Comparison of seven commercial SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care antigen tests: a single-centre laboratory evaluation study

Summary: Background: Antigen point-of-care tests (AgPOCTs) can accelerate SARS-CoV-2 testing. As some AgPOCTs have become available, interest is growing in their utility and performance. Here we aimed to compare the analytical sensitivity and specificity of seven commercially available AgPOCT devic...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Victor M Corman, MD, Verena Claudia Haage, PhD, Tobias Bleicker, RT, Marie Luisa Schmidt, RT, Barbara Mühlemann, PhD, Marta Zuchowski, PhD, Wendy K Jo, PhD, Patricia Tscheak, RT, Elisabeth Möncke-Buchner, DiplBiol, Marcel A Müller, PhD, Andi Krumbholz, PhD, Jan Felix Drexler, ProfMD, Christian Drosten, ProfMD
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2021-07-01
Series:The Lancet Microbe
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666524721000562
id doaj-d3c4338df2c0461dae98d41718de6f06
record_format Article
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Victor M Corman, MD
Verena Claudia Haage, PhD
Tobias Bleicker, RT
Marie Luisa Schmidt, RT
Barbara Mühlemann, PhD
Marta Zuchowski, PhD
Wendy K Jo, PhD
Patricia Tscheak, RT
Elisabeth Möncke-Buchner, DiplBiol
Marcel A Müller, PhD
Andi Krumbholz, PhD
Jan Felix Drexler, ProfMD
Christian Drosten, ProfMD
spellingShingle Victor M Corman, MD
Verena Claudia Haage, PhD
Tobias Bleicker, RT
Marie Luisa Schmidt, RT
Barbara Mühlemann, PhD
Marta Zuchowski, PhD
Wendy K Jo, PhD
Patricia Tscheak, RT
Elisabeth Möncke-Buchner, DiplBiol
Marcel A Müller, PhD
Andi Krumbholz, PhD
Jan Felix Drexler, ProfMD
Christian Drosten, ProfMD
Comparison of seven commercial SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care antigen tests: a single-centre laboratory evaluation study
The Lancet Microbe
author_facet Victor M Corman, MD
Verena Claudia Haage, PhD
Tobias Bleicker, RT
Marie Luisa Schmidt, RT
Barbara Mühlemann, PhD
Marta Zuchowski, PhD
Wendy K Jo, PhD
Patricia Tscheak, RT
Elisabeth Möncke-Buchner, DiplBiol
Marcel A Müller, PhD
Andi Krumbholz, PhD
Jan Felix Drexler, ProfMD
Christian Drosten, ProfMD
author_sort Victor M Corman, MD
title Comparison of seven commercial SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care antigen tests: a single-centre laboratory evaluation study
title_short Comparison of seven commercial SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care antigen tests: a single-centre laboratory evaluation study
title_full Comparison of seven commercial SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care antigen tests: a single-centre laboratory evaluation study
title_fullStr Comparison of seven commercial SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care antigen tests: a single-centre laboratory evaluation study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of seven commercial SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care antigen tests: a single-centre laboratory evaluation study
title_sort comparison of seven commercial sars-cov-2 rapid point-of-care antigen tests: a single-centre laboratory evaluation study
publisher Elsevier
series The Lancet Microbe
issn 2666-5247
publishDate 2021-07-01
description Summary: Background: Antigen point-of-care tests (AgPOCTs) can accelerate SARS-CoV-2 testing. As some AgPOCTs have become available, interest is growing in their utility and performance. Here we aimed to compare the analytical sensitivity and specificity of seven commercially available AgPOCT devices. Methods: In a single-centre, laboratory evaluation study, we compared AgPOCT products from seven suppliers: the Abbott Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test, the RapiGEN BIOCREDIT COVID-19 Ag, the Healgen Coronavirus Ag Rapid Test Cassette (Swab), the Coris BioConcept COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip, the R-Biopharm RIDA QUICK SARS-CoV-2 Antigen, the nal von minden NADAL COVID-19 Ag Test, and the Roche-SD Biosensor SARS-CoV Rapid Antigen Test. Tests were evaluated on recombinant SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein, cultured endemic and emerging coronaviruses, stored respiratory samples with known SARS-CoV-2 viral loads, stored samples from patients with respiratory pathogens other than SARS-CoV-2, and self-sampled swabs from healthy volunteers. We estimated analytical sensitivity in terms of approximate viral concentrations (quantified by real-time RT-PCR) that yielded positive AgPOCT results, and specificity in terms of propensity to generate false-positive results. Findings: In 138 clinical samples with quantified SARS-CoV-2 viral load, the 95% limit of detection (concentration at which 95% of test results were positive) in six of seven AgPOCT products ranged between 2·07 × 106 and 2·86 × 107 copies per swab, with an outlier (RapiGEN) at 1·57 × 1010 copies per swab. The assays showed no cross-reactivity towards cell culture or tissue culture supernatants containing any of the four endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV‑229E, HCoV‑NL63, HCoV‑OC43, or HCoV‑HKU1) or MERS-CoV, with the exception of the Healgen assay in one repeat test on HCoV-HKU1 supernatant. SARS-CoV was cross-detected by all assays. Cumulative specificities among stored clinical samples with non-SARS-CoV-2 infections (n=100) and self-samples from healthy volunteers (n=35; cumulative sample n=135) ranged between 98·5% (95% CI 94·2–99·7) and 100·0% (97·2–100·0) in five products, with two outliers at 94·8% (89·2–97·7; R-Biopharm) and 88·9% (82·1–93·4; Healgen). False-positive results did not appear to be associated with any specific respiratory pathogen. Interpretation: The sensitivity range of most AgPOCTs overlaps with SARS-CoV-2 viral loads typically observed in the first week of symptoms, which marks the infectious period in most patients. The AgPOCTs with limit of detections that approximate virus concentrations at which patients are infectious might enable shortcuts in decision making in various areas of health care and public health. Funding: EU's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, German Ministry of Research, German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, German Ministry of Health, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666524721000562
work_keys_str_mv AT victormcormanmd comparisonofsevencommercialsarscov2rapidpointofcareantigentestsasinglecentrelaboratoryevaluationstudy
AT verenaclaudiahaagephd comparisonofsevencommercialsarscov2rapidpointofcareantigentestsasinglecentrelaboratoryevaluationstudy
AT tobiasbleickerrt comparisonofsevencommercialsarscov2rapidpointofcareantigentestsasinglecentrelaboratoryevaluationstudy
AT marieluisaschmidtrt comparisonofsevencommercialsarscov2rapidpointofcareantigentestsasinglecentrelaboratoryevaluationstudy
AT barbaramuhlemannphd comparisonofsevencommercialsarscov2rapidpointofcareantigentestsasinglecentrelaboratoryevaluationstudy
AT martazuchowskiphd comparisonofsevencommercialsarscov2rapidpointofcareantigentestsasinglecentrelaboratoryevaluationstudy
AT wendykjophd comparisonofsevencommercialsarscov2rapidpointofcareantigentestsasinglecentrelaboratoryevaluationstudy
AT patriciatscheakrt comparisonofsevencommercialsarscov2rapidpointofcareantigentestsasinglecentrelaboratoryevaluationstudy
AT elisabethmonckebuchnerdiplbiol comparisonofsevencommercialsarscov2rapidpointofcareantigentestsasinglecentrelaboratoryevaluationstudy
AT marcelamullerphd comparisonofsevencommercialsarscov2rapidpointofcareantigentestsasinglecentrelaboratoryevaluationstudy
AT andikrumbholzphd comparisonofsevencommercialsarscov2rapidpointofcareantigentestsasinglecentrelaboratoryevaluationstudy
AT janfelixdrexlerprofmd comparisonofsevencommercialsarscov2rapidpointofcareantigentestsasinglecentrelaboratoryevaluationstudy
AT christiandrostenprofmd comparisonofsevencommercialsarscov2rapidpointofcareantigentestsasinglecentrelaboratoryevaluationstudy
_version_ 1721347330011037696
spelling doaj-d3c4338df2c0461dae98d41718de6f062021-07-01T04:35:42ZengElsevierThe Lancet Microbe2666-52472021-07-0127e311e319Comparison of seven commercial SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care antigen tests: a single-centre laboratory evaluation studyVictor M Corman, MD0Verena Claudia Haage, PhD1Tobias Bleicker, RT2Marie Luisa Schmidt, RT3Barbara Mühlemann, PhD4Marta Zuchowski, PhD5Wendy K Jo, PhD6Patricia Tscheak, RT7Elisabeth Möncke-Buchner, DiplBiol8Marcel A Müller, PhD9Andi Krumbholz, PhD10Jan Felix Drexler, ProfMD11Christian Drosten, ProfMD12Institute of Virology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany; German Centre for Infection Research, Berlin, GermanyInstitute of Virology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, GermanyInstitute of Virology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, GermanyInstitute of Virology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, GermanyInstitute of Virology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, GermanyLabor Berlin, Berlin, GermanyInstitute of Virology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, GermanyInstitute of Virology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, GermanyInstitute of Virology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, GermanyInstitute of Virology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany; German Centre for Infection Research, Berlin, GermanyInstitute for Infection Medicine, Christian-Albrecht University and University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany; Labor Dr Krause und Kollegen MVZ, Kiel, GermanyInstitute of Virology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany; German Centre for Infection Research, Berlin, GermanyInstitute of Virology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany; German Centre for Infection Research, Berlin, Germany; Correspondence to: Prof Christian Drosten, Institute of Virology, Charite-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, 10117 Berlin, GermanySummary: Background: Antigen point-of-care tests (AgPOCTs) can accelerate SARS-CoV-2 testing. As some AgPOCTs have become available, interest is growing in their utility and performance. Here we aimed to compare the analytical sensitivity and specificity of seven commercially available AgPOCT devices. Methods: In a single-centre, laboratory evaluation study, we compared AgPOCT products from seven suppliers: the Abbott Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test, the RapiGEN BIOCREDIT COVID-19 Ag, the Healgen Coronavirus Ag Rapid Test Cassette (Swab), the Coris BioConcept COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip, the R-Biopharm RIDA QUICK SARS-CoV-2 Antigen, the nal von minden NADAL COVID-19 Ag Test, and the Roche-SD Biosensor SARS-CoV Rapid Antigen Test. Tests were evaluated on recombinant SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein, cultured endemic and emerging coronaviruses, stored respiratory samples with known SARS-CoV-2 viral loads, stored samples from patients with respiratory pathogens other than SARS-CoV-2, and self-sampled swabs from healthy volunteers. We estimated analytical sensitivity in terms of approximate viral concentrations (quantified by real-time RT-PCR) that yielded positive AgPOCT results, and specificity in terms of propensity to generate false-positive results. Findings: In 138 clinical samples with quantified SARS-CoV-2 viral load, the 95% limit of detection (concentration at which 95% of test results were positive) in six of seven AgPOCT products ranged between 2·07 × 106 and 2·86 × 107 copies per swab, with an outlier (RapiGEN) at 1·57 × 1010 copies per swab. The assays showed no cross-reactivity towards cell culture or tissue culture supernatants containing any of the four endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV‑229E, HCoV‑NL63, HCoV‑OC43, or HCoV‑HKU1) or MERS-CoV, with the exception of the Healgen assay in one repeat test on HCoV-HKU1 supernatant. SARS-CoV was cross-detected by all assays. Cumulative specificities among stored clinical samples with non-SARS-CoV-2 infections (n=100) and self-samples from healthy volunteers (n=35; cumulative sample n=135) ranged between 98·5% (95% CI 94·2–99·7) and 100·0% (97·2–100·0) in five products, with two outliers at 94·8% (89·2–97·7; R-Biopharm) and 88·9% (82·1–93·4; Healgen). False-positive results did not appear to be associated with any specific respiratory pathogen. Interpretation: The sensitivity range of most AgPOCTs overlaps with SARS-CoV-2 viral loads typically observed in the first week of symptoms, which marks the infectious period in most patients. The AgPOCTs with limit of detections that approximate virus concentrations at which patients are infectious might enable shortcuts in decision making in various areas of health care and public health. Funding: EU's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, German Ministry of Research, German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, German Ministry of Health, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666524721000562