Abstract
Objectives The aim of this diagnostic accuracy study was direct comparison of two different nasal sampling methods for an antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) that detects severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Furthermore, the accuracy and feasibility of self-sampling was evaluated.
Methods This manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study, compared professional anterior nasal (AN) and nasal mid-turbinate (NMT) sampling for a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. A second group of participants collected a NMT sample themselves and underwent a professional nasopharyngeal swab for comparison. The reference standard was real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) using combined oro-/nasopharyngeal sampling. Individuals with high suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection were tested. Sensitivity, specificity, and percent agreement were calculated. Self-sampling was observed without intervention. Feasibility was evaluated by observer and participant questionnaires.
Results Among 132 symptomatic adults, both professional AN- and NMT-sampling yielded a sensitivity of 86.1% (31/36 RT-PCR positives detected; 95%CI: 71.3-93.9) and a specificity of 100.0% (95%CI: 95.7-100). The positive percent agreement (PPA) was 100% (95%CI: 89.0-100). Among 96 additional adults, self NMT- and professional NP-sampling yielded an identical sensitivity of 91.2% (31/34; 95%CI 77.0-97.0). Specificity was 98.4% (95%CI: 91.4-99.9) with NMT- and 100.0% (95%CI: 94.2-100) with NP-sampling. The PPA was 96.8% (95%CI: 83.8-99.8). Most participants (85.3%) considered self-sampling as easy to perform.
Conclusion Professional AN- and NMT-sampling are of equivalent accuracy for an Ag-RDT in ambulatory symptomatic adults. Participants were able to reliably perform the NMT-sampling themselves, following written and illustrated instructions. Nasal self-sampling will likely facilitate scaling of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
CM 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.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The 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.
Yes
I 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).
Yes
I 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.
Yes
Data Availability
All raw data and analysis code are available upon request to the corresponding author.
