Abstract
Objective Independent evaluation of the sensitivity of CE-marked SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag RDT) offered in Germany.
Method The sensitivity of 122 Ag RDT was adressed using a common evaluation panel. Minimum sensitivity of 75% for panel members with CT<25 was used for differentiation of devices eligible for reimbursement in in the German healthcare system.
Results The sensitivity of different SARS-CoV-2 Ag RDT varied over a wide range. The sensitivity limit of 75% for panel members with CT <25 was met by 96 of the 122 tests evaluated; 26 tests exhibited lower sensitivity, few of which were completely failing. Some devices exhibited high sensitivity, e.g. 100% for CT<30.
Conclusion This comparative evaluation succeeded to distinguish less sensitive from better performing Ag RDT. Most of the Ag RDT evaluated appear to be suitable for fast identification of acute infections associated with high viral loads. Market access of SARS-CoV-2 Ag RDT should be based on minimal requirements for sensitivity and specificity.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The study was funded by the German Ministry of Health. PEI is a governmental authority under the MOH. There was no other funding or payment 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 study obtained ethical approval by the Berliner Aerztekammer (Eth 20/40)
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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
This study has been submitted as tandem manuscript together with the study of Puyskens A et al. “Establishment of an evaluation panel for the decentralized technical evaluation of the sensitivity of 31 rapid detection tests for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics”
Data Availability
All relevant data are contained in the manuscript
