Dataset Information

Self-Sampling for SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostic Testing by Using Nasal and Saliva Specimens: Protocol for Usability and Clinical Evaluation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

SARS-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus discovered in December 2019 and is currently the cause of the global COVID-19 pandemic. A critical aspect of fighting this pandemic is to obtain accurate and timely test results so that patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 can be identified and isolated to reduce the spread of the virus. Research has shown that saliva is a promising candidate for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics because its collection is minimally invasive and can be reliably self-administered. However, little research has been conducted on saliva testing and SARS-CoV-2 self-sampling (SARS-CoV-2SS) in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Objective

The primary objective of this study is to comparatively evaluate the clinical sensitivity and specificity of nasal and oral samples self-collected by individuals for SARS-CoV-2 testing against a reference method involving sample collection and testing by a health care professional. The secondary objectives of this study are to evaluate the usability of nasal self-sampling and saliva self-sampling as a sample collection method for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing by using failure mode and error assessment.

Methods

Participants will be recruited from the general population by using various methods, Participants will be screened progressively as they present at the clinical trial sites as well as in primary health care catchment areas in the inner city of Johannesburg, South Africa. In the event that recruitment numbers are low, we will use a mobile van to recruit participants from outlying areas of Johannesburg. We aim to enroll 250 participants into this study in approximately 6 weeks. Two sample types-a self-administered nasal swab and a self-administered saliva sample-will be collected from each participant, and a health care professional will collect a third sample by using a nasopharyngeal swab (ie, the standard reference method).

Results

This protocol has been approved by the University of the Witwatersrand Human Research Ethics Committee on July 31, 2020 (Protocol number EzCov003). As of May 13, 2021, 120 participants have been enrolled into the study.

Conclusions

SARS-CoV-2SS may offer many benefits to individuals, by allowing for initial self-identification of symptoms and collection of samples without involving third parties and potential risk of infection provided the sample can be safely processed via a collection system. The results of this study will provide preliminary data on the acceptability, feasibility, and usability of SARS-CoV-2SS among the general population for its future implementation.

International registered report identifier (irrid)

DERR1-10.2196/24811.

SUBMITTER: Majam M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8166267 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundThe diagnostic accuracy of unsupervised self-testing with rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) is mostly unknown. We studied the diagnostic accuracy of a self-performed SARS-CoV-2 saliva and nasal Ag-RDT in the general population.MethodsThis large cross-sectional study consecutively included unselected individuals aged ≥ 16 years presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing at three public health service test sites. Participants underwent molecular test sampling and received two self-tests (the Hangzhou AllTest Biotech saliva self-test and the SD Biosensor nasal self-test by Roche Diagnostics) to perform themselves at home. Diagnostic accuracy of both self-tests was assessed with molecular testing as reference.ResultsOut of 2819 participants, 6.5% had a positive molecular test. Overall sensitivities were 46.7% (39.3-54.2%) for the saliva Ag-RDT and 68.9% (61.6-75.6%) for the nasal Ag-RDT. With a viral load cut-off (≥ 5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL) as a proxy of infectiousness, these sensitivities increased to 54.9% (46.4-63.3%) and 83.9% (76.9-89.5%), respectively. For the nasal Ag-RDT, sensitivities were 78.5% (71.1-84.8%) and 22.6% (9.6-41.1%) in those symptomatic and asymptomatic at the time of sampling, which increased to 90.4% (83.8-94.9%) and 38.9% (17.3-64.3%) after applying the viral load cut-off. In those with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, sensitivities were 36.8% (16.3-61.6%) and 72.7% (65.1-79.4%). Specificities were > 99% and > 99%, positive predictive values > 70% and > 90%, and negative predictive values > 95% and > 95%, for the saliva and nasal Ag-RDT, respectively, in most analyses. Most participants considered the self-performing and result interpretation (very) easy for both self-tests.ConclusionsThe Hangzhou AllTest Biotech saliva self Ag-RDT is not reliable for SARS-CoV-2 detection, overall, and in all studied subgroups. The SD Biosensor nasal self Ag-RDT had high sensitivity in individuals with symptoms and in those without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection but low sensitivity in asymptomatic individuals and those with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection which warrants further investigation.