Head-to-head comparison of four antigen-based rapid detection tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples
In the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, the development and validation of rapid and easy-to-perform diagnostic methods are of high priority. We compared the performance of four rapid antigen detection tests for SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples. Immunochromatographic SARS-CoV-2 assays from RapiGEN, Liming bio, Savant, and Bioeasy were evaluated using universal transport medium containing naso-oropharyngeal swabs from suspected Covid-19 cases. The diagnostic accuracy was determined in comparison to SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. A total of 111 samples were included; 80 were RT-PCR positive. Median patients' age was 40 years, 55% were female, and 88% presented within the first week after symptom onset. The evaluation of the Liming bio assay was discontinued due to insufficient performance. The overall sensitivity values of RapiGEN, Liming bio, and Bioeasy tests were 62.0% (CI95% 51.0–71.9), 16.7% (CI95% 10.0–26.5), and 85.0% (CI95% 75.6–91.2), respectively, with specificities of 100%. Sensitivity was significantly higher in samples with high viral loads (RapiGEN, 84.9%; Bioeasy, 100%). The study highlighted the significant heterogeneity of test performance among evaluated assays, which might have been influenced by the use of a non-validated sample material. The high sensitivity of some tests demonstrated that rapid antigen detection has the potential to serve as an alternative diagnostic method, especially in patients presenting with high viral loads in early phases of infection. This is particularly important in situations with limited access to RT-PCR or prolonged turnaround time. Further comparative evaluations are necessary to select products with high performance among the growing market of diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2.
- Downloaded 13,174 times
- Download rankings, all-time:
- Site-wide: 572
- In microbiology: 62
- Year to date:
- Site-wide: 294
- Since beginning of last month:
- Site-wide: 452
Downloads over time
Distribution of downloads per paper, site-wide
- 27 Nov 2020: The website and API now include results pulled from medRxiv as well as bioRxiv.
- 18 Dec 2019: We're pleased to announce PanLingua, a new tool that enables you to search for machine-translated bioRxiv preprints using more than 100 different languages.
- 21 May 2019: PLOS Biology has published a community page about Rxivist.org and its design.
- 10 May 2019: The paper analyzing the Rxivist dataset has been published at eLife.
- 1 Mar 2019: We now have summary statistics about bioRxiv downloads and submissions.
- 8 Feb 2019: Data from Altmetric is now available on the Rxivist details page for every preprint. Look for the "donut" under the download metrics.
- 30 Jan 2019: preLights has featured the Rxivist preprint and written about our findings.
- 22 Jan 2019: Nature just published an article about Rxivist and our data.
- 13 Jan 2019: The Rxivist preprint is live!