RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Head-to-head performance comparison of self-collected nasal versus professional-collected nasopharyngeal swab for a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test JF medRxiv FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press SP 2021.03.17.21253076 DO 10.1101/2021.03.17.21253076 A1 Klein, Julian A.F. A1 Krüger, Lisa J. A1 Tobian, Frank A1 Gaeddert, Mary A1 Lainati, Federica A1 Schnitzler, Paul A1 Lindner, Andreas K. A1 Nikolai, Olga A1 Knorr, B. A1 Welker, A. A1 de Vos, Margaretha A1 Sacks, Jilian A. A1 Escadafal, Camille A1 Denkinger, Claudia M. A1 , YR 2021 UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/24/2021.03.17.21253076.abstract AB Background In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended two SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow antigen detecting rapid diagnostics tests (Ag-RDTs), both initially with nasopharyngeal (NP) sample collection. Independent head-to-head studies demonstrated for SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs nasal sampling to be a comparable and reliable alternative for nasopharyngeal (NP) sampling.Methods We conducted a head-to-head comparison study of a supervised, self-collected nasal mid-turbinate (NMT) swab and a professional-collected NP swab, using the Panbio Ag-RDT (the second WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT, distributed by Abbott). We calculated positive and negative percent agreement and, compared to the reference standard reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), sensitivity and specificity for both sampling techniques.Results A SARS-CoV-2 infection could be diagnosed by RT-PCR in 45 of 290 participants (15.5%). Comparing the NMT and NP sampling the positive percent agreement of the Ag-RDT was 88.1% (37/42 PCR positives detected; CI 75.0% - 94.8%). The negative percent agreement was 98.8% (245/248; CI 96.5% - 99.6%). The overall sensitivity of Panbio with NMT sampling was 84.4% (38/45; CI 71.2% - 92.3%) and 88.9% (40/45; CI 76.5% - 95.5%) with NP sampling. Specificity was 99.2% (243/245; CI 97.1% - 99.8%) for both, NP and NMT sampling. The sensitivity of the Panbio test in participants with high viral load (> 7 log10 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/mL) was 96.3% (CI 81.7% - 99.8%) for both, NMT and NP sampling.Conclusion For the Panbio Ag-RDT supervised NMT self-sampling yields to results comparable to NP sampling. This suggests that nasal self-sampling could be used for scale-up population testing.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialDRKS00021220Funding StatementThe study was supported by Heidelberg University Hospital internal funds, as well as a grant of the Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany. Foundation of Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) reports grants from UK Department of International Development (DFID, recently replaced by FCMO), grants from World Health Organization (WHO), grants from Unitaid, to conduct the study.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 in March 2020 by the ethical review committee at the Heidelberg University Hospital for the two study site Heidelberg in Germany (Registration number S-180/2020). All participants provided written informed consent prior to inclusion in the study. The study was registered in the German clinical trial registry with the registration number DRKS00021220.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.