Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Anterior nasal versus nasal mid-turbinate sampling for a SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test: does localisation or professional collection matter?
Nikolai, Olga; Rohardt, Chiara; Tobian, Frank; Junge, Andrea; Corman, Victor M; Jones, Terry C; Gaeddert, Mary; Lainati, Federica; Sacks, Jilian A; Seybold, Joachim; Mockenhaupt, Frank P; Denkinger, Claudia M; Lindner, Andreas K.
  • Nikolai O; Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Tropical Medicine and International Health, Berlin, Germany.
  • Rohardt C; Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Tropical Medicine and International Health, Berlin, Germany.
  • Tobian F; Division of Clinical Tropical Medicine, Center of Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Germany.
  • Junge A; Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Tropical Medicine and International Health, Berlin, Germany.
  • Corman VM; Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Virology, Berlin, Germany.
  • Jones TC; partner site Charité, German Centre for Infection Research (DZIF), Berlin, Germany.
  • Gaeddert M; Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Virology, Berlin, Germany.
  • Lainati F; partner site Charité, German Centre for Infection Research (DZIF), Berlin, Germany.
  • Sacks JA; Centre for Pathogen Evolution, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
  • Seybold J; Division of Clinical Tropical Medicine, Center of Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Germany.
  • Mockenhaupt FP; Division of Clinical Tropical Medicine, Center of Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Germany.
  • Denkinger CM; Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, Geneva, Switzerland.
  • Lindner AK; Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Medical Directorate, Berlin, Germany.
Infect Dis (Lond) ; 53(12): 947-952, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1373618
Preprint
This scientific journal article is probably based on a previously available preprint. It has been identified through a machine matching algorithm, human confirmation is still pending.
See preprint
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)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 Type of study: Cohort study / Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study Limits: Adult / Humans Language: English Journal: Infect Dis (Lond) Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: 23744235.2021.1969426

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 Type of study: Cohort study / Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study Limits: Adult / Humans Language: English Journal: Infect Dis (Lond) Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: 23744235.2021.1969426