RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Where is Omicron? Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and Antigen Test Sensitivity at Commonly Sampled Anatomic Sites Over the Course of Disease
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.02.08.22270685
DO 10.1101/2022.02.08.22270685
A1 Lin, Jessica
A1 Frediani, Jennifer K
A1 Damhorst, Gregory L
A1 Sullivan, Julie A
A1 Westbrook, Adrianna
A1 McLendon, Kaleb
A1 Baugh, Tyler J
A1 O’Sick, William H
A1 Roback, John D
A1 Piantadosi, Anne L
A1 Waggoner, Jesse J
A1 Bassit, Leda
A1 Rao, Anuradha
A1 Greenleaf, Morgan
A1 O’Neal, Jared W
A1 Swanson, Seegar
A1 Pollock, Nira R
A1 Martin, Greg S
A1 Lam, Wilbur A
A1 Levy, Joshua M
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/02/09/2022.02.08.22270685.abstract
AB Background Upper respiratory samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection include the gold standard nasopharyngeal (NP) swab, and mid-turbinate (MT) nasal swabs, oropharyngeal (OP) swabs, and saliva. Following the emergence of the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant, limited preliminary data suggest that OP swabs or saliva samples may be more sensitive than nasal swabs, highlighting the need to understand differences in viral load across different sites.Methods MT, OP, and saliva samples were collected from symptomatic individuals presenting for evaluation in Atlanta, GA, in January 2022. Longitudinal samples were collected from a family cohort following COVID-19 exposure to describe detection of viral targets over the course of infection.Results SARS-CoV-2 RNA and nucleocapsid antigen measurements demonstrated a nares-predominant phenotype in a familial cohort. A consistent dominant location for SARS-CoV-2 was not found among 54 individuals. Positive percent agreement for virus detection in MT, OP and saliva specimens were 66.7 [54.1–79.2], 82.2 [71.1–93.4], and 72.5 [60.3–84.8] by RT-PCR, respectively, and 46.2 [32.6–59.7], 51.2 [36.2–66.1], and 72.0 [59.6–84.4] by ultrasensitive antigen assay. The composite of positive MT or OP assay was not significantly different than either alone for both RT-PCR and antigen assay (PPA 86.7 [76.7–96.6] and 59.5 [44.7–74.4], respectively).Conclusions Our data suggest that SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid and RNA exhibited similar kinetics and diagnostic yield in three upper respiratory sample types across the duration of symptomatic disease. Collection of OP or combined nasal and OP samples does not appear to increase sensitivity versus validated nasal sampling for rapid detection of viral antigen.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering at the National Institutes of Health under award Numbers U54 EB027690-03S1 and U54 EB027690-03S2 and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number UL1TR002378. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.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:IRB of Emory University gave ethical approval for this workI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.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 data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors