RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comparison of seven commercial SARS-CoV-2 rapid Point-of-Care Antigen tests
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.11.12.20230292
DO 10.1101/2020.11.12.20230292
A1 Corman, Victor M.
A1 Haage, Verena Claudia
A1 Bleicker, Tobias
A1 Schmidt, Marie Luisa
A1 Mühlemann, Barbara
A1 Zuchowski, Marta
A1 Jó Lei, Wendy Karen
A1 Tscheak, Patricia
A1 Möncke-Buchner, Elisabeth
A1 Müller, Marcel A.
A1 Krumbholz, Andi
A1 Drexler, Jan Felix
A1 Drosten, Christian
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/13/2020.11.12.20230292.abstract
AB Background Antigen point of care tests (AgPOCT) can accelerate SARS-CoV-2 testing. As first AgPOCT are becoming available, there is a growing interest in their utility and performance.Methods Here we compare AgPOCT products by seven suppliers: the Abbott Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test; the RapiGEN BIOCREDIT COVID-19 Ag; the Healgen® Coronavirus Ag Rapid Test Cassette (Swab); the Coris Bioconcept Covid.19 Ag Respi-Strip; the R-Biopharm RIDA®QUICK SARS-CoV-2 Antigen; the NAL von minden NADAL COVID19-Ag Test; and the Roche/SD Biosensor SARS-CoV Rapid Antigen Test. Tests were evaluated on recombinant nucleoprotein, cultured endemic and emerging coronaviruses, stored clinical samples with known SARS-CoV-2 viral loads (n=138), stored samples from patients with respiratory agents other than SARS-CoV-2 (n=100), as well as self-sampled swabs from healthy volunteers (n=35).Findings Limits of detection in six of seven tested products ranged between 2.08 × 106 and 2.88 × 107 copies per swab, the outlier at 1.58 × 1010 copies per swab. Specificities ranged between 98.53% and 100% in five products, with two outliers at 94.85% and 88.24%. False positive results were not associated with any specific respiratory agent. As some of the tested AgPOCT were early production lots, the observed issues with specificity are unlikely to persist.Interpretation The sensitivity range of most AgPOCT overlaps with viral load figures typically observed during the first week of symptoms, which marks the infectious period in the majority patients. AgPOCTs with a limit of detection that approximates the virus concentration above which patients are infectious may enable shortcuts in decision-making in various areas of healthcare and public health.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementParts of this work was funded by European Union DG Research through projects Prepare (GA602525) and Compare (GA643476) to CD, the German Ministry of Research through projects RAPID (01KI1723A) and DZIF (301-4-7-01.703) to CD, by the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (ZIM 16KN073824) to VMC, and by the German Ministry of Health (Konsiliarlabor fuer Coronaviren) to CD and VMC. This study is based on research funded in part by the Bill &Melinda Gates Foundation (grant ID INV-005971) to JFD and CD. The findings and conclusions contained within are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect positions or policies of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.Author 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 use of stored clinical samples for validation of diagnostic methods without person-related data is covered by section 25 of the Berlin hospital law and does not require ethical or legal clearance. The ethical committee has been notified of the study and acknowledged receipt under file number EA1/369/20. The testing of employees is part of an ongoing study on SARS-CoV-2 infection in employees under Charite ethical review board file number EA1/068/20.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 data are available within the manuscript.