Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 30, 2025
A Rapid, Multiplex Dual Reporter IgG and IgM SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Assay for a Multiplexed Bead-Based Flow Analysis System
Published on: April 6, 2021
Evaluation of four laboratory-based high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 automated antigen tests compared to RT-PCR on nasal
Thomas Daell Leineweber1, Khaled Ghathian1, Jan Gorm Lisby1
1Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Department of Clinical Microbiology, Kettegaard Alle 30, 2650, Hvidovre, Denmark.
Background:
The demand for RT-PCR testing has been unprecedented during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Fully automated antigen tests (AAT) are less cumbersome than RT-PCR, but data on performance compared to RT-PCR are scarce.
Methods:
The study consists of two parts. A retrospective analytical part, comparing the performance of four different AAT on 100 negative and 204 RT-PCR positive deep oropharyngeal samples divided into four groups based on RT-PCR cycle of quantification levels. In the prospective clinical part, 206 individuals positive for and 199 individuals negative for SARS-CoV-2 were sampled from either the anterior nasal cavity (mid-turbinate) or by deep oropharyngeal swabs or both. The performance of AATs was compared to RT-PCR.
Results:
The overall analytical sensitivity of the AATs differed significantly from 42% (95% CI 35-49) to 60% (95% CI 53-67) with 100% analytical specificity. Clinical sensitivity of the AATs differed significantly from 26% (95% CI 20-32) to 88% (95% CI 84-93) with significant higher sensitivity for mid-turbinate nasal swabs compared to deep oropharyngeal swabs. Clinical specificity varied from 97% to 100%.
Conclusion:
All AATs were highly specific for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Three of the four AATs were significantly more sensitive than the fourth AAT both in terms of analytical and clinical sensitivity. Anatomical test location significantly influenced the clinical sensitivity of AATs.
