Abstract
Objectives To compare self-taken and healthcare worker (HCW)-taken throat/nasal swabs to perform rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) for SARS-CoV-2, and how these compare to RT-PCR. We hypothesised that self-taken samples are non-inferior for use with RDTs and in clinical and research settings could have substantial individual and public health benefit.
Design A prospective diagnostic accuracy evaluation as part of the ‘Facilitating Accelerated Clinical Evaluation of Novel Diagnostic Tests for COVID -19 (FALCON C-19), workstream C (undifferentiated community testing)’.
Setting NHS Test and Trace drive-through community PCR testing site (Liverpool, UK). Participants
Eligible participants 18 years or older with symptoms of COVID-19. 250 participants recruited; one withdrew before analysis.
Sampling Self-administered throat/nasal swab for the Covios® RDT, a trained HCW taken throat/nasal sample for PCR and HCW comparison throat/nasal swab for RDT.
Main outcome measures Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) were calculated; comparisons between self-taken and HCW-taken samples used McNemar’s test.
Results Seventy-five participants (75/249, 30.1%) were positive by RT-PCR. RDTs with self-taken swabs had a sensitivity of 90.5% (67/74, 95% CI: 83.9-97.2), compared to 78.4% (58/74, 95% CI: 69.0-87.8) for HCW-taken swabs (absolute difference 12.2%, 95% CI: 4.7-19.6, p=0.003). Specificity for self-taken swabs was 99.4% (173/174, 95% CI: 98.3-100.0), versus 98.9% (172/174, 95% CI: 97.3-100.0) for HCW-taken swabs (absolute difference 0.6%, 95% CI: 0.5-1.7, p=0.317). The PPV of self-taken RDTs (98.5%, 67/68, 95% CI: 95.7-100.0) and HCW-taken RDTs (96.7%, 58/60, 95% CI 92.1-100.0) were not significantly different (p=0.262). However, the NPV of self-taken swab RDTs was significantly higher (96.1%, 173/180, 95% CI: 93.2-98.9) than HCW-taken RDTs (91.5%, 172/188, 95% CI 87.5-95.5, p=0.003).
Conclusion Self-taken swabs for COVID-19 testing offer substantial individual benefits in terms of convenience, accuracy, and reduced risk of transmitting infection. Our results demonstrate that self-taken throat/nasal samples can be used by lay individuals as part of rapid testing programmes for symptomatic adults.
Trial Registration IRAS ID:28422, clinical trial ID: NCT04408170
What is already known on this topic?
Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs)for SARS-CoV-2 Ag are a cheaper point-of-care alternative to RT-PCR for diagnosing COVID-19 disease.
The accuracy of tests can vary dependent on sampling technique, test processing and reading of results.
What this study adds?
Self-taken throat-nasal swabs for RDTs can be used by symptomatic adults to give reliable results to diagnose SARS-CoV-2.
Self-sampling can be implemented with little training and no assistance.
Competing Interest Statement
All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: This study received funding from the UK Research Council through a PhD scholarship from the MRC Doctoral Training Partnership to HRS. PM is funded by Wellcome (200901/Z/16/Z), Wellcome Trust award Detecting and Excluding Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at the Point of Need (220764/Z/20/Z), FALCON C-19 study was funded by National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation; and is supported by the global alliance for diagnostics (FIND). ERA contributed to this study design and analysis in her role as PhD supervisor to HRS at LSTM, she is also Director of Epidemics and NTDs at Mologic Ltd a UK diagnostics company who provided the RDTs for this study under joint Wellcome funding. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Clinical Trial
NCT04408170
Funding Statement
This study received funding from the UK Research Council through a PhD scholarship from the MRC Doctoral Training Partnership to HRS. PM is funded by Wellcome (200901/Z/16/Z), Wellcome Trust award Detecting and Excluding Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at the Point of Need (220764/Z/20/Z), FALCON C-19 study was funded by National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation; and is supported by the global alliance for diagnostics (FIND).
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:
Ethical approval was obtained from the National Research Ethics Service (reference 20/WA/0169) and the Health Research Authority (IRAS ID:28422, clinical trial ID: NCT04408170).
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.
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 data in the study is available in a supplementary file.
