PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Deerain, Joshua M AU - Tran, Thomas AU - Batty, Mitch AU - Yoga, Yano AU - Druce, Julian AU - Mackenzie, Charlene AU - Taiaroa, George AU - Taouk, Mona AU - Chea, Socheata AU - Zhang, Bowen AU - Prestedge, Jacqueline AU - Ninan, Marilyn AU - Carville, Kylie AU - Fielding, James AU - Catton, Mike AU - Williamson, Deborah A TI - Assessment of twenty-two SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests against SARS-CoV-2: A laboratory evaluation study AID - 10.1101/2021.12.15.21267691 DP - 2021 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2021.12.15.21267691 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/12/16/2021.12.15.21267691.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/12/16/2021.12.15.21267691.full AB - Background Rapid antigen testing is widely used as a way of scaling up population-level testing. To better inform antigen test deployment in Australia, we evaluated 22 commercially available antigen tests against the currently circulating delta variant, including an assessment of culture infectivity.Methods Analytical sensitivity was evaluated against SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta), reported as TCID50/mL, cycle threshold (Ct) and viral load (RNA copies/mL). Specificity was assessed against non-SARS-CoV-2 viruses. Clinical sensitivity and correlation with cell culture infectivity was assessed using the Abbott PanBio™ COVID-19 Ag test.Results Nineteen kits consistently detected SARS-CoV-2 antigen equivalent to 1.3 × 106 copies/mL (5.8 × 103 TCID50 /mL). Specificity for all kits was 100%. Compared to RT-PCR the Abbott PanBio™ COVID-19 Ag test was 52.6% (95% CI, 41.6% to 63.3%) concordant, with a 50% detection probability for infectious cell culture at 5.9 log10 RNA copies/mL (95% CI, 5.3 to 6.5 log10 copies/mL). Antigen test concordance was 97.6% (95% CI, 86.3% to 100.0%) compared to cell culture positivity.Conclusions Antigen test positivity correlated with positive viral culture, suggesting antigen test results may determine SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk. Analytical sensitivity varied considerably between kits highlighting the need for ongoing systematic post-market evaluation to inform test selection and deployment.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was funded by the Department of Health and Human Services Victoria, AustraliaAuthor 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 Human Research Ethics Committee of the Royal Melbourne Hospital gave ethical approval for this workI 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.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 produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors