Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Handling and accuracy of four rapid antigen tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR

Flaminia Olearo, Dominik Nörz, Fabian Heinrich, Jan Peter Sutter, Kevin Rödel, Alexander Schultze, Julian Schulze Zur Wiesch, Platon Braun, Lisa Oesterreich, Benno Kreuels, Dominic Wichmann, Martin Aepfelbacher, Susanne Pfefferle, Marc Lütgehetmann
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.05.20244673
Flaminia Olearo
aCenter for Diagnostics, Institute of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dominik Nörz
aCenter for Diagnostics, Institute of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fabian Heinrich
aCenter for Diagnostics, Institute of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jan Peter Sutter
bI. Department of Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kevin Rödel
cCenter for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alexander Schultze
dDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany. Center for Diagnostics, Institute of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Julian Schulze Zur Wiesch
bI. Department of Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Platon Braun
eDepartment of Occupational Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lisa Oesterreich
fBernhard Nocht Institute, Leibniz Institute for Tropical Medicine, Hamburg, Germany
iGerman Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Hamburg-Lübeck-Borstel-Riems, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Benno Kreuels
gDepartment of Medicine, Division of Tropical Medicine and Division of Infectious Diseases, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
hDepartment of Tropical Medicine, Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine, Hamburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dominic Wichmann
cCenter for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martin Aepfelbacher
aCenter for Diagnostics, Institute of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Susanne Pfefferle
aCenter for Diagnostics, Institute of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany
fBernhard Nocht Institute, Leibniz Institute for Tropical Medicine, Hamburg, Germany
iGerman Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Hamburg-Lübeck-Borstel-Riems, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marc Lütgehetmann
aCenter for Diagnostics, Institute of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany
iGerman Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Hamburg-Lübeck-Borstel-Riems, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: mluetgeh@uke.de
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics is facing material shortages and long turnaround times due to exponential increase of testing demand.

Objective We evaluated the analytic performance and handling of four rapid Antigen Point of Care Tests (AgPOCTs) I-IV (Distributors: (I) Roche, (II) Abbott, (III) MEDsan and (IV) Siemens).

Methods 100 RT-PCR negative and 84 RT-PCR positive oropharyngeal swabs were prospectively collected and used to determine performance and accuracy of these AgPOCTs. Handling was evaluated by 10 healthcare workers/users through a questionnaire.

Results The median duration from symptom onset to sampling was 6 days (IQR 2-12 days). The overall relative sensitivity was 49.4%, 44.6%, 45.8% and 54.9 % for tests I, II, III and IV, respectively. In the high viral load subgroup (containing >106 copies of SARS-CoV-2 /swab, n=26), AgPOCTs reached sensitivities of 92.3% or more (range 92.3%-100%). Specificity was 100% for tests I, II and IV and 97% for test III. Regarding handling, test I obtained the overall highest scores, while test II was considered to have the most convenient components. Of note, users considered all assays, with the exception of test I, to pose a significant risk for contamination by drips or spills.

Discussion Besides some differences in sensitivity and handling, all four AgPOCTs showed acceptable performance in high viral load samples. However, due to the significantly lower sensitivity compared to RT-qPCR, a careful consideration of pro and cons of AgPOCT has to be taken into account before clinical implementation.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

No funding has been received.

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 use of anonymized samples was approved by the ethics committee, Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, PV5626.

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

  • ↵1 shared co-first/ co-last authorship

Data Availability

Not applicable

  • Abbreviations

    RT-qPCR
    Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction
    AgPOCT
  • Copyright 
    The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
    Back to top
    PreviousNext
    Posted December 07, 2020.
    Download PDF

    Supplementary Material

    Data/Code
    Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

    NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Handling and accuracy of four rapid antigen tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR
    (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Share
    Handling and accuracy of four rapid antigen tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR
    Flaminia Olearo, Dominik Nörz, Fabian Heinrich, Jan Peter Sutter, Kevin Rödel, Alexander Schultze, Julian Schulze Zur Wiesch, Platon Braun, Lisa Oesterreich, Benno Kreuels, Dominic Wichmann, Martin Aepfelbacher, Susanne Pfefferle, Marc Lütgehetmann
    medRxiv 2020.12.05.20244673; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.05.20244673
    Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    Citation Tools
    Handling and accuracy of four rapid antigen tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR
    Flaminia Olearo, Dominik Nörz, Fabian Heinrich, Jan Peter Sutter, Kevin Rödel, Alexander Schultze, Julian Schulze Zur Wiesch, Platon Braun, Lisa Oesterreich, Benno Kreuels, Dominic Wichmann, Martin Aepfelbacher, Susanne Pfefferle, Marc Lütgehetmann
    medRxiv 2020.12.05.20244673; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.05.20244673

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One

    Subject Area

    • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS)
    Subject Areas
    All Articles
    • Addiction Medicine (70)
    • Allergy and Immunology (168)
    • Anesthesia (49)
    • Cardiovascular Medicine (448)
    • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (80)
    • Dermatology (55)
    • Emergency Medicine (157)
    • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (190)
    • Epidemiology (5216)
    • Forensic Medicine (3)
    • Gastroenterology (194)
    • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (750)
    • Geriatric Medicine (77)
    • Health Economics (212)
    • Health Informatics (694)
    • Health Policy (352)
    • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (223)
    • Hematology (98)
    • HIV/AIDS (162)
    • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (5816)
    • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (356)
    • Medical Education (102)
    • Medical Ethics (25)
    • Nephrology (80)
    • Neurology (758)
    • Nursing (43)
    • Nutrition (129)
    • Obstetrics and Gynecology (141)
    • Occupational and Environmental Health (231)
    • Oncology (475)
    • Ophthalmology (149)
    • Orthopedics (38)
    • Otolaryngology (93)
    • Pain Medicine (39)
    • Palliative Medicine (19)
    • Pathology (139)
    • Pediatrics (223)
    • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (136)
    • Primary Care Research (96)
    • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (854)
    • Public and Global Health (1993)
    • Radiology and Imaging (344)
    • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (157)
    • Respiratory Medicine (283)
    • Rheumatology (93)
    • Sexual and Reproductive Health (72)
    • Sports Medicine (75)
    • Surgery (108)
    • Toxicology (25)
    • Transplantation (29)
    • Urology (39)