Cet article est une Preprint
Les preprints sont des rapports de recherche préliminaires qui n'ont pas été certifiés par l’évaluation par les pairs. Ils ne devraient pas être considérés comme guidant la pratique clinique ou les comportements liés à la santé et ne devraient pas être rapportés dans les médias comme des informations établies.
Les preprints publiées en ligne permettent aux auteurs de recevoir des commentaires rapidement, et toute la communauté scientifique peut évaluer indépendamment le travail et répondre en conséquence. Ces commentaires sont publiés avec les preprints que quiconque peut lire et servir d’évaluation post-publication.
Head-to-head comparison of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test with self-collected anterior nasal swab versus professional-collected nasopharyngeal swab (preprint)
medrxiv; 2020.
Preprint
Dans Anglais
| medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2020.10.26.20219600
ABSTRACT
BackgroundTwo antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are now approved through the WHO Emergency Use Listing procedure and can be performed at the point-of-care. However, both tests use nasopharyngeal (NP) swab samples. NP swab samples must be collected by trained healthcare personnel with protective equipment and are frequently perceived as uncomfortable by patients. MethodsThis was a manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study with comparison of a supervised, self-collected anterior nose (AN) swab sample with a professional-collected NP swab sample, using a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT, STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test (SD Biosensor), which is also being distributed by Roche. The reference standard was RT-PCR from an oro-/nasopharyngeal swab sample. Percent positive and negative agreement as well as sensitivity and specificity were calculated. ResultsAmong the 289 participants, 39 (13.5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. The positive percent agreement of the two different sampling techniques for the Ag-RDT was 90.6% (CI 75.8-96.8). The negative percent agreement was 99.2% (CI 97.2-99.8). The Ag-RDT with AN sampling showed a sensitivity of 74.4% (29/39 PCR positives detected; CI 58.9-85.4) and specificity of 99.2% (CI 97.1-99.8) compared to RT-PCR. The sensitivity with NP sampling was 79.5% (31/39 PCR positives detected; CI 64.5-89.2) and specificity was 99.6% (CI 97.8-100). In patients with high viral load (>7.0 log 10 RNA SARS-CoV2/swab), the sensitivity of the Ag-RDT with AN sampling was 96% and 100% with NP sampling. ConclusionSupervised self-sampling from the anterior nose is a reliable alternative to professional nasopharyngeal sampling using a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. Considering the ease-of-use of Ag-RDTs, self-sampling and potentially patient self-testing at home may be a future use case.
Texte intégral:
Disponible
Collection:
Preprints
Base de données:
medRxiv
langue:
Anglais
Année:
2020
Type de document:
Preprint
Documents relatifs à ce sujet
MEDLINE
...
LILACS
LIS