Head-to-head comparison of the accuracy of saliva and nasal rapid antigen SARS-CoV-2 self-testing: cross-sectional study.
Antigen test
COVID-19
Cross-sectional Study
Diagnostic test accuracy
Nasal test
Rapid antigen detection test
SARS-CoV-2
Saliva test
Journal
BMC medicine
ISSN: 1741-7015
Titre abrégé: BMC Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190723
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 10 2022
24 10 2022
Historique:
received:
14
03
2022
accepted:
11
10
2022
entrez:
25
10
2022
pubmed:
26
10
2022
medline:
27
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The 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. This 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. Out 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. The 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The 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.
METHODS
This 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.
RESULTS
Out 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.
CONCLUSIONS
The 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36280827
doi: 10.1186/s12916-022-02603-x
pii: 10.1186/s12916-022-02603-x
pmc: PMC9590385
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antigens, Viral
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
406Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Nat Commun. 2021 Jan 11;12(1):267
pubmed: 33431879
J Clin Virol. 2021 Aug;141:104874
pubmed: 34144452
Ann Intern Med. 2021 Apr;174(4):501-510
pubmed: 33428446
PLoS One. 2021 Dec 22;16(12):e0260894
pubmed: 34936659
Euro Surveill. 2021 Nov;26(44):
pubmed: 34738515
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2022 May;28(5):695-700
pubmed: 34363945
Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 Sep;21(9):1233-1245
pubmed: 33857405
Eur Respir J. 2021 Apr 15;57(4):
pubmed: 33303544
BMC Med. 2022 Feb 24;20(1):97
pubmed: 35197052
Med Microbiol Immunol. 2021 Aug;210(4):181-186
pubmed: 34028625
BMJ. 2021 Jul 27;374:n1676
pubmed: 34315770
BMJ. 2015 Oct 28;351:h5527
pubmed: 26511519
Emerg Infect Dis. 2021 May;27(5):1323-1329
pubmed: 33724916
J Infect. 2021 Oct;83(4):e9-e10
pubmed: 34384812
PLoS Med. 2021 Aug 12;18(8):e1003735
pubmed: 34383750
Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 Aug 28;11(9):
pubmed: 34573909
Microbiol Spectr. 2021 Dec 22;9(3):e0046821
pubmed: 34730436
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021 Oct;101(2):115441
pubmed: 34186320
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 May 1;3(5):e209673
pubmed: 32437576