PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Andreas K. Lindner AU - Olga Nikolai AU - Chiara Rohardt AU - Susen Burock AU - Claudia Hülso AU - Alisa Bölke AU - Maximilian Gertler AU - Lisa J. Krüger AU - Mary Gaeddert AU - Frank Tobian AU - Federica Lainati AU - Joachim Seybold AU - Terry C. Jones AU - Jörg Hofmann AU - Jilian A. Sacks AU - Frank P. Mockenhaupt AU - Claudia M. Denkinger TI - Head-to-head comparison of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test with professional-collected nasal versus nasopharyngeal swab AID - 10.1101/2020.12.03.20243725 DP - 2021 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2020.12.03.20243725 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/01/11/2020.12.03.20243725.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/01/11/2020.12.03.20243725.full AB - Background Nasopharyngeal (NP) swab samples for antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) require qualified healthcare professionals and are frequently perceived as uncomfortable by patients.Methods We performed a manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study, comparing professional-collected nasal mid-turbinate (NMT) to nasopharyngeal swab, using the test kits of a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT (STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test, SD Biosensor), which is also being distributed by Roche. Individuals with high suspicion for COVID-19 infection were tested. The reference standard was RT-PCR using a combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swab sample. Percent positive and negative agreement, as well as sensitivity and specificity were calculated.Results Among the 179 participants, 41 (22.9%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. The positive percent agreement of the two different sampling techniques for the Ag-RDT was 93.5% (CI 79.3-98.2). The negative percent agreement was 95.9% (CI 91.4-98.1). The Ag-RDT with NMT-sampling showed a sensitivity of 80.5% (33/41 PCR positives detected; CI 66.0-89.8) and specificity of 98.6% (CI 94.9-99.6) compared to RT-PCR. The sensitivity with NP-sampling was 73.2% (30/41 PCR positives detected; CI 58.1-84.3) and specificity was 99.3% (CI 96.0-100). In patients with high viral load (>7.0 log10 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/swab), the sensitivity of the Ag-RDT with NMT-sampling was 100% and 94.7% with NP-sampling.Conclusion This study demonstrates that sensitivity of a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT using a professional nasal-sampling kit is at least equal to that of the NP-sampling kit, although confidence intervals overlap. Of note, differences in the IFUs of the test procedures could have contributed to different sensitivities. NMT-sampling can be performed with less training, reduces patient discomfort, and it enables scaling of antigen testing strategies. Additional studies of patient self-sampling should be considered to further facilitate the scaling-up of Ag-RDT testing.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialDRKS00021220 - German Clinical Trial RegistryFunding StatementThe study was supported by FIND, Heidelberg University Hospital and Charité University Hospital internal funds, as well as a grant of the Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts of Baden-Württemberg, Germany. FIND provided input on the study design, and data analysis in collaboration with the rest of the study team.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study protocol was approved by the ethical review committee at Heidelberg University Hospital for the study site in Berlin (registration number S-180/2020).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAll raw data and analysis code are available upon a request to the corresponding author.