COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Tests With Self-Collected vs Health Care Worker-Collected Nasal and Throat Swab Specimens: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Dec 2023
01 Dec 2023
Historique:
medline:
7
12
2023
pubmed:
6
12
2023
entrez:
6
12
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. To compare the diagnostic accuracy of self- and HCW-collected nasal vs throat swab specimens for COVID-19 rapid antigen testing. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05209178.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38055280
pii: 2812586
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.44295
pmc: PMC10701611
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT05209178']
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2344295Références
Ann Intern Med. 2022 May;175(5):682-690
pubmed: 35286144
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Jul 1;3(7):e2016382
pubmed: 32697321
J Clin Virol. 2021 Aug;141:104874
pubmed: 34144452
Diagnostics (Basel). 2022 Dec 22;13(1):
pubmed: 36611324
Nat Med. 2022 May;28(5):1031-1041
pubmed: 35361992
Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 Oct 26;11(11):
pubmed: 34829333
Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 Sep;21(9):1233-1245
pubmed: 33857405
Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 Sep 09;10(9):
pubmed: 32916801
Diagnostics (Basel). 2023 Jan 12;13(2):
pubmed: 36673094
JAMA. 2022 Sep 13;328(10):935-940
pubmed: 36018570
Thorax. 2023 Oct;78(10):1028-1034
pubmed: 37208187
N Engl J Med. 2022 Jan 20;386(3):264-272
pubmed: 34995029
Microbiol Spectr. 2022 Jun 29;10(3):e0125022
pubmed: 35652635
APMIS. 2022 Feb;130(2):95-100
pubmed: 34758150
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 28;382(22):2158-2160
pubmed: 32329972
Ann Intern Med. 2022 Oct;175(10):W119
pubmed: 36252254
JAMA. 2023 Feb 7;329(5):357-358
pubmed: 36630109
BMJ. 2013 May 16;346:f2778
pubmed: 23682043
BMJ. 2012 Oct 24;345:e6717
pubmed: 23097549
Microbiol Spectr. 2022 Aug 31;10(4):e0021722
pubmed: 35762772
Int J Infect Dis. 2021 Aug;109:195-198
pubmed: 34216732
BMJ. 2022 Sep 14;378:e071215
pubmed: 36104069
PLoS One. 2023 Jul 25;18(7):e0281972
pubmed: 37490451
Med Microbiol Immunol. 2021 Aug;210(4):181-186
pubmed: 34028625