the global spread of a novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has resulted in over 109 million confirmed cases, and approximately 2.4 million deaths have been attributed to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) 1 . Current containment strategies based on 'test-trace-isolate' face major issues: (1) many infected individuals do not show any symptoms and, therefore, remain untested 2 ; (2) supply chain issues limit testing capacity; and(3) the successive (rather than parallel) testing of contact individuals causes a substantial lag in identifying infection chains, resulting in undetected spread due to delayed diagnosis. By contrast, repeated testing of large groups of individuals, regardless of symptoms or

Purpose The objective of this study was to develop a scalable approach for direct comparison of the analytical sensitivities of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antigen point-of-care tests (AgPOCTs) to rapidly identify poor-performing products. Methods We present a methodology for quick assessment of the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 AgPOCTs suitable for quality evaluation of many different products. We established reference samples with high, medium, and low SARS-CoV-2 viral loads along with a SARS-CoV-2 negative control sample. Test samples were used to semi-quantitatively assess the analytical sensitivities of 32 different commercial AgPOCTs in a head-to-head comparison. Results Among 32 SARS-CoV-2 AgPOCTs tested, we observe sensitivity differences across a broad range of viral loads (9.8 × 108 to 1.8 × 105 SARS-CoV-2 genome copies per ml). 23 AgPOCTs detected the Ct25 test sample (1.6 × 106 copies/ml), while only five tests detected the Ct28 test sample (1.8 × 105 copies/ml). In the low-range of analytical sensitivity, we found three saliva spit tests only delivering positive results for the Ct21 sample (2.7 × 107 copies/ml). Comparison with published data supports our AgPOCT ranking. Importantly, we identified an AgPOCT widely offered, which did not reliably recognize the sample with the highest viral load (Ct16 test sample with 9.8 × 108 copies/ml) leading to serious doubts about its usefulness in SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. Conclusion The results show that the rapid sensitivity assessment procedure presented here provides useful estimations on the analytical sensitivities of 32 AgPOCTs and identified a widely-spread AgPOCT with concerningly low sensitivity.

Background: Currently, more than 500 different AgPOCTs for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics are on sale, for many of which no data about sensitivity other than self-acclaimed values by the manufacturers are available. In many cases these do not reflect real-life diagnostic sensitivities. Therefore, manufacturer-independent quality checks of available AgPOCTs are needed, given the potential implications of false-negative results. Objective: The objective of this study was to develop a scalable approach for direct comparison of the analytical sensitivities of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antigen point-of-care tests (AgPOCTs) in order to rapidly identify poor performing products. Methods: We present a methodology for quick assessment of the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow test stripes suitable for quality evaluation of many different products. We established reference samples with high, medium and low SARS-CoV-2 viral loads along with a SARS-CoV-2 negative control sample. Test samples were used to semi-quantitatively assess the analytical sensitivities of 32 different commercial AgPOCTs in a head-to-head comparison. Results: Among 32 SARS-CoV-2 AgPOCTs tested, we observe sensitivity differences across a broad range of viral loads (~7.0*10⁸ to ~1.7*10⁵ SARS-CoV-2 genome copies per ml). 23 AgPOCTs detected the Ct25 test sample (~1.4*10⁶ copies/ ml), while only five tests detected the Ct28 test sample (~1.7*10⁵ copies/ ml). In the low range of analytical sensitivity we found three saliva spit tests only delivering positive results for the Ct21 sample (~2.2*10⁷ copies/ ml). Comparison with published data support our AgPOCT ranking. Importantly, we identified an AgPOCT offered in many local drugstores and supermarkets, which did not reliably recognize the sample with highest viral load (Ct16 test sample with ~7.0*10⁸ copies/ ml) leading to serious doubts in its usefulness in SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. Conclusion: The rapid sensitivity assessment procedure presented here provides useful estimations on the analytical sensitivities of 32 AgPOCTs and identified a widely-spread AgPOCT with concerningly low sensitivity.