This article is a Preprint
Preprints are preliminary research reports that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Preprints posted online allow authors to receive rapid feedback and the entire scientific community can appraise the work for themselves and respond appropriately. Those comments are posted alongside the preprints for anyone to read them and serve as a post publication assessment.
Anterior nasal versus nasal mid-turbinate sampling for a SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test: does localisation or professional collection matter?
Preprint
in English
| medRxiv
| ID: ppmedrxiv-21251274
Journal article
A scientific journal published article is available and is probably based on this preprint. It has been identified through a machine matching algorithm, human confirmation is still pending.
See journal article
A scientific journal published article is available and is probably based on this preprint. It has been identified through a machine matching algorithm, human confirmation is still pending.
See journal article
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.
cc_by_nc_nd
Full text:
Available
Collection:
Preprints
Database:
medRxiv
Type of study:
Diagnostic study
/
Experimental_studies
/
Observational study
/
Prognostic study
Language:
English
Year:
2021
Document type:
Preprint