PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Lee, Kuan Ken AU - Doudesis, Dimitrios AU - Ross, Daniella A. AU - Bularga, Anda AU - MacKintosh, Claire L. AU - Koch, Oliver AU - Johannessen, Ingolfur AU - Templeton, Kate AU - Jenks, Sara AU - Chapman, Andrew R. AU - Shah, Anoop S.V. AU - Anand, Atul AU - Perry, Meghan R. AU - Mills, Nicholas L. AU - , TI - Diagnostic performance of the combined nasal and throat swab in patients admitted to hospital with suspected COVID-19 AID - 10.1101/2020.10.03.20206243 DP - 2020 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2020.10.03.20206243 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/06/2020.10.03.20206243.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/06/2020.10.03.20206243.full AB - Background Accurate diagnosis in patients with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is essential to guide treatment and limit spread of the virus. The combined nasal and throat swab is used widely, but its diagnostic performance is uncertain.Methods In a prospective, multi-centre, cohort study conducted in secondary and tertiary care hospitals in Scotland, we evaluated the combined nasal and throat swab with reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in consecutive patients admitted to hospital with suspected COVID-19. Diagnostic performance of the index and serial tests was evaluated for a primary outcome of confirmed or probable COVID-19, and a secondary outcome of confirmed COVID-19 on serial testing. The diagnosis was adjudicated by a panel, who recorded clinical, laboratory and radiological features blinded to the test results.Results We enrolled 1,369 consecutive patients (68 [53-80] years, 47% women) who underwent a total of 3,822 tests (median 2 [1-3] tests per patient). The primary outcome occurred in 36% (496/1,369), of whom 65% (323/496) and 35% (173/496) had confirmed and probable COVID-19, respectively. The index test was positive in 255/496 (51%) patients with the primary outcome, giving a sensitivity and specificity of 51.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 48.8 to 54.1%) and 99.5% (95% CI 99.0 to 99.8%). Sensitivity increased in those undergoing 2, 3 or 4 tests to 60.1% (95% CI 56.7 to 63.4%), 68.3% (95% CI 64.0 to 72.3%) and 77.6% (95% CI 72.7 to 81.9%), respectively. The sensitivity of the index test was 78.9% (95% CI 74.4 to 83.2%) for the secondary outcome of confirmed COVID-19 on serial testing.Conclusions In patients admitted to hospital, a single combined nasal and throat swab with RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 has excellent specificity, but limited diagnostic sensitivity for COVID-19. Diagnostic performance is significantly improved by repeated testing.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was funded by a British Heart Foundation (BHF) Research Excellence Award (RE/18/6134217). DataLochTM is funded by the University of Edinburgh, and the UK and Scottish Governments as part of the Data Driven Innovation in Health & Social Care programme. AA is supported by a Clinical Lectureship from the Chief Scientist Office (PCL/18/05). KL and NLM are supported by a Clinical Research Training Fellowship (FS/18/25/33454) and the Butler Senior Clinical Research Fellowship (FS/16/14/32023) from the British Heart Foundation, respectively. DD is supported by the Medical Research Council (MR/N013166/1). ARC is supported by a Starter Grant for Clinical Lecturers from the Academy of Medical Sciences (SGL021\1075).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 was performed with approval of the local Research Ethics Committee and delegated Caldicott Guardian for the National Health Service (NHS) Lothian Health Board, in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.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 data were collected from the patient record and national registries, deidentified and linked in a data repository (DataLochTM, Edinburgh, United Kingdom) within a secure safe haven.