Abstract
Background Rapid antigen tests (RATs) for SARS-CoV-2 have been used to combat the still ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. This study is the extension of the COVAG study originally performed from February 1 to March 31, 2021. We compared two RATs, the Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (Abbott) and the SD Biosensor Q SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche), against RT-PCR on the foil of new variants.
Methods We included 888 all-comers at a diagnostic center between October 20, 2021, and March 18, 2022. RT-PCR-positive samples with a Ct value ≤ 32 were examined for SARS-CoV-2 variants.
Findings The sensitivity of the Abbott-RAT and Roche-RAT were 65% and 67%, respectively. For both RATs, lower Ct values were significantly correlated with higher sensitivity. For samples with Ct values ≤ 25, the sensitivities of the Roche-RAT and of the Abbott-RAT were 96% and 95%, for Ct values 25-30 both were 19%, and for Ct values ≥ 30 they were 6% and 2%, respectively. The RATs had substantially higher sensitivities in symptomatic than asymptomatic participants (76, 77%, vs. 29, 31%, for Abbott-RAT, Roche-RAT, respectively) and in participants referred to testing by their primary care physician (84%, 85%) compared to participants who sought testing due to referral by the health department (55%, 58%) or a warning by the Corona-Warn-App (49%, 49%). In persons with self-reported previous Covid-19 sensitivities were markedly lower than in patients without previous Covid-19: 27% vs. 75% for Roche-RAT and 27% vs. 73% for Abbott-RAT. Depending on the vaccination status, the sensitivity of the RATs is 67.6%, 61.5% and 70.6% for non-vaccinated, vaccinated and boostered participants, respectively. For the considered subpopulation of 888 participants, we find no significant correlation between vaccination status and sensitivity.
The Omicron variant was detected with a sensitivity of 94% and 92%, the delta variant with a sensitivity of 80% and 80% for Abbott-RAT and Roche-RAT, respectively. This difference is attributable to the lower Ct values of the Omicron samples compared to the Delta samples. When adjusted for the Ct value, a multivariate logistic regression did not show a significant difference between Omicron and Delta. In terms of sensitivity, we found no significant difference between the wild-type and the Omicron and Delta variants, but a significantly lower sensitivity to the alpha variant compared to the other variants.
For a Ct value ≤ 25 the sensitivities were 95.2% and 96.0% for the Abbott-RAT and the Roche-RAT, respectively (Table 4). For a Ct value of 25-30 both RATs had a sensitivity of 18.8%. For a Ct value of 30-32, the sensitivities were 0.0% and 7.1% respectively, for Ct values ≥32 the sensitivities were 3.0% and 6.0% for Abbott-RAT and Roche-RAT, respectively.
The specificities were >99% overall.
Interpretation: The sensitivity of the RATs for asymptomatic carriers is unsatisfactory questioning their use for screening. When used in symptomatic patients or when requested by a primary care physician the sensitivities were higher. Our study does not suggest that the vaccination status influences the sensitivity of RATs.
Competing Interest Statement
CW, HB, AS, NL, EW, MR, and WM were employed by SYNLAB Holding Germany GmbH or its regional subsidiaries. AD is the owner of Company Dr. Dressel Consulting. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Funding Statement
The costs of the study were defrayed by SYNLAB Holding Deutschland GmbH. The management had no role in writing of the report or the decision to submit for publication. There was no financial support to SYNLAB Holding Deutschland GmbH from the manufacturers of the assays used in this evaluation and there has been no other financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.
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 study was approved by Ethics Committee II (Mannheim) of the University of Heidelberg (reference number 2020-417MF) and the German Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices
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.
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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
9. Data Availability Statement
Data will be made available to researchers upon justified request and formal agreement to make sure that rules of good scientific practice are obeyed, and that credit is given to the people who have been in charge of the design and the organization of the study. Interested researchers are invited to address their request or proposal to WM (winfried.maerz{at}synlab.com). The authors confirm that they accessed and validated these data and that all other researchers can access the data in the same manner the authors did.
