ABSTRACT
Background The use of rapid antigen diagnostics tests (Ag-RDT) has gained widespread acceptance as an alternative method for diagnosis of COVID-19 outside of health care settings. Various authors have reported that saliva is a reliable specimen, alternative to nasopharyngeal and mid-nasal swabs, to detect SARS-CoV-2 infections by RT-PCR. We assessed the performance of buccal swabs containing saliva for SARS-CoV-2 detection by Ag-RDT, using mid-nasal specimens as a reference in the northern area of Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain)
Methods In the context of routine clinical diagnosis of mild COVID-19 patients, we enrolled 300 adults in a study to directly compare mid-nasal swabs and saliva specimens for SARS-CoV-2 detection by Ag-RDT.. When mid-nasal and buccal Ag-RDTs showed discordant results, a third mid-nasal swab was collected and analysed by RT-PCR.
Results Paired samples were successfully obtained in 300 suspected cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of the 300 paired samples, Ag-RDT with the mid-nasal swab detected 139 (46.3%) positive COVID-19 cases. In comparison, buccal swabs showed a sensitivity and specificity of 31.7% (44/139) and 98.8% (159/161), respectively. 65 discordant results with positive mid-nasal swabs and negative buccal swabs were tested by RT-qPCR. All samples tested by Rt-PCR resulted positive, with a mean cycle threshold (Ct) of 28.3 (SD 7.3).
Conclusion Our findings show that mid-nasal swabs have better performance than buccal swabs for detecting SARS-CoV-2 with Ag-RDT tests. Of note, the sensitivity of buccal samples was affected in samples with high viral loads (Ct<33), suggesting that buccal swabs might not be sensitive enough to detect individuals at risk of transmission. Taken together, the existing literature and the results provided in our analysis we advise against the use of buccal specimens for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics with Ag-RDT.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The study received support and funded of the Gerencia Territorial Metropolitana Nord, Direccio Atencio Primaria Metropolitana Nord, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol (Institut Catala de la Salut).
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:
The study was conducted according to the Helsinki Declaration of the World Medical Association. The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee at IDIAP Jordi Gol and the institutional review boards of participating centres (P22/022). All patients provided written informed consent before enrolling the study, which was supervised by an independent data and safety monitoring board.
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 produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
