TY - JOUR T1 - Comparative performance of SARS CoV-2 lateral flow antigen tests demonstrates their utility for high sensitivity detection of infectious virus in clinical specimens JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2021.02.27.21252427 SP - 2021.02.27.21252427 AU - Suzanne Pickering AU - Rahul Batra AU - Luke B. Snell AU - Blair Merrick AU - Gaia Nebbia AU - Sam Douthwaite AU - Amita Patel AU - Mark Tan Kia Ik AU - Bindi Patel AU - Themoula Charalampous AU - Adela Alcolea-Medina AU - Maria Jose Lista AU - Penelope R. Cliff AU - Emma Cunningham AU - Jane Mullen AU - Katie J. Doores AU - Jonathan D. Edgeworth AU - Michael H. Malim AU - Stuart J.D. Neil AU - Rui Pedro Galão Y1 - 2021/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/02/2021.02.27.21252427.abstract N2 - Background Rapid antigen lateral flow devices (LFDs) are set to become a cornerstone of SARS-CoV-2 mass community testing. However, their reduced sensitivity compared to PCR has raised questions of how well they identify infectious cases. Understanding their capabilities and limitations is therefore essential for successful implementation. To address this, we evaluated six commercial LFDs on the same collection of clinical samples and assessed their correlation with infectious virus culture and cycle threshold (Ct) values.Methods A head-to-head comparison of specificities and sensitivities was performed on six commercial rapid antigen tests using combined nasal/oropharyngeal swabs, and their limits of detection determined using viral plaque forming units (PFU). Three of the LFDs were selected for a further study, correlating antigen test result with RT-PCR Ct values and positive viral culture in Vero-E6 cells. This included sequential swabs and matched serum samples obtained from four infected individuals with varying disease severities. Detection of antibodies was performed using an IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette, and neutralising antibodies by infectious virus assay. Finally, the sensitivities of selected rapid antigen LFTs were assessed in swabs with confirmed B.1.1.7 variant, currently the dominant genotype in the UK.Findings Most of the rapid antigen LFDs showed a high specificity (>98%), and accurately detected 50 PFU/test (equivalent N1 Ct of 23.7 or RNA copy number of 3×106/ml). Sensitivities of the LFDs performed on clinical samples ranged from 65 to 89%. These sensitivities increased in most tests to over 90% for samples with Cts lower than 25. Positive virus culture was achieved for 57 out of 141 samples, with 80% of the positive cultures from swabs with Cts lower than 23. Importantly, sensitivity of the LFDs increased to over 95% when compared with the detection of infectious virus alone, irrespective of Ct. Longitudinal studies of PCR-positive samples showed that most of the tests identified all infectious samples as positive, but differences in test sensitivities can lead to missed cases in the absence of repeated testing. Finally, test performance was not impacted when re-assessed against swabs positive for the dominant UK variant B.1.1.7.Interpretation In this comprehensive comparison of antigen LFD and virus infectivity, we demonstrate a clear relationship between Ct values, quantitative culture of infectious virus and antigen LFD positivity in clinical samples. Our data support regular testing of target groups using LFDs to supplement the current PCR testing capacity, to rapidly identify infected individuals in situations where they would otherwise go undetected.Funding King’s Together Rapid COVID-19, Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Huo Family Foundation.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementResearch was supported by the Department of Health via a National Institute for Health Research comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre award to Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King's College London and King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. SP was supported by Huo Family Foundation Award and Wellcome Trust Senior Fellowship (WT098049AIA) granted to SJDN. Wellcome Trust Award (106223/Z/14/Z) to MHM King's Together Rapid COVID-19 Call awards to MHM, KJD, SJDN and RPG MRC Discovery Award MC/PC/15068 to SJDN, KJD and MHM Huo Family Foundation Award to MHM, KJD and SJDN 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:All studies were performed in accordance with the UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research. Ethical approval for this study was given by the South Central Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee with approval from Health Research Authority from Health and Care Research Wales (20/SC/0310) 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.YesAll relevant data are within the manuscript. ER -