@article {Mahmoud2021.04.15.21255533, author = {Sally A. Mahmoud and Esra Ibrahim and Subhashini Ganesan and Bhagyashree Thakre and Juliet George Teddy and Preeti Raheja and Walid Abbas Zaher}, title = {Evaluation of seven different rapid methods for nucleic acid detection of SARS-COV-2 virus}, elocation-id = {2021.04.15.21255533}, year = {2021}, doi = {10.1101/2021.04.15.21255533}, publisher = {Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press}, abstract = {Background In the current COVID-19 pandemic there is mass screening of SARS-CoV-2 happening round the world due to the extensive spread of the infections. There is a high demand for rapid diagnostic tests to expedite identification of cases and to facilitate early isolation and control spread. Hence this study evaluates seven different rapid nucleic acid detection assays that are commercially available for SARS-CoV-2 virus detection.Methods Nasopharyngeal samples were collected from 4859 participants and were tested for SARS-CoV-2 virus by the gold standard RT-PCR method along with one of these seven rapid methods of detection. Evaluation of the rapid nucleic acid detection assays was done by comparing the results of these rapid methods with the gold standard RT-qPCR results for SARS-COV-2 detection.Results AQ-TOP had the highest sensitivity (98\%) and strong kappa value of 0.943 followed by Genechecker and Abbot ID NOW. The POCKIT (ii RT-PCR) assay had the highest test accuracy of 99.29\% followed by Genechecker and Cobas Liat. Atila iAMP showed the highest percentage of invalid reports (35.5\%) followed by AQ-TOP with 6\% and POCKIT with 3.7\% of invalid reports.Conclusion Genechecker system, Abbott ID NOW and Cobas Liat, were found to have best performance and agreement when compared to the standard RT-PCR for COVID-19 detection. With further research, these rapid tests have the potential to be employed in large scale screening of COVID-19.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe study was not funded by any funding body, it was done in Biogenix lab as a part of research.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 Ethics approval was obtained from Department of Health (DOH) Institutional review board (IRB), Abu Dhabi. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. The Department of Health (DOH) Institutional review board (IRB), Abu DhabiAll 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.YesThe data is available with the corresponding author, Dr. Sally, Director of Biogenix G42 lab and will be produced on request.}, URL = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/04/20/2021.04.15.21255533}, eprint = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/04/20/2021.04.15.21255533.full.pdf}, journal = {medRxiv} }