RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Limit of detection in different matrices of nineteen commercially available rapid antigen tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.03.19.21253950
DO 10.1101/2021.03.19.21253950
A1 Cubas-Atienzar, Ana I.
A1 Kontogianni, Konstantina
A1 Edwards, Thomas
A1 Wooding, Dominic
A1 Buist, Kate
A1 Thompson, Caitlin R.
A1 Williams, Christopher T.
A1 Patterson, Edward I
A1 Hughes, Grant
A1 Baldwin, Lisa
A1 Escadafal, Camille
A1 Sacks, Jilian A.
A1 Adams, Emily R.
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/22/2021.03.19.21253950.abstract
AB In the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic there has been an increase of the use of antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT). The performance of Ag-RDT vary greatly between manufacturers and evaluating their analytical limit of detection (LOD) has become high priority. Here we describe a manufacturer-independent evaluation of the LOD of 19 marketed Ag-RDT using live SARS-CoV-2 spiked in different matrices: direct culture supernatant, a dry swab, and a swab in Amies. Additionally, the LOD using dry swab was investigated after 7 days’ storage at −80°C of the SARS-CoV-2 serial dilutions. An LOD of ≈ 5.0 × 102 pfu/ml (1.0 × 106 genome copies/ml) in culture media is defined as acceptable by the World Health Organization. Fourteen of nineteen Ag-RDTs (ActiveXpress, Espline, Excalibur, Innova, Joysbio, Mologic, NowCheck, Orient, PanBio, RespiStrip, Roche, Standard-F, Standard-Q and Sure-Status) exceeded this performance criteria using direct culture supernatant applied to the Ag-RDT. Six Ag-RDT were not compatible with Amies media and a decreased sensitivity of 2 to 20-fold was observed for eleven tests on the stored dilutions at −80°C for 7 days. Here, we provide analytical sensitivity data to guide appropriate test and sample type selection for use and for future Ag-RDT evaluations.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe study was supported by Foundation of New Diagnostics (FIND).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:No applicableAll 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 data generated during this study is presented in an analyzed format in this manuscript. Raw datasets are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.