1
|
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
|