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
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

e2344295

Références

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

Auteurs

Tobias Todsen (T)

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 (KK)

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 (MP)

Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Rasmus E Callesen (RE)

Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Fredrik Folke (F)

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 (H)

Center for Diagnostics, Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.

Annette Kjær Ersbøll (AK)

Copenhagen Emergency Medical Services, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
National Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Thomas Benfield (T)

Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Department of Infectious Diseases, Copenhagen University Hospital, Amager and Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark.

Tobias Gredal (T)

Copenhagen Emergency Medical Services, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Mads Klokker (M)

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 (N)

Department of Clinical Microbiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Christian von Buchwald (C)

Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH