PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Niklaus D Labhardt
AU  - Lucia González Fernández
AU  - Bulemba Katende
AU  - Josephine Muhairwe
AU  - Moniek Bresser
AU  - Alain Amstutz
AU  - Tracy R Glass
AU  - Morten Ruhwald
AU  - Jilian A Sacks
AU  - Camille Escadafal
AU  - Mathabo Mareka
AU  - Mooko Sekhele Mookho
AU  - Margaretha de Vos
AU  - Klaus Reither
TI  - Head-to-head comparison of nasal and nasopharyngeal sampling using SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing in Lesotho
AID  - 10.1101/2021.12.29.21268505
DP  - 2022 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.12.29.21268505
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/01/2021.12.29.21268505.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/01/2021.12.29.21268505.full
AB  - Objectives To assess the real-world diagnostic performance of nasal and nasopharyngeal swabs for SD Biosensor STANDARD Q COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Test (Ag-RDT).Methods Individuals ≥5 years with COVID-19 compatible symptoms or history of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 presenting at hospitals in Lesotho received two nasopharyngeal and one nasal swab. Ag-RDT from nasal and nasopharyngeal swabs were performed as point-of-care on site, the second nasopharyngeal swab used for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as the reference standard.Results Out of 2198 participants enrolled, 2131 had a valid PCR result (61% female, median age 41 years, 8% children), 84.5% were symptomatic. Overall PCR positivity rate was 5.8%. The sensitivity for nasopharyngeal, nasal, and combined nasal and nasopharyngeal Ag-RDT result was 70.2% (95%CI: 61.3-78.0), 67.3% (57.3-76.3) and 74.4% (65.5-82.0), respectively. The respective specificity was 97.9% (97.1-98.4), 97.9% (97.2-98.5) and 97.5% (96.7-98.2). For both sampling modalities, sensitivity was higher in participants with symptom duration ≤ 3days versus ≤ 7days. Agreement between nasal and nasopharyngeal Ag-RDT was 99.4%.Conclusions The STANDARD Q Ag-RDT showed high specificity. Sensitivity was, however, below the WHO recommended minimum requirement of ≥ 80%. The high agreement between nasal and nasopharyngeal sampling suggests that for Ag-RDT nasal sampling is a good alternative to nasopharyngeal sampling.Highlights- Prospective study on real-world diagnostic performance of nasal and nasopharyngeal SD Biosensor STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test in 2131 participants in a rural African setting- The sensitivity of the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test was below the World Health Organization requirement of ≥ 80% but met the specificity requirement of ≥97%.- Sensitivity was higher in the following subpopulations: persons with symptoms ≤3 days, and Ct value < 25.- In head-to-head comparison nasal and nasopharyngeal sampling had comparable sensitivity and specificity and an overall test agreement of 99.4%, indicating that the more convenient nasal sampling could be used for SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests.- 24 of the 2131 participants with COVID-19 symptoms had pulmonary tuberculosis with a positive Xpert Ultra test on sputum.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by Botnar Research Centre for Child Health (BRCCH)as part of the Multi-Investigator Project/Fast Track Call for Acute Global Health Challenges [grant numbers: DZX2167, DZX2168]. This work was also funded as part of FIND's work as co-convener of the diagnostics pillar of the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator, including support from the government of the Netherlands and the World Health Organization. NDL receives his salary through an Eccellenza Professorship Grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation (PCEFP3_181355).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 Ethics Committee of Switzerland (Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz, Approval ID: AO_2020-00018) gave approval and the ethics committee of Lesotho, National Health and Research Ethic Committee (NH-REC, Approval-ID: ID-107-2020) gave approval. Both approval letters are available as supplementary material.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.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 data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript