ABSTRACT
Summary/AbstractO_ST_ABSIntroductionC_ST_ABSContainment of the COVID-19 pandemic requires broad-scale testing. Laboratory capacities for real-time-PCR were increased, and are complemented by Ag-tests. However, sample-collection still requires qualified personnel and protective equipement, may produce transmission to others during conduct and travel, and is perceived uncomfortable. We tested sensitivity of three simplified self-sampling techniques compared to professional-collected combined oro-nasopharyngeal samples (cOP/NP). MethodsFrom 62 symptomatic COVID-19 outpatients, we obtained simultaneously three self- and one professional-collected sample after initial confirmation in a testing centre: (i) combination swab (tongue, cheek, both nasal vestibula, MS, (ii) saliva sponge combined with both nasal vestibula, SN, and (iii) gargled tap water, GW, (iv) professionally-collected cOP/NP (standard). We compared the results of SARS-CoV-2 PCR-assays detecting E-gene and ORF1ab for the different sample types and performed bivariate statistical analysis to determine the variables reducing sensitivity of the self-collecting procedures. ResultsSARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in all 62 professionally-collected cOP/NP. MS and SN samples showed a sensitivity of 95.2% (95%CI 86.5-99.0) and GW samples of 88.7% (78.1-95.3). Compared to the median ct-values of cOP/NP samples for E-gene (20.7) and ORF1ab (20.2) these were higher for MS (22.6 and 21.8), SN (23.3 and 22.3), and for GW (30.3 and 29.8). For MS and SN samples but not for GW specimens, false negativity in bivariate analysis was associated with non-German mother-tongue, number of sampling errors, and with symptom duration. For symptom duration of [≤]8 days, test sensitivity for SN samples was 98.2% (95%CI 90.4-100.0) and for MS 96.4% (95%CI 87.7-99.6) and drops after day 8 below 90%. DiscussionThe study is limited to sensitivity of self-collection in symptomatic patients. Still, in this group, self-collected oral/nasal/saliva samples are reliable alternatives to professional-collected cOP/NP samples, if symptom duration does not exceed eight days and operational errors are minimized. Self-sampling could contribute to up-scaling of safe and efficient testing.
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.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundAntigen-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 FindingsWe 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. ConclusionsAmbulatory 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.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundNasopharyngeal (NP) swab samples for antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) require qualified healthcare professionals and are frequently perceived as uncomfortable by patients. MethodsWe performed a manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study, comparing professional-collected nasal mid-turbinate (NMT) to nasopharyngeal swab, using the test kits of a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT (STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test, SD Biosensor), which is also being distributed by Roche. Individuals with high suspicion for COVID-19 infection were tested. The reference standard was RT-PCR using a combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swab sample. Percent positive and negative agreement, as well as sensitivity and specificity were calculated. ResultsAmong the 179 participants, 41 (22.9%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. The positive percent agreement of the two different sampling techniques for the Ag-RDT was 93.5% (CI 79.3-98.2). The negative percent agreement was 95.9% (CI 91.4-98.1). The Ag-RDT with NMT-sampling showed a sensitivity of 80.5% (33/41 PCR positives detected; CI 66.0-89.8) and specificity of 98.6% (CI 94.9-99.6) compared to RT-PCR. The sensitivity with NP-sampling was 73.2% (30/41 PCR positives detected; CI 58.1-84.3) and specificity was 99.3% (CI 96.0-100). In patients with high viral load (>7.0 log10 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/swab), the sensitivity of the Ag-RDT with NMT-sampling was 100% and 94.7% with NP-sampling. ConclusionThis study demonstrates that sensitivity of a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT using a professional nasal-sampling kit is at least equal to that of the NP-sampling kit, although confidence intervals overlap. Of note, differences in the IFUs of the test procedures could have contributed to different sensitivities. NMT-sampling can be performed with less training, reduces patient discomfort, and it enables scaling of antigen testing strategies. Additional studies of patient self-sampling should be considered to further facilitate the scaling-up of Ag-RDT testing.
