PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Flaminia Olearo AU - Dominik Nörz AU - Fabian Heinrich AU - Jan Peter Sutter AU - Kevin Rödel AU - Alexander Schultze AU - Julian Schulze Zur Wiesch AU - Platon Braun AU - Lisa Oesterreich AU - Benno Kreuels AU - Dominic Wichmann AU - Martin Aepfelbacher AU - Susanne Pfefferle AU - Marc Lütgehetmann TI - Handling and accuracy of four rapid antigen tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR AID - 10.1101/2020.12.05.20244673 DP - 2020 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2020.12.05.20244673 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/12/07/2020.12.05.20244673.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/12/07/2020.12.05.20244673.full AB - 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 StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo funding has been received.Author 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 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.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.YesNot applicableRT-qPCRReverse transcription-polymerase chain reactionAgPOCT