PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Lindner, Andreas K. AU - Nikolai, Olga AU - Rohardt, Chiara AU - Kausch, Franka AU - Wintel, Mia AU - Gertler, Maximilian AU - Burock, Susen AU - Hörig, Merle AU - Bernhard, Julian AU - Tobian, Frank AU - Gaeddert, Mary AU - Lainati, Federica AU - Corman, Victor M. AU - Jones, Terry C. AU - Sacks, Jilian A. AU - Seybold, Joachim AU - Denkinger, Claudia M. AU - Mockenhaupt, Frank P. TI - SARS-CoV-2 patient self-testing with an antigen-detecting rapid test: a head-to-head comparison with professional testing AID - 10.1101/2021.01.06.20249009 DP - 2021 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2021.01.06.20249009 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/01/08/2021.01.06.20249009.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/01/08/2021.01.06.20249009.full AB - Background Antigen-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 Findings We 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.Conclusions Ambulatory 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.Competing Interest StatementCM Denkinger reports grants from Foundation of Innovative New Diagnostics, grants from Ministry of Science, Research and Culture, State of Baden Wuerttemberg, Germany, to conduct of the study. JA Sacks reports grants from UK Department of International Development (DFID, recently replaced by FCMO), grants from World Health Organization (WHO), grants from Unitaid, to conduct of the study.Funding StatementThe study was supported by FIND, Charité University Hospital internal funds, as well as a grant of the Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts of Baden-Württemberg, Germany. The study was independent of the manufacturer.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:This study was approved by the ethics committee of Charité - Universitätsmedizin (EA1/371/20).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 request to the corresponding author.