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

Analytical sensitivity and effectiveness of different SARS-CoV-2 testing options

Nico Lelie, Marco Koppelman, Harry van Drimmelen, Sylvia Bruisten
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.26.21265946
Nico Lelie
1Biologicals Quality Control (BioQControl), Heiloo, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: nico.lelie@bioqcontrol.com
Marco Koppelman
2Sanquin, The National Screening Laboratory of Sanquin (NSS), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Harry van Drimmelen
1Biologicals Quality Control (BioQControl), Heiloo, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sylvia Bruisten
3Public Health Laboratory, Department of Infectious Diseases, Public Health Service (GGD) Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

We prepared severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) working standards and reference panels from a pool of swab fluid samples before and after inactivation by beta-propiolactone and quantified viral load in nucleic acid amplification technology (NAT) detectable RNA copies/mL using limiting dilution analysis. The following 50% lower limits of detection (LOD) were estimated by probit analysis as compared to detection limits of rapid antigen tests on 1.5 fold dilutions of the native material: Roche cobas PCR 1.8 (1.0-3.3), Hologic Aptima TMA 6.6 (4.4-9.9), DRW SAMBA 15 (7-30), Molgen LAMP 23 (13-42), Fluorecare antigen 50,000, Abbott Panbio antigen 75,000 and Roche antigen 100,000 copies/mL. One 50% Tissue Culture Infectious Dose (TCID50)/mL of culture fluid was estimated to be equivalent to approximately 1000 RNA copies/mL (2700-4300 International Units) in our working standard. When assuming this level as start of contagiousness in a log-linear ramp up viremia model with 10-fold rise of viral load per day for the B.1 (Wuhan) type we estimated relative time points of first detectability of early infection by the different SARS-CoV-2 assays from the LODs mentioned above. The four NAT assays would be able to detect early viremia 40-66 hours earlier than the 1000 copies/mL infectivity threshold, whereas the three antigen tests would become positive 41-48 hours later. Our modeling of analytical sensitivity data was found to be compatible with clinical sensitivity data of rapid antigen tests and confirms that NAT assays are more reliable than antigen assays for identifying early infected asymptomatic individuals who are potentially infectious.

Competing Interest Statement

Nico Lelie and Harry van Drimmelen are owners of BioQControl, the company that has facilitated the laboratories involved in this study by preparing SARS-CoV-2 reference panels and run controls. The other authors have no conflict of interest.

Funding Statement

This study did not receive any funding

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 procedure was evaluated by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam (W21_507 # 21.559) and deemed not to require a full review of the board.

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 and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest statement: Nico Lelie and Harry van Drimmelen are owners of BioQControl, the company that has facilitated the laboratories involved in this study by preparing SARS-CoV-2 reference panels and run controls. The other authors have no conflict of interest.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted November 28, 2021.
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.
Analytical sensitivity and effectiveness of different SARS-CoV-2 testing options
(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
Analytical sensitivity and effectiveness of different SARS-CoV-2 testing options
Nico Lelie, Marco Koppelman, Harry van Drimmelen, Sylvia Bruisten
medRxiv 2021.11.26.21265946; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.26.21265946
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Analytical sensitivity and effectiveness of different SARS-CoV-2 testing options
Nico Lelie, Marco Koppelman, Harry van Drimmelen, Sylvia Bruisten
medRxiv 2021.11.26.21265946; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.26.21265946

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 (269)
  • Allergy and Immunology (549)
  • Anesthesia (134)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1747)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (238)
  • Dermatology (172)
  • Emergency Medicine (310)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (653)
  • Epidemiology (10779)
  • Forensic Medicine (8)
  • Gastroenterology (583)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (2933)
  • Geriatric Medicine (286)
  • Health Economics (531)
  • Health Informatics (1918)
  • Health Policy (833)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (743)
  • Hematology (290)
  • HIV/AIDS (627)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (12496)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (684)
  • Medical Education (299)
  • Medical Ethics (86)
  • Nephrology (321)
  • Neurology (2780)
  • Nursing (150)
  • Nutrition (431)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (553)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (597)
  • Oncology (1454)
  • Ophthalmology (440)
  • Orthopedics (172)
  • Otolaryngology (255)
  • Pain Medicine (190)
  • Palliative Medicine (56)
  • Pathology (379)
  • Pediatrics (864)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (362)
  • Primary Care Research (333)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2630)
  • Public and Global Health (5338)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1002)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (594)
  • Respiratory Medicine (722)
  • Rheumatology (329)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (288)
  • Sports Medicine (278)
  • Surgery (327)
  • Toxicology (47)
  • Transplantation (149)
  • Urology (125)