RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Head-to-head comparison of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test with self-collected anterior nasal swab versus professional-collected nasopharyngeal swab
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.10.26.20219600
DO 10.1101/2020.10.26.20219600
A1 Lindner, Andreas K.
A1 Nikolai, Olga
A1 Kausch, Franka
A1 Wintel, Mia
A1 Hommes, Franziska
A1 Gertler, Maximilian
A1 Krüger, Lisa J.
A1 Gaeddert, Mary
A1 Tobian, Frank
A1 Lainati, Federica
A1 Köppel, Lisa
A1 Seybold, Joachim
A1 Corman, Victor M.
A1 Drosten, Christian
A1 Hofmann, Jörg
A1 Sacks, Jilian A.
A1 Mockenhaupt, Frank P.
A1 Denkinger, Claudia M.
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/27/2020.10.26.20219600.abstract
AB Background Two antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are now approved through the WHO Emergency Use Listing procedure and can be performed at the point-of-care. However, both tests use nasopharyngeal (NP) swab samples. NP swab samples must be collected by trained healthcare personnel with protective equipment and are frequently perceived as uncomfortable by patients.Methods This was a manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study with comparison of a supervised, self-collected anterior nose (AN) swab sample with a professional-collected NP swab sample, using a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT, STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test (SD Biosensor), which is also being distributed by Roche. The reference standard was RT-PCR from an oro-/nasopharyngeal swab sample. Percent positive and negative agreement as well as sensitivity and specificity were calculated.Results Among the 289 participants, 39 (13.5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. The positive percent agreement of the two different sampling techniques for the Ag-RDT was 90.6% (CI 75.8-96.8). The negative percent agreement was 99.2% (CI 97.2-99.8). The Ag-RDT with AN sampling showed a sensitivity of 74.4% (29/39 PCR positives detected; CI 58.9-85.4) and specificity of 99.2% (CI 97.1-99.8) compared to RT-PCR. The sensitivity with NP sampling was 79.5% (31/39 PCR positives detected; CI 64.5-89.2) and specificity was 99.6% (CI 97.8-100). In patients with high viral load (>7.0 log 10 RNA SARS-CoV2/swab), the sensitivity of the Ag-RDT with AN sampling was 96% and 100% with NP sampling.Conclusion Supervised self-sampling from the anterior nose is a reliable alternative to professional nasopharyngeal sampling using a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. Considering the ease-of-use of Ag-RDTs, self-sampling and potentially patient self-testing at home may be a future use case.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe study was supported by FIND, Heidelberg University Hospital and Charité University Hospital internal funds, as well as a grant of the Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts of Baden-Württemberg, Germany. FIND provided input on the study design, and data analysis in collaboration with the rest of the study team.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study protocol was approved by the ethical review committee at Heidelberg University Hospital for the study site in Berlin (registration number S-180/2020).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll raw data and analysis code are available upon a request to the corresponding author.