Anterior nasal versus nasal mid-turbinate sampling for a SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test: does localisation or professional collection matter?

Study design and participants

This was a manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study comparing two different nasal sampling methods for an Ag-RDT. From a first group of participants, professionally-collected AN and NMT samples were taken. In a second group, each participant self-collected a NMT sample and underwent a professional NP swab. All samples were tested by Ag-RDT performed by a professional (Figure 1). The reference standard was real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) using a combined oro-/nasopharyngeal (OP/NP) sample as described previously [6].

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Study flow diagram

Prof.-AN,professional anterior nasal sampling; prof.-NMT, professional nasal mid-turbinate sampling; self-NMT, self NMT-sampling; prof-NP, professional nasopharyngeal sampling; Ag-RDT, antigen-based rapid diagnostic test; RT-PCR, real-time polymerase chain reaction

The study took place at the ambulatory SARS-CoV-2 testing facility of Charité University Hospital between 30 November 2020 and 18 January 2021. Participants eligible for inclusion were adults with high clinical suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection. For self-sampling, a minimum CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference) language level of B2 (upper intermediate) in German or English was required. Participants were consecutively enrolled, according to laboratory capacity.

Index test Ag-RDT

The Ag-RDT evaluated was the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test (SD Biosensor, Inc. Gyeonggi-do, Korea), which is also distributed by Roche in Europe [7]. While the test is commercially available as a NP-sampling kit, the nasal-sampling kit (used for NMT and AN) is currently for research use only. Differences between the swabs and the procedures of the two test kits have previously been described [4].

Sampling methods

Participants were asked to blow their nose once before sampling. Professional AN- and NMT-sampling followed the CDC guidance for SARS-CoV-2 testing [3]. For AN-sampling, the tip of a swab was inserted into the nose vertically 1 to 1.5 cm and rotated against the nasal walls for 15 seconds in both nostrils. For NMT-sampling, while tilting the head back (70°) the swab was inserted horizontally (parallel to the palate) into both nostrils for about 2 cm until resistance occurred, and then rotated 4 times against the nasal walls. Among consecutive participants, the sequence of AN- and NMT-sampling was alternated, followed by OP/NP-sampling for RT-PCR.

Participants who underwent NMT self-sampling received written and illustrated instructions in German or English. For NMT self-collection, a timing of 15 seconds was specified in addition to the minimum of 4 rotations. Procedures were observed without answering questions or providing corrections. NMT self-sampling (both nostrils) was followed by professional NP-sampling (through one nostril) for Ag-RDTs and combined OP/NP-sampling (other nostril) for RT-PCR.

The Ag-RDTs were performed directly after sampling at point-of-care by study physicians with a semi-quantitative visual read-out of the test band as described in a prior study [6]. User acceptability and feasibility of self-sampling were assessed by observer and patient questionnaires [6].

Participants

After the exclusion of 2 participants with invalid RT-PCR result, 132 participants with professional AN-versus NMT-sampling, and 96 who underwent self NMT-sampling versus professional NP-sampling were included (Figure 1). Average age was 34.6 years (Standard Deviation [SD] 11.7) with 46.7% females and 20.3% having comorbidities. On the day of testing, 97.4% of participants had one or more symptoms consistent with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Average duration of symptoms at the time of presentation was 3.4 days (SD 3.0). Among participants performing self-sampling, 48 (50.5%) had a prior swab for SARS-CoV-2 been collected, and 50 (52.6%) had a higher education degree (Supplementary Table 1).

Professional AN-versus NMT-sampling

Among 132 participants, 36 (27.3%) were RT-PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2. Professional AN- and NMT-sampling both 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) compared to RT-PCR (Table 1, Supplementary Table 2). The positive percent agreement was 100% (95%CI: 89.0-100). There was perfect (100%) inter-reader agreement on results.

Self NMT-sampling versus professional NP-sampling

Among 96 participants, 34 (35.4%) were RT-PCR-positive. 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 self NMT-sampling and 100.0% (95%CI: 94.2-100) with NP-sampling (Table 1, Supplementary Table 3). The positive percent agreement was 96.8% (95%CI: 83.8-99.8). A third reader was necessary to agree on the interpretation of one NMT-result, which was ultimately considered negative, but turned out to be false negative based on a positive RT-PCR being result.

Feasibility of self NMT-sampling

Deviations of self NMT-sampling included a more vertically-directed angle for sampling (n=13), incorrect depth (n=4 too superficial, n=10 too deep), and reduced swabbing intensity (regarding duration n=28, rotations n=12, and rubbing n=36). Three participants performed only unilateral NMT-sampling (Supplementary Table 3 and 4). On a scale from 1 (easy) to 5 (difficult), 81 (85.3%) participants stated that self NMT-sampling was easy to perform (scale 1 or 2); 13 (13.7%) found it medium easy/difficult (scale 3), and 1 (1.1%) rather difficult (scale 4). Twelve participants suggested that a mark on the swab to guide insertion depth would facilitate self-sampling.