result (0.7 %). The highest false positivity rate was found for the Clungene test (2.1 % compared to 0.2 % for the other tests), while the highest test failure rate (invalid) was found for the Mexacare test (3.7%). The Anbio and Hotgene tests produced the fewest false positive results when evaluated by the participants and also showed the best agreement among themselves.
Conclusion SARS-CoV-2 Antigen rapid self-tests with higher false positive test rates, such as the Clungene test, or with high rates of invalid test results, such as the Mexacare test, are less suitable for screening purposes of asymptomatic study participants especially in low-prevalence settings. False positive or inadequate test results increase the burden on certified test laboratories due to verification PCR tests and cause a substantial economic loss due to unnecessary quarantine measurements and cause psychological stress in the affected study participants. In addition to earlier defined requirements for sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection, a lower acceptance boundary for the false positivity rate of < 0.3% should be demanded.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
University hospital Tübingen, Medical Faculty, Ethics Commitee. ethical approval nr. 391/2021BO2 declared that no written consent necessary.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Not Applicable
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).
Not Applicable
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.
Not Applicable
Data Availability
The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from (Prof. Peter Martus peter.martus{at}med.uni-tuebingen.de)
