Abstract
Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has led to high demand of diagnostic tools. Rapid antigen detection tests have been developed and many have received regulatory acceptance such as CE IVD or FDA markings. Their performance needs to be carefully assessed.
Materials and Methods 158 positive and 40 negative retrospective samples collected in saline and analyzed by a laboratory-developed RT-PCR test were used to evaluate Sofia (Quidel), Standard Q (SD Biosensor), and Panbio™ (Abbott) rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs). A subset of the specimens was subjected to virus culture.
Results The specificity of all RADTs was 100% and the sensitivity and percent agreement was 80% and 85% for Sofia, 81% and 85% for Standard Q, and 83% and 86% for Panbio™, respectively. All three RADTs evaluated in this study reached a more than 90% sensitivity for samples with a high viral load as estimated from the low Ct values in the reference RT-PCR. Virus culture was successful in 80% of specimens with a Ct value <25.
Conclusions As expected, the RADTs were less sensitive than RT-PCR. However, they benefit from the speed and ease of testing, and lower price as compared to RT-PCR. Repeated testing in appropriate settings may improve the overall performance.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding concerning this study was received.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Research permit HUS/157/2020 (Helsinki University Hospital, Finland) was obtained from the local review board.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I 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).
Yes
I 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.
Yes
Data Availability
All detailed data is available from the authors upon request.
