Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Mar 31;16(3):e0248921.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248921. eCollection 2021.

Diagnostic accuracy of two commercial SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid tests at the point of care in community-based testing centers

Affiliations

Diagnostic accuracy of two commercial SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid tests at the point of care in community-based testing centers

Alice Berger et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Objectives: Determine the diagnostic accuracy of two antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) for SARS-CoV-2 at the point of care and define individuals' characteristics providing best performance.

Methods: We performed a prospective, single-center, point of care validation of two Ag-RDT in comparison to RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs.

Results: Between October 9th and 23rd, 2020, 1064 participants were enrolled. The PanbioTM Covid-19 Ag Rapid Test device (Abbott) was validated in 535 participants, with 106 positive Ag-RDT results out of 124 positive RT-PCR individuals, yielding a sensitivity of 85.5% (95% CI: 78.0-91.2). Specificity was 100.0% (95% CI: 99.1-100) in 411 RT-PCR negative individuals. The Standard Q Ag-RDT (SD Biosensor, Roche) was validated in 529 participants, with 170 positive Ag-RDT results out of 191 positive RT-PCR individuals, yielding a sensitivity of 89.0% (95%CI: 83.7-93.1). One false positive result was obtained in 338 RT-PCR negative individuals, yielding a specificity of 99.7% (95%CI: 98.4-100). For individuals presenting with fever 1-5 days post symptom onset, combined Ag-RDT sensitivity was above 95%. Lower sensitivity of 88.2% was seen on the same day of symptom development (day 0).

Conclusions: We provide an independent validation of two widely available commercial Ag-RDTs, both meeting WHO criteria of ≥80% sensitivity and ≥97% specificity. Although less sensitive than RT-PCR, these assays could be beneficial due to their rapid results, ease of use, and independence from existing laboratory structures. Testing criteria focusing on patients with typical symptoms in their early symptomatic period onset could further increase diagnostic value.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Ct values, viral load and Ag-RDT results for RT-PCR-positive individuals tested with Standard Q (n = 191) and Panbio (n = 124).
Horizontal bars represent median and standard deviation. Dotted line: Ct value of 26.7 or 1E6 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copy numbers/mL.
Fig 2
Fig 2
Ct values, viral load, days post symptom onset and Ag-RDT results for 190 patients tested with Standard Q (A) and 116 patients tested with Panbio (B) for which information on day of symptom onset was available. Dotted line: Ct value of 26.7 or 1E6 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copy numbers/mL.
Fig 3
Fig 3
A. Combined SN of the two Ag-RDTs according to Ct-values of the RT-PCR. B. Combined SN of the two Ag-RDTs according to subgroups of Ct-values of the RT-PCR. Ct values correspond to the following SARS-CoV-2 RNA copy numbers/mL: Ct 20: 1.0E8; Ct 25: 3.2E6; Ct 26.7: 1E6; Ct 30: 1.0E5, Ct 35: 3.2E3.
Fig 4
Fig 4
A. Combined SN of the two Ag-RDTs according to days post symptom onset. Number of patients per category: Day 0, n = 17; day 1, n = 53, day 2–3, n = 135; day 4–5, n = 58; day 6–7, n = 14; > 7 days, n = 9). B. Combined SN of the two Ag-RDTs according to symptoms F, fever/chills; C, cough, A, anosmia/ageusia (loss of smell or taste), Us, unspecific symptoms (all other symptoms excluding fever/chills, cough and anosmia/angeusia). Number of patients per category: F, n = 172; F and C, n = 97; F and A or C, n = 111; A or C, n = 202; A, n = 79; Us, n = 42.

References

    1. Corman VM, Eckerle I, Bleicker T, Zaki A, Landt O, Eschbach-Bludau M, et al.. Detection of a novel human coronavirus by real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction. Eurosurveillance. 2012. September 27;17(39):20285. 10.2807/ese.17.39.20285-en - DOI - PubMed
    1. Drosten C, Günther S, Preiser W, van der Werf S, Brodt H-R, Becker S, et al.. Identification of a Novel Coronavirus in Patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. New England Journal of Medicine. 2003. May 15;348(20):1967–76. 10.1056/NEJMoa030747 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Guglielmi G. The explosion of new coronavirus tests that could help to end the pandemic. Nature. 2020. July;583(7817):506–9. 10.1038/d41586-020-02140-8 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mina MJ, Parker R, Larremore DB. Rethinking Covid-19 Test Sensitivity—A Strategy for Containment. N Engl J Med. 2020. September 30;Epub ahead of print. 10.1056/NEJMp2025631 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Antigen-detection in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection using rapid immunoassays [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 8]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/antigen-detection-in-th...

Publication types

Substances