Dataset Information

Accuracy of a Novel SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-Detecting Rapid Diagnostic Test from Standardized Self-Collected Anterior Nasal Swabs.

ABSTRACT: Background Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) offer new opportunities for the quick and laboratory-independent identification of infected individuals for control of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Despite the potential benefits, nasopharyngeal sample collection is frequently perceived as uncomfortable by patients and requires trained healthcare personnel with protective equipment. Therefore, anterior nasal self-sampling is increasingly recognized as a valuable alternative. Methods We performed a prospective, single-center, point of care validation of an Ag-RDT using a polypropylene absorbent collector for standardized self-collected anterior nasal swabs. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from combined oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal swabs served as a comparator. Primary endpoint was sensitivity of the standardized Ag-RDT in symptomatic patients with medium or high viral concentration (≥1 million RNA copies on RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2). Results Between 12 February and 22 March 2021, 388 participants were enrolled. After exclusion of 9 patients for which no PCR result could be obtained, the novel Ag-RDT was evaluated based on 379 participants, of whom 273 were symptomatic and 106 asymptomatic. In 61 samples from symptomatic patients with medium or high viral load (≥1 million RNA copies), the sensitivity of the standardized Ag-RDT was 96.7% (59/61; 95% confidence interval (CI): 88.7-99.6%) for the primary endpoint. In total, 62 positive Ag-RDT results were detected out of 70 RT-PCR positive individuals, yielding an overall sensitivity of 88.6% (95% CI: 78.7-94.9%). Specificity was 99.7% (95% CI: 98.2-100%) in 309 RT-PCR negative individuals. Conclusions Here, we present a validation of a novel Ag-RDT with a standardized sampling process for anterior nasal self-collection, which meets World Health Organisation (WHO) criteria of ≥80% sensitivity and ≥97% specificity. Although less sensitive than RT-PCR, this assay could be beneficial due to its rapid results, ease of use, and suitability for standardized self-testing.

SUBMITTER: Osmanodja B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8153114 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionMost SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests require nasopharyngeal sampling, which is frequently perceived as uncomfortable and requires healthcare professionals, thus limiting scale-up. Nasal sampling could enable self-sampling and increase acceptability. The term nasal sampling is often not used uniformly and sampling protocols differ.MethodsThis manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study, compared professional anterior nasal and nasal mid-turbinate sampling for a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test. The second group of participants collected a nasal mid-turbinate 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.ResultsAmong 132 symptomatic adults, both professional anterior nasal and nasal mid-turbinate 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 was 100% (95%CI: 89.0-100). Among 96 additional adults, self nasal mid-turbinate and professional nasopharyngeal 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 nasal mid-turbinate and 100.0% (95%CI: 94.2-100) with nasopharyngeal sampling. The positive percent agreement was 96.8% (95%CI: 83.8-99.8). Most participants (85.3%) considered self-sampling as easy to perform.ConclusionProfessional anterior nasal and nasal mid-turbinate sampling are of equivalent accuracy for an antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test in ambulatory symptomatic adults. Participants were able to reliably perform nasal mid-turbinate sampling themselves, following written and illustrated instructions. Nasal self-sampling will facilitate scaling of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing.

Project description:BackgroundMelioidosis, an infectious disease caused by Burkholderia pseudomallei, is endemic in many tropical developing countries and has a high mortality. Here we evaluated combinations of a lateral flow immunoassay (LFI) detecting B. pseudomallei capsular polysaccharide (CPS) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) detecting antibodies against hemolysin co-regulated protein (Hcp1) or O-polysaccharide (OPS) for diagnosing melioidosis.Methodology/principal findingsWe conducted a cohort-based case-control study. Both cases and controls were derived from a prospective observational study of patients presenting with community-acquired infections and sepsis in northeast Thailand (Ubon-sepsis). Cases included 192 patients with a clinical specimen culture positive for B. pseudomallei. Controls included 502 patients who were blood culture positive for Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli or Klebsiella pneumoniae or were polymerase chain reaction assay positive for malaria or dengue. Serum samples collected within 24 hours of admission were stored and tested using a CPS-LFI, Hcp1-ELISA and OPS-ELISA. When assessing diagnostic tests in combination, results were considered positive if either test was positive. We selected ELISA cut-offs corresponding to a specificity of 95%. Using a positive cut-off OD of 2.912 for Hcp1-ELISA, the combination of the CPS-LFI and Hcp1-ELISA had a sensitivity of 67.7% (130/192 case patients) and a specificity of 95.0% (477/502 control patients). The sensitivity of the combination (67.7%) was higher than that of the CPS-LFI alone (31.3%, p<0.001) and that of Hcp1-ELISA alone (53.6%, p<0.001). A similar phenomenon was also observed for the combination of CPS-LFI and OPS-ELISA. In case patients, positivity of the CPS-LFI was associated with a short duration of symptoms, high modified Sequential (sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, bacteraemia and mortality outcome, while positivity of Hcp1-ELISA was associated with a longer duration of symptoms, low modified SOFA score, non-bacteraemia and survival outcome.Conclusions/significanceA combination of antigen-antibody diagnostic tests increased the sensitivity of melioidosis diagnosis over individual tests while preserving high specificity. Point-of-care tests for melioidosis based on the use of combination assays should be further developed and evaluated.

Project description:Abstract Background Anterior nasal swabs (ANS) are established specimen collection methods for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection detection. While saliva (SA) specimens provide an alternative, few studies have comprehensively characterized the performance of SA specimens in longitudinal studies. Methods We compared SARS-CoV-2 detections between paired self-collected ANS and SA specimens from a household transmission study. Participants recorded symptoms and paired ANS and SA specimens daily for 14 days. Specimens were tested using RT-PCR. We calculated the proportion of detections identified by each specimen type among the detections from both types combined. We computed percent agreement and Kappa statistics to assess concordance in detections. We also computed estimates stratified by presence of symptoms and examined the influence of traditional and inactivating transport media on the performance of ANS. Results We examined 2535 self-collected paired specimens from 216 participants. Among 1238 (49%) paired specimens with detections by either specimen type, ANS identified 77.1% (954; 95% CI, 74.6% to 79.3%) and SA 81.9% (1014; 95% CI, 79.7% to 84.0%), with a difference of 4.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 8.5%). Overall agreement was 80.0%, and Kappa was 0.6 (95% CI, 0.5 to 0.6). Nevertheless, the difference in the proportion of detections identified by ANS and SA using traditional and inactivating transport media was 32.5% (95% CI, 26.8% to 38.0%) and –9.5% (95% CI, −13.7% to –5.2%), respectively. Among participants who remained asymptomatic, the difference in detections between SA and ANS was 51.2% (95% CI, 31.8% to 66.0%) and 26.1% (95% CI, 0% to 48.5%) using traditional and inactivating media, respectively. Conclusions Self-collected saliva specimens provide a noninvasive alternative to nasal swabs, especially to those collected in traditional transport media, for longitudinal field studies that aim to detect both symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Dataset Information

Accuracy of a Novel SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-Detecting Rapid Diagnostic Test from Standardized Self-Collected Anterior Nasal Swabs.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure