A nationwide analytical and clinical evaluation of 44 rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2022.105214Get rights and content
Under a Creative Commons license
open access

Highlights

  • Clinical sensitivity of 44 rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 varied from 3% to 94%.

  • 27 rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 performed significantly worse than the best one.

  • Analytical sensitivity cannot be directly translated into clinical sensitivity.

Abstract

Background

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has resulted in massive testing by Rapid Antigen Tests (RAT) without solid independent data regarding clinical performance being available. Thus, decision on purchase of a specific RAT may rely on manufacturer-provided data and limited peer-reviewed data.

Methods

This study consists of two parts. In the retrospective analytical part, 33 RAT from 25 manufacturers were compared to RT-PCR on 100 negative and 204 positive deep oropharyngeal cavity samples divided into four groups based on RT-PCR Cq levels. In the prospective clinical part, nearly 200 individuals positive for SARS-CoV-2 and nearly 200 individuals negative for SARS-CoV-2 by routine RT-PCR testing were retested within 72 h for each of 44 included RAT from 26 manufacturers applying RT-PCR as the reference method.

Results

The overall analytical sensitivity differed significantly between the 33 included RAT; from 2.5% (95% CI 0.5–4.8) to 42% (95% CI 35–49). All RAT presented analytical specificities of 100%. Likewise, the overall clinical sensitivity varied significantly between the 44 included RAT; from 2.5% (95% CI 0.5–4.8) to 94% (95% CI 91–97). All RAT presented clinical specificities between 98 and 100%.

Conclusion

The study presents analytical as well as clinical performance data for 44 commercially available RAT compared to the same RT-PCR test. The study enables identification of individual RAT that has significantly higher sensitivity than other included RAT and may aid decision makers in selecting between the included RAT.

Funding

The study was funded by a participant fee for each test and the Danish Regions.

Keywords

Rapid antigen tests
SARS-CoV-2
Analytical sensitivity and specificity
Clinical sensitivity and specificity
Point of care tests
Reverse transcriptation polymerase chain reaction

Cited by (0)