This study was performed as a head-to-head comparison of the performance characteristics of (1) two SARS-CoV-2-specific rapid antigen assays with real-time PCR as gold standard as well as (2) a fully automated high-throughput transcription-mediated amplification (TMA) assay and real-time PCR in a latent class analysis-based test comparison without a gold standard with several hundred samples in a low prevalence “real world” setting. Recorded sensitivity and specificity of the NADAL and the LumiraDx antigen assays and the Hologic Aptima SARS-CoV-2 TMA assay were 0.1429 (0.0194, 0.5835), 0.7644 (0.7016, 0.8174), and 0.7157 (0, 1) as well as 0.4545 (0.2022, 0.7326), 0.9954 (0.9817, 0.9988), and 0.9997 (not estimable), respectively. Agreement kappa between the positive results of the two antigen-based assays was 0.060 (0.002, 0.167) and 0.659 (0.492, 0.825) for TMA and real-time PCR. Samples with low viral load as indicated by cycle threshold (Ct) values > 30 were generally missed by both antigen assays, while 1:10 pooling suggested higher sensitivity of TMA compared to real-time PCR. In conclusion, both sensitivity and specificity speak in favor of the use of the LumiraDx rather than the NADAL antigen assay, while TMA results are comparably as accurate as PCR, when applied in a low prevalence setting.

Serological assays can contribute to the estimation of population proportions with previous immunologically relevant contact with the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. In this study, we compared five commercially available diagnostic assays for the diagnostic identification of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. Depending on the assessed immunoglobulin subclass, recorded sensitivity ranged from 17.0% to 81.9% with best results for immunoglobulin G. Specificity with blood donor sera ranged from 90.2% to 100%, with sera from EBV patients it ranged from 84.3% to 100%. Agreement from fair to nearly perfect was recorded depending on the immunoglobulin class between the assays, the with best results being found for immunoglobulin G. Only for this immunoglobulin class was the association between later sample acquisition times (about three weeks after first positive PCR results) and positive serological results in COVID-19 patients confirmed. In conclusion, acceptable and comparable reliability for the assessed immunoglobulin G-specific assays could be shown, while there is still room for improvement regarding the reliability of the assays targeting the other immunoglobulin classes.

In SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics, cycle threshold (Ct) values from qRT-PCRs semi-quantitatively estimate a patient’s viral load. However, relevant analytical differences between qRT-PCR assays are often neglected. This study was designed (i) to identify such differences between five commonly used assays and (ii) to demonstrate a straightforward strategy to harmonize them. QRT-PCRs for SARS-CoV-2 were carried out in 85 oropharyngeal swab samples using three fully automated (Alinity m, cobas^®6800 and GeneXpert) and two semi-automated (genesig^® and RIDA^®GENE) assays. Qualitative results (positive/negative) showed excellent comparability between the fully automated assays, but not between the Alinity m and semi-automated methods. Ct values significantly varied between all the methods, with the median values ranging from 22.76 (Alinity m) to 30.89 (RIDA^®GENE) and 31.50 (genesig^®), indicating the lowest sensitivity for semi-automated methods. Passing–Bablok analysis further revealed systemic biases. Assay-specific viral load concentration calculations—based on generated individual standard curves—resulted in much better comparability between the assays. Applying these calculations, significant differences were no longer detectable. This study highlights relevant analytical differences between SARS-CoV-2 qRT-PCR assays, leading to divergent decisions about the mandatory isolation of infected individuals. Secondly, we propose a strategy to harmonize qRT-PCR assays to achieve better comparability. Our findings are of particular interest for laboratories utilizing different assays.

Objectives: Thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) is the routine primary screening test to assess thyroid function and rapid measurement of TSH levels is highly desirable especially in emergency situations. In the present study, we compared the analytical performance of a commercially available point-of-care test (AFIAS-1) and five laboratory-based systems. Methods: Left over material of 60 patient plasma samples was collected from patient care and used in the respective assay. For statistical analysis of the produced data Bland-Altman and Passing-Bablok regression analysis were applied. Results: Good correlation (r=0.982 or higher) was found between all devices. Slopes from regression analysis ranged from 0.972 (95% CI: 0.927–1.013) to 1.276 (95% CI: 1.210–1.315). Among the compared devices, imprecision was high in terms of coefficient of variation (CV=10.3%) for low TSH concentrations and lower (CV=7.3%) for high TSH concentrations. Independent of the method used, we demonstrated a poor standardization of TSH assays, which might impact clinical diagnosis e.g. of hyperthyreosis. Conclusions: This study shows that the point-of-care (POC) test AFIAS-1 can serve as an alternative to laboratory-based assays. In addition the data imply that better standardization of TSH measurements is needed.