1
|
Todsen T, Jakobsen KK, Grønlund MP, Callesen RE, Folke F, Larsen H, Ersbøll AK, Benfield T, Gredal T, Klokker M, Kirkby N, von Buchwald C. COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Tests With Self-Collected vs Health Care Worker-Collected Nasal and Throat Swab Specimens: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open 2023; 6:e2344295. [PMID: 38055280 PMCID: PMC10701611 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.44295] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/13/2023] [Accepted: 10/11/2023] [Indexed: 12/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Importance Self- or health care worker (HCW)-collected nasal swab specimens are the preferred sampling method to perform rapid antigen testing for COVID-19, but it is debated whether throat specimens can improve test sensitivity. Objective To compare the diagnostic accuracy of self- and HCW-collected nasal vs throat swab specimens for COVID-19 rapid antigen testing. Design, Setting, and Participants This per-protocol multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted from February 15 through March 25, 2022. The participants, individuals aged 16 years or older requesting a COVID-19 test for diagnostic or screening purposes, had 4 specimens collected for individual testing at 1 of 2 urban COVID-19 outpatient test centers in Copenhagen, Denmark. Interventions Participants were randomized 1:1 to self-collected or HCW-collected nasal and throat swab specimens for rapid antigen testing. Additional HCW-collected nasal and throat swab specimens for reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) were used as the reference standard. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was sensitivity to diagnose COVID-19 of a self- vs HCW-collected nasal and throat specimen for rapid antigen testing compared with RT-PCR. Results Of 2941 participants enrolled, 2674 (90.9%) had complete test results and were included in the final analysis (1535 [57.4%] women; median age, 40 years [IQR, 28-55 years]); 1074 (40.2%) had COVID-19 symptoms, and 827 (30.9%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. Health care worker-collected throat specimens had higher mean sensitivity than HCW-collected nasal specimens for rapid antigen testing (69.4% [95% CI, 65.1%-73.6%] vs 60.0% [95% CI, 55.4%-64.5%]). However, a subgroup analysis of symptomatic participants found that self-collected nasal specimens were more sensitive than self-collected throat specimens for rapid antigen testing (mean sensitivity, 71.5% [95% CI, 65.3%-77.6%] vs 58.0% [95% CI, 51.2%-64.7%]; P < .001). Combining nasal and throat specimens increased sensitivity for HCW- and self-collected specimens by 21.4 and 15.5 percentage points, respectively, compared with a single nasal specimen (both P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance This randomized clinical trial found that a single HCW-collected throat specimen had higher sensitivity for rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 than a nasal specimen. In contrast, the self-collected nasal specimens had higher sensitivity than throat specimens for symptomatic participants. Adding a throat specimen to the standard practice of collecting a single nasal specimen could improve sensitivity for rapid antigen testing in health care and home-based settings. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05209178.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tobias Todsen
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation, Capital Region, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Kathrine K. Jakobsen
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Mathias Peter Grønlund
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Rasmus E. Callesen
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Fredrik Folke
- Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Copenhagen Emergency Medical Services, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Department of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev Gentofte, Denmark
| | - Helene Larsen
- Center for Diagnostics, Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark
| | - Annette Kjær Ersbøll
- Copenhagen Emergency Medical Services, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
- National Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Thomas Benfield
- Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Copenhagen University Hospital, Amager and Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark
| | - Tobias Gredal
- Copenhagen Emergency Medical Services, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Mads Klokker
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Nikolai Kirkby
- Department of Clinical Microbiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Christian von Buchwald
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Larsen KD, Jensen MM, Homøe AS, Arndal E, Samuelsen GB, Koch A, Nielsen XC, Homøe P, Todsen T. Head-to-Head Comparison of Nasopharyngeal, Oropharyngeal and Nasal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Testing. Diagnostics (Basel) 2023; 13:diagnostics13020283. [PMID: 36673094 PMCID: PMC9857511 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13020283] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/16/2022] [Revised: 01/02/2023] [Accepted: 01/10/2023] [Indexed: 01/15/2023] Open
Abstract
Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) are considered the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 testing but are technically challenging to perform and associated with discomfort. Alternative specimens for viral testing, such as oropharyngeal swabs (OPS) and nasal swabs, may be preferable, but strong evidence regarding their diagnostic sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 testing is still missing. We conducted a head-to-head prospective study to compare the sensitivity of NPS, OPS and nasal swabs specimens for SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing. Adults with an initial positive SARS-CoV-2 test were invited to participate. All participants had OPS, NPS and nasal swab performed by an otorhinolaryngologist. We included 51 confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive participants in the study. The sensitivity was highest for OPS at 94.1% (95% CI, 87 to 100%) compared to NPS at 92.5% (95% CI, 85 to 99%) (p = 1.00) and lowest for nasal swabs at 82.4% (95% CI, 72 to 93%) (p = 0.07). Combined OPS/NPS was detected in 100% of cases, while the combined OPS/nasal swab increased the sensitivity significantly to 96.1% (95% CI, 90 to 100%) compared to that of the nasal swab alone (p = 0.03). The mean Ct value for NPS was 24.98 compared to 26.63 for OPS (p = 0.084) and 30.60 for nasal swab (p = 0.002). OPS achieved a sensitivity comparable to NPS and should be considered an equivalent alternative for SARS-CoV-2 testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kasper Daugaard Larsen
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Zealand University Hospital, 4600 Koege, Denmark
- Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +45-27633007
| | - Mads Mose Jensen
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Zealand University Hospital, 4600 Koege, Denmark
| | - Anne-Sophie Homøe
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Zealand University Hospital, 4600 Koege, Denmark
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Nordsjaellands Hospital, 3400 Hilleroed, Denmark
| | - Elisabeth Arndal
- Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
| | | | - Anders Koch
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
- Staten Serum Institut (SSI), 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Xiaohui Chen Nielsen
- Department of Clinical Microbiology, Zealand University Hospital, 4600 Koege, Denmark
| | - Preben Homøe
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Zealand University Hospital, 4600 Koege, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, 1353 Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Tobias Todsen
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Zealand University Hospital, 4600 Koege, Denmark
- Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, 1353 Copenhagen, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|