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.
SARS-CoV-2 patient self-testing with an antigen-detecting rapid test: a head-to-head comparison with professional testing (preprint)
medrxiv; 2021.
Preprint
Dans Anglais
| medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2021.01.06.20249009
ABSTRACT
Background Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) have been widely recommended as a complement to RT-PCR. Considering the possibility of nasal self-sampling and the ease-of-use in performing the test, self-testing may be an option. Methods and Findings We performed a manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study of nasal mid-turbinate self-sampling and self-testing when using a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. Symptomatic participants suspected to have COVID-19 received written and illustrated instructions. Procedures were observed without intervention. For comparison, Ag-RDTs with nasopharyngeal sampling were professionally performed. Estimates of agreement, sensitivity, and specificity relative to RT-PCR on a combined oro-/nasopharyngeal sample were calculated. Feasibility was evaluated by observer and participant questionnaires. Among 146 symptomatic adults, 40 (27.4%) were RT-PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2. Sensitivity with self-testing was 82.5% (33/40 RT-PCR positives detected; 95% CI 68.1-91.3), and 85.0% (34/40; 95% CI 70.9-92.9) with professional testing. The positive percent agreement between self-testing and professional testing on Ag-RDT was 91.4% (95% CI 77.6-97.0), and negative percent agreement 99.1% (95% CI 95.0-100). At high viral load (>7.0 log10 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/ml), sensitivity was 96.6% (28/29; 95% CI 82.8-99.8) for both self- and professional testing. Deviations in sampling and testing (incomplete self-sampling or extraction procedure, or imprecise volume applied on the test device) were observed in 25 out of the 40 PCR-positives. Participants were rather young (mean age 35 years) and educated (59.6% with higher education degree). Most participants (80.9%) considered the Ag-RDT as rather easy to perform. Conclusion Ambulatory participants suspected for SARS-CoV-2 infection were able to reliably perform the Ag-RDT and test themselves. Procedural errors might be reduced by refinement of the Ag-RDTs for self-testing, such as modified instructions for use or product design/procedures. Self-testing may result in more wide-spread and more frequent testing. Paired with the appropriate information and education of the general public about the benefits and risks, self-testing may therefore have significant impact on the pandemic.
Texte intégral:
Disponible
Collection:
Preprints
Base de données:
medRxiv
Sujet Principal:
COVID-19
langue:
Anglais
Année:
2021
Type de document:
Preprint
Documents relatifs à ce sujet
MEDLINE
...
LILACS
LIS