RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comparative performance of COVID-19 Test Methods in Healthcare Workers during the Omicron Wave
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.09.25.23296099
DO 10.1101/2023.09.25.23296099
A1 Tornberg, Emma
A1 Tomlinson, Alexander
A1 Oshiro, Nicholas T.T.
A1 Derfalie, Esraa
A1 Curlin, Marcel E.
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/09/26/2023.09.25.23296099.abstract
AB Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic presents unique requirements for accessible, reliable testing, and many testing platforms and sampling techniques have been developed. However, not all test methods have been systematically compared to each other or a common gold standard, and the performance of tests developed in the early epidemic have not been consistently re-evaluated in the context of newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants.Methods We conducted a repeated measures study with adult healthcare workers presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing. Participants were tested using seven test modalities: PCR with samples from the nasopharynx, oropharynx, and saliva; and BinaxNOW and iHealth antigen–based rapid detection tests (AgRDT) sampling the oropharynx and the nares. Test sensitivity was compared using any positive PCR test as the gold standard.Results 325 individuals participated in the study. PCR tests were the most sensitive with saliva PCR at 0.957 ± 0.048, nasopharyngeal PCR at 0.877 ± 0.075, and oropharyngeal PCR at 0.849 ± 0.082. Standard nasal rapid antigen tests were less sensitive but roughly equivalent at 0.613 ± 0.110 for BinaxNOW brand and 0.627 ± 0.109 for iHealth. Oropharyngeal rapid antigen tests were the least sensitive with BinaxNOW and iHealth brands at 0.400 ± 0.111 and 0.311 ± 0.105 respectively.Conclusion PCR remains the most sensitive testing modality for COVID-19, with saliva PCR being significantly more sensitive than oropharyngeal PCR and equivalent to nasopharyngeal PCR. Saliva testing has patient comfort and financial benefits, making it a preferred testing modality. Nasal AgRDTs are less sensitive than PCR though more accessible and convenient.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any funding.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 Institutional Review Board of Oregon Health and Science University gave ethical approval for this work.I 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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.