ABSTRACT
The promising diagnostic performance of rapid antigen tests (RATs) using non-invasive anterior nasal (AN) swab specimens to diagnose COVID-19 has been reported. A large number of RATs are commercially available; however, the careful assessment of RATs is essential prior to their implementation in clinical practice. We evaluated the clinical performance of the GLINE-2019-nCoV Ag Kit as a RAT using AN swabs in a prospective, blinded study. Adult patients who visited outpatient departments and received SARS-CoV-2 tests between August 16 and September 8, 2022, were eligible for this study. Patients who were aged under 18 years and patients without appropriate specimens were excluded. Two sets of AN and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs were collected from all patients. Each set of specimens was tested by the RAT and quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Of the 138 recruited patients, 84 were positive and 54 were negative by RT-qPCR using NP swabs. The positive agreement rate between RT-qPCR using NP swabs and RAT using AN swabs was 78.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68.3%-86.8%), the negative agreement rate was 98.1% (95% CI, 90.1%-99.9%), and the overall agreement rate was 86.2% (95% CI, 79.3%-91.5%), with a κ coefficient of 0.73. The positive agreement rate in the early phase (≤3 days from symptom onset) was >80%, but this fell to 50% in the late phase (≥4 days). This study demonstrates that the GLINE-2019-nCoV Ag Kit using AN swabs has good clinical performance and might be a reliable alternative method for diagnosing COVID-19.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , COVID-19/diagnosis , Nasal Cavity , Prospective Studies , Immunologic Tests , Nasopharynx , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
The importance of easily accessible, noninvasive samples, such as saliva, to effectively monitor serum antibody levels has been underscored by the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although a correlation between saliva and serum antibody titers has been observed, the ability to predict serum antibody levels from measurements in saliva is not well established. Herein, the authors demonstrate that measurements of SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels in both saliva and nasal specimens can be used to accurately determine serum levels by utilizing endogenous total IgG as an internal calibrator. They postulate that this method can be extended to the measurement of many different antibody analytes, making it of high interest for antibody therapeutic drug monitoring applications.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2 , Saliva , Antibodies, ViralABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Antigen tests are an essential part of SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies. Rapid antigen tests are easy to use but less sensitive compared to nucleic acid amplification tests (NAT) and less suitable for large-scale testing. In contrast, laboratory-based antigen tests are suitable for high-throughput immunoanalyzers. Here we evaluated the diagnostic performance of the laboratory-based Siemens Healthineers SARS-CoV-2 Antigen (CoV2Ag) assay. METHODS: In a public test center, from 447 individuals anterior nasal swab specimens as well as nasopharyngeal swab specimens were collected. The nasal swab specimens were collected in sample inactivation medium and measured using the CoV2Ag assay. The nasopharyngeal swab specimens were measured by RT-PCR. Additionally, 9,046 swab specimens obtained for screening purposes in a tertiary care hospital were analyzed and positive CoV2Ag results confirmed by NAT. RESULTS: In total, 234/447 (52.3%) participants of the public test center were positive for SARS-CoV-2-RNA. Viral lineage B1.1.529 was dominant during the study. Sensitivity and specificity of the CoV2Ag assay were 88.5% (95%CI: 83.7-91.9%) and 99.5% (97.4-99.9%), respectively. Sensitivity increased to 93.7% (97.4-99.9%) and 98.7% (97.4-99.9%) for swab specimens with cycle threshold values <30 and <25, respectively. Out of 9,046 CoV2Ag screening tests from hospitalized patients, 21 (0.2%) swab specimens were determined as false-positive by confirmatory NAT. CONCLUSIONS: Using sample tubes containing inactivation medium the laboratory-based high-throughput CoV2Ag assay is a very specific and highly sensitive assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen in nasal swab specimens including the B1.1.529 variant. In low prevalence settings confirmation of positive CoV2Ag results by SARS-CoV-2-RNA testing is recommended.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Humans , RNA , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
Introduction: Anterior nasal sampling (AN) might be more convenient for patients than NP sampling to diagnose coronavirus disease. This study investigated the feasibility of rapid antigen tests for AN sampling, and the factors affecting the test accuracy. Methods: This single-center prospective study evaluated one qualitative (ESP) and two quantitative (LUMI and LUMI-P) rapid antigen tests using AN and NP swabs. Symptomatic patients aged 20 years or older, who were considered eligible for reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction using NP samples within 9 days of onset were recruited. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative concordance rates between AN and NP samples were assessed for the rapid antigen tests. We investigated the characteristics that affected the concordance between AN and NP sampling results. Results: A total of 128 cases were recruited, including 28 positive samples and 96 negative samples. The sensitivity and specificity of AN samples using ESP were 0.81 and 1.00, while those of NP samples were 0.94 and 1.00. The sensitivity of AN and NP samples was 0.91 and 0.97, respectively, and specificity was 1.00, for both LUMI and LUMI-P. The positive concordance rates of AN to NP sampling were 0.87, 0.94, and 0.85 for ESP, LUMI, and LUMI-P, respectively. No factor had a significant effect on the concordance between the sampling methods. Conclusions: ESP, LUMI, and LUMI-P showed practical diagnostic accuracy for AN sampling compared to NP sampling. There was no significant factor affecting the concordance between AN and NP sampling for these rapid antigen tests. © 2022 Japanese Society of Chemotherapy and The Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases
ABSTRACT
The Omicron variant differs from earlier strains of SARS-CoV-2 in the way it enters host cells and grows in vitro. We therefore reevaluated its diagnosis using saliva, nasopharyngeal swab (NPs), and anterior nasal swab (ANs) specimens from 202 individuals (64.9% symptomatic) tested at the Toulouse University Hospital SARS-CoV-2 drive-through testing center. All tests were done with the Thermo Fisher TaqPath COVID-19 reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) kit. Overall, 92 subjects (45.5%) had one or more positive specimens. Global sensitivities of saliva, NPs, and ANs were 94.6%, 90.2%, and 82.6%, respectively. Saliva provided significantly greater sensitivity among symptomatic patients tested within 5 days of symptom onset (100%) than did ANs (83.1%) or NPs (89.8%). We obtained follow-up samples for 7/20 individuals with discordant results. Among them, 5 symptomatic patients were diagnosed positive on saliva sample only, soon after symptom onset; NPs and ANs became positive only later. Thus, saliva samples are effective tools for the detection of the Omicron variant. In addition to its many advantages, such as improved patient acceptance and reduced cost, saliva sampling could help limit viral spread through earlier viral detection. IMPORTANCE Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 is an essential component of the global strategy for the prevention and control of COVID-19. Since the beginning of the pandemic, numerous studies have evaluated the diagnostic sensitivity of different respiratory and oral specimens for SARS-CoV-2 detection. The pandemic has been since dominated by the emergence of new variants, the latest being the Omicron variant characterized by numerous mutations and changes in host tropism in vitro that might affect the diagnostic performance of tests depending on the sampling location. In this prospective study, we evaluated the clinical performance of NPs, ANs, and saliva for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis during the Omicron wave. Our results highlight the effectiveness of saliva-based RT-PCR for the early detection of the Omicron variant. These findings may help to refine guidelines and support the use of a highly sensitive diagnostic method that allows earlier diagnosis, when transmission is the most critical.
ABSTRACT
Introduction Anterior nasal sampling (AN) might be more convenient for patients than NP sampling to diagnose coronavirus disease. This study investigated the feasibility of rapid antigen tests for AN sampling, and the factors affecting the test accuracy. Methods This single-center prospective study evaluated one qualitative (ESP) and two quantitative (LUMI and LUMI-P) rapid antigen tests using AN and NP swabs. Symptomatic patients aged 20 years or older, who were considered eligible for reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction using NP samples within 9 days of onset were recruited. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative concordance rates between AN and NP samples were assessed for the rapid antigen tests. We investigated the characteristics that affected the concordance between AN and NP sampling results. Results A total of 128 cases were recruited, including 28 positive samples and 100 negative samples. The sensitivity and specificity of AN samples using ESP were 0.81 and 1.00, while those of NP samples were 0.94 and 1.00. The sensitivity of AN and NP samples was 0.91 and 0.97, respectively, and specificity was 1.00, for both LUMI and LUMI-P. The positive concordance rates of AN to NP sampling were 0.87, 0.94, and 0.85 for ESP, LUMI, and LUMI-P, respectively. No factor had a significant effect on the concordance between the sampling methods. Conclusions ESP, LUMI, and LUMI-P showed practical diagnostic accuracy for AN sampling compared to NP sampling. There was no significant factor affecting the concordance between AN and NP sampling for these rapid antigen tests.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The diagnostic accuracy of antigen testing of anterior nasal (AN) samples for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has not been evaluated in the Japanese population. This study assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the Roche SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test (rapid antigen test) using AN samples. METHODS: Two AN samples and one nasopharyngeal (NP) sample were collected from individuals undergoing screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection. The results of the rapid antigen test and the reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test using AN samples were compared to those of RT-PCR tests using NP samples. RESULTS: Samples were collected from 800 participants, 95 and 110 of whom tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR tests of AN and NP samples, respectively. The overall sensitivity/specificity of the AN rapid antigen test and AN RT-PCR were 72.7%/100% and 86.4%/100%, respectively. In symptomatic cases, the sensitivities of the AN rapid antigen test and AN RT-PCR were 84.7% and 94.9%, respectively. In asymptomatic cases, the sensitivities of the AN rapid antigen test and AN RT-PCR were 58.8% and 76.5%, respectively. The sensitivity of the AN rapid antigen test was over 80% in cases with cycle threshold (Ct) values < 25; it significantly decreased with an increase in the Ct values (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The rapid antigen test with AN samples had a favorable sensitivity, especially in symptomatic cases or in cases with Ct values < 25. It gave no false-positive results. Compared with AN-RT PCR, the AN rapid antigen test had a modestly lower sensitivity in asymptomatic cases.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Serological Testing , Humans , Nasopharynx , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
Many studies reported good performance of nasopharyngeal swab-based antigen tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals; however, studies independently evaluating the quality of antigen tests utilizing anterior nasal swabs or saliva swabs are still rare, although such tests are widely used for mass testing. In our study, sensitivities, specificities and predictive values of seven antigen tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2 (one using nasopharyngeal swabs, two using anterior nasal swabs and four using saliva) were evaluated. In a setting of a high-capacity testing center, nasopharyngeal swabs for quantitative PCR (qPCR) were taken and, at the same time, antigen testing was performed in accordance with manufacturers' instructions for the respective tests. In samples where qPCR and antigen tests yielded different results, virus culture was performed to evaluate the presence of the viable virus. Sensitivities and specificities of individual tests were calculated using both qPCR and qPCR corrected for viability as the reference. In addition, calculations were also performed for data categorized according to the cycle threshold and symptomatic status. The test using nasopharyngeal swabs yielded the best results (sensitivity of 80.6% relative to PCR and 91.2% when corrected for viability) while none of the remaining tests (anterior nasal swab or saliva-based tests) came even close to the WHO criteria for overall sensitivity. Hence, we advise caution when using antigen tests with alternative sampling methods without independent validation.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Most SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests require nasopharyngeal sampling, which is frequently perceived as uncomfortable and requires healthcare professionals, thus limiting scale-up. Nasal sampling could enable self-sampling and increase acceptability. The term nasal sampling is often not used uniformly and sampling protocols differ. METHODS: This manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study, compared professional anterior nasal and nasal mid-turbinate sampling for a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test. The second group of participants collected a nasal mid-turbinate sample themselves and underwent a professional nasopharyngeal swab for comparison. The reference standard was real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) using combined oro-/nasopharyngeal sampling. Individuals with high suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection were tested. Sensitivity, specificity, and percent agreement were calculated. Self-sampling was observed without intervention. Feasibility was evaluated by observer and participant questionnaires. RESULTS: Among 132 symptomatic adults, both professional anterior nasal and nasal mid-turbinate sampling yielded a sensitivity of 86.1% (31/36 RT-PCR positives detected; 95%CI: 71.3-93.9) and a specificity of 100.0% (95%CI: 95.7-100). The positive percent agreement was 100% (95%CI: 89.0-100). Among 96 additional adults, self nasal mid-turbinate and professional nasopharyngeal sampling yielded an identical sensitivity of 91.2% (31/34; 95%CI 77.0-97.0). Specificity was 98.4% (95%CI: 91.4-99.9) with nasal mid-turbinate and 100.0% (95%CI: 94.2-100) with nasopharyngeal sampling. The positive percent agreement was 96.8% (95%CI: 83.8-99.8). Most participants (85.3%) considered self-sampling as easy to perform. CONCLUSION: Professional anterior nasal and nasal mid-turbinate sampling are of equivalent accuracy for an antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test in ambulatory symptomatic adults. Participants were able to reliably perform nasal mid-turbinate sampling themselves, following written and illustrated instructions. Nasal self-sampling will facilitate scaling of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Humans , Prospective Studies , Sensitivity and Specificity , TurbinatesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Nasopharyngeal specimens (NPS) are commonly used for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing but can be uncomfortable for patients. Self-collected saliva specimens (SS) or anterior nasal specimens (ANS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection are less invasive, but the sensitivity of these specimen types has not been thoroughly evaluated. METHODS: During September-November 2020, 730 adults undergoing SARS-CoV-2 testing at community testing events and homeless shelters in Denver provided self-collected SS and ANS before NPS collection and answered a short survey about symptoms and specimen preference. Specimens were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by means of real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR); viral culture was performed on a subset of specimens positive by rRT-PCR. The sensitivity of SS and ANS for SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR was measured against that of NPS. Subgroup analyses included test outcomes by symptom status and culture results. RESULTS: Sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR appeared higher for SS than for ANS (85% vs 80%) and higher among symptomatic participants than among those without symptoms (94% vs 29% for SS; 87% vs 50% for ANS). Among participants with culture-positive SARS-CoV-2 by any specimen type, the sensitivities of SS and ANS by rRT-PCR were 94% and 100%, respectively. SS and ANS were equally preferred by participants; most would undergo NPS collection again despite this method's being the least preferred. CONCLUSIONS: SS were slightly more sensitive than ANS for SARS-CoV-2 detection with rRT-PCR. With both SS and ANS, SARS-CoV-2 was reliably detected among participants with symptoms. Self-collected SS and ANS offer practical advantages, are preferred by patients, and might be most useful for testing people with coronavirus disease 2019 symptoms.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , COVID-19 Testing , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Nasopharynx , Saliva , Specimen HandlingABSTRACT
We evaluated the performance of self-collected anterior nasal swab (ANS) and saliva samples compared with healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal swab specimens used to test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We used the same PCR diagnostic panel to test all self-collected and healthcare worker-collected samples from participants at a public hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Among 1,076 participants, 51.9% were men, 57.1% were >50 years of age, 81.2% were Black (non-Hispanic), and 74.9% reported >1 chronic medical condition. In total, 8.0% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Compared with nasopharyngeal swab samples, ANS samples had a sensitivity of 59% and saliva samples a sensitivity of 68%. Among participants tested 3-7 days after symptom onset, ANS samples had a sensitivity of 80% and saliva samples a sensitivity of 85%. Sensitivity varied by specimen type and patient characteristics. These findings can help physicians interpret PCR results for SARS-CoV-2.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 Testing , Georgia , Humans , Male , Nasopharynx , Saliva , Specimen HandlingABSTRACT
We prospectively compared health care worker-collected nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) to self-collected anterior nasal swabs (ANS) and straight saliva for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in 354 patients. The percent positive agreement between NPS and ANS or saliva was 86.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76.7 to 92.9%) and 93.8% (95% CI, 86.0 to 97.9%), respectively. The percent negative agreement was 99.6% (95% CI, 98.0 to 100.0%) for NPS versus ANS and 97.8% (95% CI, 95.3 to 99.2%) for NPS versus saliva. More cases were detected by the use of NPS (n = 80) and saliva (n = 81) than by the use of ANS (n = 70), but no single specimen type detected all severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections.