Performance of Seven SARS-CoV-2 Self-Tests Based on Saliva, Anterior Nasal and Nasopharyngeal Swabs Corrected for Infectiousness in Real-Life Conditions: A Cross-Sectional Test Accuracy Study

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F61988987%3A17110%2F21%3AA2202AB5" target="_blank" >RIV/61988987:17110/21:A2202AB5 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/71009396:_____/21:N0000001

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/11/9/1567" target="_blank" >https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/11/9/1567</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11091567" target="_blank" >10.3390/diagnostics11091567</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Performance of Seven SARS-CoV-2 Self-Tests Based on Saliva, Anterior Nasal and Nasopharyngeal Swabs Corrected for Infectiousness in Real-Life Conditions: A Cross-Sectional Test Accuracy Study

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Many studies reported good performance of nasopharyngeal swab-based antigen tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals; however, studies independently evaluating the quality of antigen tests utilizing anterior nasal swabs or saliva swabs are still rare, although such tests are widely used for mass testing. In our study, sensitivities, specificities and predictive values of seven antigen tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2 (one using nasopharyngeal swabs, two using anterior nasal swabs and four using saliva) were evaluated. In a setting of a high-capacity testing center, nasopharyngeal swabs for quantitative PCR (qPCR) were taken and, at the same time, antigen testing was performed in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions for the respective tests. In samples where qPCR and antigen tests yielded different results, virus culture was performed to evaluate the presence of the viable virus. Sensitivities and specificities of individual tests were calculated using both qPCR and qPCR corrected for viability as the reference. In addition, calculations were also performed for data categorized according to the cycle threshold and symptomatic status. The test using nasopharyngeal swabs yielded the best results (sensitivity of 80.6% relative to PCR and 91.2% when corrected for viability) while none of the remaining tests (anterior nasal swab or saliva-based tests) came even close to the WHO criteria for overall sensitivity. Hence, we advise caution when using antigen tests with alternative sampling methods without independent validation.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Performance of Seven SARS-CoV-2 Self-Tests Based on Saliva, Anterior Nasal and Nasopharyngeal Swabs Corrected for Infectiousness in Real-Life Conditions: A Cross-Sectional Test Accuracy Study

Popis výsledku anglicky

Many studies reported good performance of nasopharyngeal swab-based antigen tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals; however, studies independently evaluating the quality of antigen tests utilizing anterior nasal swabs or saliva swabs are still rare, although such tests are widely used for mass testing. In our study, sensitivities, specificities and predictive values of seven antigen tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2 (one using nasopharyngeal swabs, two using anterior nasal swabs and four using saliva) were evaluated. In a setting of a high-capacity testing center, nasopharyngeal swabs for quantitative PCR (qPCR) were taken and, at the same time, antigen testing was performed in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions for the respective tests. In samples where qPCR and antigen tests yielded different results, virus culture was performed to evaluate the presence of the viable virus. Sensitivities and specificities of individual tests were calculated using both qPCR and qPCR corrected for viability as the reference. In addition, calculations were also performed for data categorized according to the cycle threshold and symptomatic status. The test using nasopharyngeal swabs yielded the best results (sensitivity of 80.6% relative to PCR and 91.2% when corrected for viability) while none of the remaining tests (anterior nasal swab or saliva-based tests) came even close to the WHO criteria for overall sensitivity. Hence, we advise caution when using antigen tests with alternative sampling methods without independent validation.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30302 - Epidemiology

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

V - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z jinych verejnych zdroju

Rok uplatnění

2021

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Diagnostics

ISSN

2075-4418

e-ISSN

2075-4418

Svazek periodika

11

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

9

Stát vydavatele periodika

CH - Švýcarská konfederace

Počet stran výsledku

12

Strana od-do

—

Kód UT WoS článku

000699511900001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—