Head-to-head comparison of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test with professional-collected anterior nasal versus nasopharyngeal swab

To the Editor

Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are likely to play a substantial role in innovative testing strategies for SARS-CoV-2 [1, 2]. Currently, most Ag-RDTs require nasopharyngeal (NP) swab samples. However, NP-sampling necessitates qualified healthcare professionals, thus limiting scale-up of testing.

We conducted a prospective diagnostic accuracy study with the objective to directly compare the performance of professional-collected anterior nasal (AN) versus NP swab, using a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. The reference standard was RT-PCR collected from a combined NP/oropharyngeal (OP) swab. The study was continued until 30 positive NP swab samples according to Ag-RDT were obtained, which is the minimum recommended by the WHO Emergency Use Listing Procedure to demonstrate sample type equivalency [3]. This manufacturer-independent study was conducted in partnership with the Foundation of Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), the WHO collaborating centre for COVID-19 diagnostics.

Adults at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection according to clinical suspicion who attended the ambulatory SARS-CoV-2 testing facility of Charité University Hospital Berlin, Germany, were enrolled from 11-18 November 2020. Participants were excluded if either of the swabs for the Ag-RDT or the RT-PCR reference standard could not be collected.

Participants first underwent collection of the AN-sample, using the specific nasal swab provided in the test kit of the manufacturer, according to the instructions for use, which also correspond to the U.S. CDC instructions [4]. Briefly, while tilting the patient’s head back 70 degrees, the swab was inserted about 2cm into each nostril, parallel to the palate until resistance was met at turbinates, then rotated 3-4 times against the nasal walls on each side. Subsequently, a separate NP-swab (provided in the manufacturer test kit) for the Ag-RDT and a combined OP/NP-swab (eSwab from Copan placed in 1ml Amies medium) as per institutional recommendations for RT-PCR were taken from different sides of the nose.

The Ag-RDT evaluated was the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test (SD Biosensor, Inc. Gyeonggi-do, Korea; henceforth called STANDARD Q) [5]. Study procedures followed the same process as described in the prior study by Lindner et al [6]. The IFUs for AN- and NP-sampling showed differences, with a more elaborate extraction process and a higher volume of extracted specimen used for testing of AN-samples.

Of 181 patients invited, 180 (99.4%) consented to participate. One patient was excluded as both swabs for the Ag-RDT could not be obtained. The average age of participants was 36.2 years (Standard Deviation [SD] 12.2) with 48.0% female and 14.5% having comorbidities. On the day of testing, 96.1% of participants had one or more symptoms consistent with COVID-19. Duration of symptoms at the time of presentation on average was 4.2 days (SD 2.6). Among the 179 participants, 41 (22.9%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR (Table 1).

No invalid Ag-RDT results were observed on either AN- or NP-samples. Four patients tested positive by AN-but not by NP-sampling. One patient was positive by NP-sampling only. The positive percent agreement was 93.5% (CI 79.3-98.2); including one false positive result with AN and one with NP. The negative percent agreement was 95.9% (CI 91.4-98.1). Inter-rater reliability was high (kappa 0.95 for AN; 0.98 for NP). In the semi-quantitative read-out of the test band intensity in double positive pairs, there was no remarkable difference (8 higher on AN, 9 higher on NP). A third reader was necessary for the agreement on the results of three tests for which the test band was very weak.

The STANDARD Q Ag-RDT with AN-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 RNA SARS-CoV2/swab), the sensitivity of the Ag-RDT with AN-sampling was 100% (19/19 PCR positives detected; CI 83.9-100) and 94.7% (18/19 PCR positives detected; CI 76.4-99.7) with NP-sampling. In contrast, the Ag-RDT frequently did not detect patients with lower viral load or with symptoms >7 days (Table 1).

The strengths of the study are the standardized sampling methods, two independent blinded readers and an additional semi-quantitative assessment of Ag-RDT results. The cohort was representative, judging from the comparable sensitivity observed in the recent independent validation study of STANDARD Q (sensitivity 76.6%; CI 62.8-86.4) [7]. The study is limited as it was performed in a single centre.

In conclusion, this study demonstrates that sensitivity of a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT using professional AN-sampling kit is at least equal to that of NP-sampling kit, although confidence intervals overlap. Of note, differences in the IFUs of the test procedures could have contributed to different sensitivities. AN-sampling can be performed with less training, reduces patient discomfort, and enables scaling of antigen testing strategies. Additional studies of patient self-sampling should be considered to further facilitate scale-up of Ag-RDT testing [6].