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.
Anterior nasal versus nasal mid-turbinate sampling for a SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test: does localisation or professional collection matter? (preprint)
medrxiv; 2021.
Preprint
Dans Anglais
| medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2021.02.09.21251274
ABSTRACT
ObjectivesThe aim of this diagnostic accuracy study was direct comparison of two different nasal sampling methods for an antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) that detects severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Furthermore, the accuracy and feasibility of self-sampling was evaluated. MethodsThis manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study, compared professional anterior nasal (AN) and nasal mid-turbinate (NMT) sampling for a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. A second group of participants collected a NMT 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. ResultsAmong 132 symptomatic adults, both professional AN- and NMT-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 (PPA) was 100% (95%CI 89.0-100). Among 96 additional adults, self NMT- and professional NP-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 NMT- and 100.0% (95%CI 94.2-100) with NP-sampling. The PPA was 96.8% (95%CI 83.8-99.8). Most participants (85.3%) considered self-sampling as easy to perform. ConclusionProfessional AN- and NMT-sampling are of equivalent accuracy for an Ag-RDT in ambulatory symptomatic adults. Participants were able to reliably perform the NMT-sampling themselves, following written and illustrated instructions. Nasal self-sampling will likely facilitate scaling of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing.
Texte intégral:
Disponible
Collection:
Preprints
Base de données:
medRxiv
Sujet Principal:
Infections à coronavirus
/
COVID-19
langue:
Anglais
Année:
2021
Type de document:
Preprint
Documents relatifs à ce sujet
MEDLINE
...
LILACS
LIS