1
|
Hartvigsen B, Jakobsen KK, Benfield T, Gredal NT, Ersbøll AK, Grønlund MW, Bundgaard H, Andersen MP, Steenhard N, von Buchwald C, Todsen T. Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2 From Throat Swabs Performed With or Without Specimen Collection From the Tonsils: Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Res Protoc 2024; 13:e47446. [PMID: 38865190 DOI: 10.2196/47446] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2023] [Revised: 01/22/2024] [Accepted: 01/23/2024] [Indexed: 06/13/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Testing for SARS-CoV-2 is essential to provide early COVID-19 treatment for people at high risk of severe illness and to limit the spread of infection in society. Proper upper respiratory specimen collection is the most critical step in the diagnosis of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in public settings, and throat swabs were the preferred specimens used for mass testing in many countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is still a discussion about whether throat swabs have a high enough sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing, as previous studies have reported a large variability in the sensitivity from 52% to 100%. Many previous studies exploring the diagnostic accuracy of throat swabs lack a detailed description of the sampling technique, which makes it difficult to compare the different diagnostic accuracy results. Some studies perform a throat swab by only collecting specimens from the posterior oropharyngeal wall, while others also include a swab of the palatine tonsils for SARS-CoV-2 testing. However, studies suggest that the palatine tonsils could have a tissue tropism for SARS-CoV-2 that may improve the SARS-CoV-2 detection during sampling. This may explain the variation of sensitivity reported, but no clinical studies have yet explored the differences in sensitivity and patient discomfort whether the palatine tonsils are included during the throat swab or not. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to examine the sensitivity and patient discomfort of a throat swab including the palatine tonsils compared to only swabbing the posterior oropharyngeal wall in molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2. METHODS We will conduct a randomized controlled study to compare the molecular detection rate of SARS-CoV-2 by a throat swab performed from the posterior oropharyngeal wall and the palatine tonsils (intervention group) or the posterior oropharyngeal wall only (control group). Participants will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio. All participants fill out a baseline questionnaire upon enrollment in the trial, examining their reason for being tested, symptoms, and previous tonsillectomy. A follow-up questionnaire will be sent to participants to explore the development of symptoms after testing. RESULTS A total of 2315 participants were enrolled in this study between November 10, 2022, and December 22, 2022. The results from the follow-up questionnaire are expected to be completed at the beginning of 2024. CONCLUSIONS This randomized clinical trial will provide us with information about whether throat swabs including specimens from the palatine tonsils will improve the diagnostic sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection. These results can, therefore, be used to improve future testing recommendations and provide additional information about tissue tropism for SARS-CoV-2. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05611203; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05611203. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/47446.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benedikte Hartvigsen
- Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Kathrine Kronberg Jakobsen
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Thomas Benfield
- Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Amager and Hvidovre, Copenhagen University Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark
| | - Niels Tobias Gredal
- Copenhagen Emergency Medical Services, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Annette Kjær Ersbøll
- Copenhagen Emergency Medical Services, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
- National Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | - Mathias Waldemar Grønlund
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Henning Bundgaard
- Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Department of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | | | - Nina Steenhard
- TestCenter Danmark, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Christian von Buchwald
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Tobias Todsen
- Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Tornberg EC, Tomlinson A, Oshiro NTT, Derfalie E, Ali RA, Curlin ME. Comparative Performance of COVID-19 Test Methods in Healthcare Workers during the Omicron Wave. Diagnostics (Basel) 2024; 14:986. [PMID: 38786285 PMCID: PMC11120500 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14100986] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2024] [Revised: 05/04/2024] [Accepted: 05/07/2024] [Indexed: 05/25/2024] Open
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic presents unique requirements for accessible, reliable testing, and many testing platforms and sampling techniques have been developed over the course of the pandemic. Not all test methods have been systematically compared to each other or a common gold standard, and the performance of tests developed in the early epidemic have not been consistently re-evaluated in the context of new variants. We conducted a repeated measures study with adult healthcare workers presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing. Participants were tested using seven testing modalities. Test sensitivity was compared using any positive PCR test as the gold standard. A total of 325 individuals participated in the study. PCR tests were the most sensitive (saliva PCR 0.957 ± 0.048, nasopharyngeal PCR 0.877 ± 0.075, oropharyngeal PCR 0.849 ± 0.082). Standard nasal rapid antigen tests were less sensitive but roughly equivalent (BinaxNOW 0.613 ± 0.110, iHealth 0.627 ± 0.109). Oropharyngeal rapid antigen tests were the least sensitive (BinaxNOW 0.400 ± 0.111, iHealth brands 0.311 ± 0.105). PCR remains the most sensitive testing modality for the diagnosis of COVID-19 and saliva PCR is significantly more sensitive than oropharyngeal PCR and equivalent to nasopharyngeal PCR. Nasal AgRDTs are less sensitive than PCR but have benefits in convenience and accessibility. Saliva-based PCR testing is a viable alternative to traditional swab-based PCR testing for the diagnosis of COVID-19.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma C. Tornberg
- Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR 97239, USA (M.E.C.)
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Van der Moeren N, Zwart VF, Louise van Leest M, Thijssen M, Groenewegen R, Heer MKD, Murk JL, Tjhie JT, Diederen BMW, Stohr JJJM. A SARS-CoV-2 and influenza rapid antigen test-based hospital isolation policy awaiting RT-PCR, a prospective observational study. Clin Microbiol Infect 2023; 29:1595-1599. [PMID: 37739262 DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2023.09.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2023] [Revised: 08/30/2023] [Accepted: 09/14/2023] [Indexed: 09/24/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES This study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of a combined SARS-CoV-2/influenza rapid antigen test (SIRAT) and to evaluate a SIRAT-based hospital isolation policy awaiting RT-PCR results for patients presenting at the emergency department (ED). METHODS We performed a prospective observational study including all adult patients presenting with influenza-like symptoms at the ED of two hospitals from 31 October 2022 to 31 March 2023. A SIRAT and SARS-CoV-2 and influenza RT-PCR were performed on upper respiratory samples. SIRAT results were compared with RT-PCR. Droplet and contact isolation measures (DCIM) were imposed based on SIRAT results awaiting RT-PCR. We monitored symptomatic nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 and influenza infections potentially caused by delayed isolation of patients with false negative SIRAT and the hours of unnecessary DCIM saved. RESULTS We included 1740 patients of whom 1296 were hospitalized. SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B prevalence were 12.7% (221/1740) and 9.9% (171/1740). Sensitivity and specificity of the SIRAT were 67.7% (95% CI 61.1-73.9%) (149/220) and 99.4% (95% CI 99.0-99.8%) (1510/1518) for SARS-CoV-2 and 52.7% (95% CI 44.9-60.4%) (89/169) and 99.1% (95% CI 98.5-99.5%) (1530/1544) for influenza A/B. We found a 0% nosocomial transmission risk for SARS-CoV-2 (95% CI 0-8.8%) and influenza (95% CI 0-10%). In all, 8712 hours in total or a median up to 6 hours 59 minutes (IQR (interquartile range) 11h03) per patient of unnecessary DCIM were saved. DISCUSSION A SIRAT-guided hospital isolation policy awaiting RT-PCR results for patients who present at the ED can save unnecessary isolation hours without having to lead to significant symptomatic nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 or influenza viruses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nathalie Van der Moeren
- Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands; Microvida, Laboratory of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
| | - Vivian F Zwart
- Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands; Microvida, Laboratory of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands
| | - Marie Louise van Leest
- Emergency Department, Bravis Hospital, Roosendaal, The Netherlands; Emergency Department, Bravis Hospital, Bergen op Zoom, The Netherlands
| | - Marcel Thijssen
- Emergency Department, Bravis Hospital, Roosendaal, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - Jean-Luc Murk
- Microvida, Laboratory of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands
| | - Jeroen T Tjhie
- Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands
| | - Bram M W Diederen
- Microvida, Laboratory of Medical Microbiology, Bravis Hospital, Roosendaal, The Netherlands
| | - Joep J J M Stohr
- Microvida, Laboratory of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
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 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.44295] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [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
|
5
|
Kohn MA. Comparing tests in the absence of a reference standard. Thorax 2023; 78:953-954. [PMID: 37400249 DOI: 10.1136/thorax-2023-220405] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/08/2023] [Indexed: 07/05/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Michael A Kohn
- Epidemiology and Biostatistics, UCSF, San Francisco, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|