Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 28, Number 1—January 2022
Research Letter

Postmortem Antigen-Detecting Rapid Diagnostic Tests to Predict Infectivity of SARS-CoV-2–Associated Deaths

Fabian HeinrichComments to Author , Ann Sophie Schröder, Anna-Lina Gerberding, Moritz Gerling, Felicia Langenwalder, Philine Lange, Axel Heinemann, Eric Bibiza-Freiwald, Dominik Sebastian Nörz, Martin Aepfelbacher, Susanne Pfefferle1Comments to Author , Benjamin Ondruschka1, and Marc Lütgehetmann1
Author affiliation: University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

Cite This Article


We investigated the infectivity of 128 severe acute respiratory disease coronavirus 2–associated deaths and evaluated predictive values of standard diagnostic procedures. Maintained infectivity (20%) did not correlate with viral RNA loads but correlated well with anti-S antibody levels. Sensitivity >90% for antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests supports their usefulness for assessment.

Deaths associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have raised concerns that contact with the corpses of deceased persons might pose a risk for transmitting infection (1). Nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RNA loads were shown to remain stable up to 20 days postmortem (2), and the maintained infectivity of corpses has sporadically been examined (24). In contrast, body surfaces of corpses have been considered noninfectious (5). Systematic studies on the infectivity of corpses and predictive values of standard diagnostic procedures remain scarce.

For this study, we prospectively collected nasopharyngeal swab specimens from 128 SARS-CoV-2 RNA-positive and 72 RNA-negative corpses <14 days postmortem to assess infectivity and predictive values of virologic parameters (Table). We excluded corpses exhibiting advanced putrefaction. For initial assessment, we determined RNA loads using quantitative reverse transcription PCR (qRT-PCR) (Appendix).


Overview of 128 consecutive records of SARS-CoV-2–associated deaths received by the Institute of Legal Medicine, Hamburg, Germany, 2020–2021. A) SARS-CoV-2 RNA loads by postmortem intervals. Spearman correlation was performed; estimates and 95% CI are shown. B) Postmortem intervals, viral RNA loads, quantitative (S), and qualitative (NC) antibody levels compared among culture-positive (+) and culture-negative (–) corpses. Comparisons were performed using Mann-Whitney-U or χ2 testing, as appropriate. Median and interquartile ranges are shown. Horizontal dotted lines indicate cutoff value. C) Probability of positive antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test results depending on viral RNA loads calculated by binomial logistic regression. Robust estimates with 95% CI are shown. Vertical red line indicates 95% PoD with the corresponding viral RNA load. Ag-RDT, antigen-detecting rapid antigen test; COI, cut-off index; NC, nucleocapsid; NS, not significant; PoD, probability of detection; S, spike; SARS-CoV-2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

Figure. Overview of 128 consecutive records of SARS-CoV-2–associated deaths received by the Institute of Legal Medicine, Hamburg, Germany, 2020–2021. A) SARS-CoV-2 RNA loads by postmortem intervals. Spearman correlation was performed; estimates...

We found SARS-CoV-2 RNA up to 325 hours postmortem, but RNA loads did not correlate with the postmortem interval (PMI; r = 0.003, p >0.99) (Figure, panel A). RNA loads were comparatively high (median 7.0 × 106 copies/mL, interquartile range [IQR] 5.5 × 104–5.2 × 107 copies/mL) (Figure, panel B) and in some cases exceeded loads in the acute phase of the disease (6), possibly because of postmortem mucosal softening and higher exfoliation of tissue during sample collection.

Virus isolation proved infectivity was maintained in 26/128 (20%) corpses (Appendix). PMI (median 13 hours, range 3–325 hours) and SARS-CoV-2 RNA load (1.4 × 107 copies/mL, IQR 3.7 × 104–3.3 × 108) among culture-positive corpses did not differ significantly from PMI (median 8 hour, range 0–275 hour; p = 0.38) and RNA loads (7.0 × 106 copies/mL, IQR 5.8 × 104–3.9 × 107 copies/mL; p = 0.14) among culture-negative corpses (Figure, panel B). We successfully isolated virus from samples with comparatively low amounts of RNA (<1 × 104 copies/mL), in contrast with previous findings among living patients (6). We observed putrefactive changes in no culture-positive corpses compared with in 11/98 (11%) culture-negative corpses (χ2 = 3.20; p = 0.11), indicative of potentially decreased infectivity.

We confirmed seroconversion in 18/44 (41%) blood samples, 15/43 (35%) anti-nucleocapsid positive and 17/44 (39%) anti-spike positive (range <0.4–1066.0 U/mL; Appendix). Levels of anti-spike antibodies, representing neutralizing antibody levels (7), were not significantly correlated with PMI (r = 0.07; p = 0.64), but were well correlated with viral RNA levels (r = –0.70; p <0.0001). Anti-nucleocapsid antibodies were found in only 1/8 (13%) culture-positive compared with 14/35 (40%) culture-negative corpses (χ2 = 2.17; p = 0.23) (Figure, panel C). Moreover, anti-spike antibody levels differed significantly (p = 0.04) between culture-positive (1.22 U/mL, SD 2.32) and culture-negative (86.85 U/mL, SD 240.56) corpses, indicative of inverse association of SARS-CoV-2–specific antibody levels with infectivity (Figure, panel C).

Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are considered adequate alternative swift diagnostic tools in living patients (8,9), but knowledge about their postmortem applicability and reliability remains scarce. We tested Ag-RDTs from 3 manufacturers and found excellent performance for postmortem use (Appendix Table 1). Compared with qRT-PCR results, for the Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device (Abbott,, sensitivity was 80.3% (95% CI 72.3%–86.4%) and specificity 100.0% (95% CI 95.0%–100.0%); for the SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche, sensitivity was 86.4% (95% CI 79.1%–91.9%) and specificity 98.6% (95% CI 93.0%–100.0%); and for the SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test (MEDsan, sensitivity was 84.1% (95% CI 76.6%–90.0%) and specificity 95.8% (95% CI 88.0%–99.0%) (Appendix Figures 1, 2).

We found SARS-CoV-2 RNA load correlated with Ag-RDT positivity in univariate and multivariate analyses (p<0.001), thereby confirming their predictive value (Figure, panel C; Appendix Table 2). Subgroup analyses of corpses with >1 × 106 RNA copies/mL (n = 74) revealed 100% (95% CI 95.1%–100.0%) sensitivity in Abbott (n = 74) and Roche and MEDsan (n = 73 each) assays. In contrast, neither PMI (p = 0.34) nor putrefactive changes (p = 0.90) were predictive for testing positive in Ag-RDTs (exemplarily for the MEDsan assay; Appendix Table 2). Ag-RDT sensitivity in infectious corpses was 92.3% (95% CI 74.9%–99.1%) for Abbott, 96.2% (95% CI 80.4%–99.9%) for Roche, and 96.2% (95% CI 80.4%–99.9%) for MEDsan. We detected 2 SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern despite relatively low viral RNA loads (4.83 log10); the 2 samples tested positive by Abbott and Roche but were missed by MEDsan.

The first limitation of our study is that blood was not available from all corpses, and the serologic assays and Ag-RDTs used are not approved for cadaveric samples. Furthermore, because of a shortage of reagents and supplies, we had to use different tests to quantify RNA, and slight deviations cannot be ruled out.

In summary, we show that cadavers from SARS-CoV-2–associated deaths remain infectious long after death in a considerable proportion of cases. Postmortem infectivity does not correlate with PMI or viral RNA load but correlates with the absence of virus-specific antibodies. Ag-RDTs performed well, enabling rapid on-site detection. Because previous studies among living patients indicate that Ag-RDTs reliably detect all SARS-CoV-2 variants (10), we believe that our results on postmortem Ag-RDTs use can contribute to crisis management in severely affected regions and increase safety in the medical sector worldwide.

Mr. Heinrich is a medical student employed at the Institute of Legal Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf. His primary research interests include infectiologic and immunologic research.



We thank Jessica Vering for her technical support and Daniela Fröb for managing records of SARS-CoV-2–associated deaths within the Institute of Legal Medicine. We offer condolences to the families and friends of all patients whose deaths were attributable to COVID-19.

The ethics committee of the Hamburg Chamber of Physicians approved this study (reference no. 2020-10353-BO-ff and PV7311).

This work was funded within the research consortium DEFEAT PANDEMIcs (grant number 01KX2021), part of National Network University Medicine, funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany. National Network University Medicine is coordinated at the Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin and supervised by the DLR Project Management Agency at the German Aerospace Center. The funders had no role in study design, data collection or analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.



  1. World Health Organization. WHO coronavirus (COVID-19) dashboard [cited 2021 May 13]
  2. Heinrich  F, Meißner  K, Langenwalder  F, Püschel  K, Nörz  D, Hoffmann  A, et al. Postmortem stability of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal mucosa. Emerg Infect Dis. 2021;27:32931. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Plenzig  S, Bojkova  D, Held  H, Berger  A, Holz  F, Cinatl  J, et al. Infectivity of deceased COVID-19 patients. Int J Legal Med. 2021;135:205560. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Zacharias  M, Stangl  V, Thüringer  A, Loibner  M, Wurm  P, Wolfgruber  S, et al. Rapid antigen test for postmortem evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 carriage. Emerg Infect Dis. 2021;27:17347. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Schröder  AS, Edler  C, Ondruschka  B, Püschel  K, Schädler  J, Heinemann  A, et al. The handling of SARS-CoV-2 associated deaths - infectivity of the body. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2021;17:4118. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Jones  TC, Biele  G, Mühlemann  B, Veith  T, Schneider  J, Beheim-Schwarzbach  J, et al. Estimating infectiousness throughout SARS-CoV-2 infection course. Science. 2021;373:eabi5273. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Meyer  B, Torriani  G, Yerly  S, Mazza  L, Calame  A, Arm-Vernez  I, et al.; Geneva Center for Emerging Viral Diseases. Validation of a commercially available SARS-CoV-2 serological immunoassay. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020;26:138694. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. World Health Organization. Antigen-detection in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection [cited 2020 Aug 11].
  9. Dinnes  J, Deeks  JJ, Adriano  A, Berhane  S, Davenport  C, Dittrich  S, et al.; Cochrane COVID-19 Diagnostic Test Accuracy Group. Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;8:CD013705.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Osmanodja  B, Budde  K, Zickler  D, Naik  MG, Hofmann  J, Gertler  M, et al. Accuracy of a novel SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test from standardized self-collected anterior nasal swabs. J Clin Med. 2021;10:2099. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar




Cite This Article

DOI: 10.3201/eid2801.211749

Original Publication Date: November 02, 2021

1These senior authors contributed equally to this article.

Table of Contents – Volume 28, Number 1—January 2022

EID Search Options
presentation_01 Advanced Article Search – Search articles by author and/or keyword.
presentation_01 Articles by Country Search – Search articles by the topic country.
presentation_01 Article Type Search – Search articles by article type and issue.



Please use the form below to submit correspondence to the authors or contact them at the following address:

Addresses for correspondence: Fabian Heinrich, Institute of Legal Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg Eppendorf, Butenfeld 34, 20259 Hamburg, Germany

Send To

10000 character(s) remaining.


Page created: October 13, 2021
Page updated: December 20, 2021
Page reviewed: December 20, 2021
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.