Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • For authors
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Author FAQs
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • For authors
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Author FAQs
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

Head-to-head comparison of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test with professional-collected nasal versus nasopharyngeal swab

Andreas K. Lindner, Olga Nikolai, Chiara Rohardt, Susen Burock, Claudia Hülso, Alisa Bölke, Maximilian Gertler, Lisa J. Krüger, Mary Gaeddert, Frank Tobian, Federica Lainati, Joachim Seybold, Terry C. Jones, Jörg Hofmann, Jilian A. Sacks, Frank P. Mockenhaupt, Claudia M. Denkinger
European Respiratory Journal 2021; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.04430-2020
Andreas K. Lindner
1Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt- Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health; Institute of Tropical Medicine and International Health, Berlin, Germany
11Authors contributed equally
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Olga Nikolai
1Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt- Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health; Institute of Tropical Medicine and International Health, Berlin, Germany
11Authors contributed equally
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chiara Rohardt
1Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt- Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health; Institute of Tropical Medicine and International Health, Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Susen Burock
2Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt- Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health; Charité Comprehensive Cancer Center, Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Claudia Hülso
1Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt- Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health; Institute of Tropical Medicine and International Health, Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alisa Bölke
1Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt- Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health; Institute of Tropical Medicine and International Health, Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Maximilian Gertler
1Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt- Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health; Institute of Tropical Medicine and International Health, Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lisa J. Krüger
3Division of Clinical Tropical Medicine, Center of Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mary Gaeddert
3Division of Clinical Tropical Medicine, Center of Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Mary Gaeddert
Frank Tobian
3Division of Clinical Tropical Medicine, Center of Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Federica Lainati
3Division of Clinical Tropical Medicine, Center of Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joachim Seybold
4Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt- Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Medical Directorate, Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Joachim Seybold
Terry C. Jones
5Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt- Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health; Institute of Virology, Berlin, Germany
6German Centre for Infection Research (DZIF), partner site Charité, Berlin, Germany
7Centre for Pathogen Evolution, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jörg Hofmann
8Labor Berlin - Charité Vivantes GmbH, Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jilian A. Sacks
9Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, Geneva, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Frank P. Mockenhaupt
1Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt- Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health; Institute of Tropical Medicine and International Health, Berlin, Germany
12Authors contributed equally
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Frank P. Mockenhaupt
Claudia M. Denkinger
3Division of Clinical Tropical Medicine, Center of Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
10German Centre for Infection Research (DZIF), partner site Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
12Authors contributed equally
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Professional nasal sampling is a reliable alternative to nasopharyngeal sampling when using a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test. This less invasive method can be performed with less training and can facilitate rapid scaling of antigen testing strategies.

To the Editor:

Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are likely to play a substantial role in innovative testing strategies for SARS-CoV-2 [1, 2]. Currently, most Ag-RDTs require nasopharyngeal (NP) sampling performed by qualified healthcare professionals. Nasal sampling would enable scaling of antigen testing strategies. The term nasal sampling is often not used uniformly but can be differentiated in anterior nasal sampling (entire absorbent tip of the swab, usually 1 to 1.5 cm, inserted into nostril), and nasal mid-turbinate (as described below) [3].

We conducted a prospective diagnostic accuracy study with the objective to directly compare the performance of professional-collected nasal mid-turbinate (NMT) versus NP swab, using a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. The reference standard was RT-PCR collected from a combined NP/oropharyngeal (OP) swab. The study was continued until 30 positive NP swab samples according to Ag-RDT were obtained, which is the minimum recommended by the WHO Emergency Use Listing Procedure to demonstrate sample type equivalency [4]. This manufacturer-independent study was conducted in partnership with the Foundation of Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), the WHO collaborating centre for COVID-19 diagnostics.

Adults at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection according to clinical suspicion who attended the ambulatory SARS-CoV-2 testing facility of Charité University Hospital Berlin, Germany, were enrolled from 11 to 18 November 2020. Participants were excluded if either of the swabs for the Ag-RDT or the RT-PCR reference standard could not be collected.

Participants had to blow once the nose with a tissue. Afterwards, a NMT-sample was collected on both sides of the nose, using the specific nasal swab provided in the test kit of the manufacturer, according to the instructions for use, which also correspond to the U.S. CDC instructions [3]. Briefly, while tilting the patient's head back 70 degrees, the swab was inserted about 2 cm into each nostril, parallel to the palate until resistance was met at turbinates, then rotated 3–4 times against the nasal walls. Subsequently, a separate NP-swab (provided in the manufacturer test kit) for the Ag-RDT and a combined OP/NP-swab (eSwab from Copan placed in 1 mL Amies medium) as per institutional recommendations for RT-PCR were taken from different sides of the nose.

The Ag-RDT evaluated was the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test (sd Biosensor, Inc. Gyeonggi-do, Korea; henceforth called STANDARD Q) [5]. Study procedures followed the same process as described in the prior study by Lindner et al. [6]. While the test is commercially available as NP-sampling kit, the nasal-sampling kit is currently available for “research use only” by the manufacturer. The instructions for use of the two test kits showed differences, with a more elaborate extraction process (stirring the swab at least 10 versus 5 times) and a higher volume of extracted specimen (4 versus 3 drops) used for testing of nasal samples.

Of 181 patients invited, 180 (99.4%) consented to participate. One patient was excluded as both swabs for the Ag-RDT could not be obtained. The average age of participants was 36.2 years (Standard Deviation [sd] 12.2) with 48.0% female and 14.5% having comorbidities. On the day of testing, 96.1% of participants had one or more symptoms consistent with COVID-19. Duration of symptoms at the time of presentation on average was 4.2 days (sd 2.6). Among the 179 participants, 41 (22.9%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR (table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Antigen-detecting RDT results with a professional-collected NMT swab and NP swab in RT-PCR positive patients from combined OP/NP swab

No invalid Ag-RDT results were observed on either NMT- or NP-samples. Four patients tested positive by NMT- but not by NP-sampling. One patient was positive by NP-sampling only. The positive percent agreement was 93.5% (95% CI 79.3–98.2); including one false positive result with NMT and one with NP. The negative percent agreement was 95.9% (95% CI 91.4–98.1). Inter-rater reliability was high (kappa 0.95 for NMT; 0.98 for NP). In the semi-quantitative read-out of the test band intensity in double positive pairs, there was no remarkable difference (8 higher on NMT, 9 higher on NP). A third reader was necessary for the agreement on the results of three tests for which the test band was very weak.

The STANDARD Q Ag-RDT with NMT-sampling showed a sensitivity of 80.5% (33/41 PCR positives detected; CI 66.0–89.8) and specificity of 98.6% (95% CI 94.9–99.6) compared to RT-PCR. The sensitivity with NP-sampling was 73.2% (30/41 PCR positives detected; 95% CI 58.1–84.3) and specificity was 99.3% (95% CI 96.0–100). In patients with high viral load (>7.0 log10 SARS-CoV2 RNA copies/swab), the sensitivity of the Ag-RDT with NMT-sampling was 100% (19/19 PCR positives detected; 95% CI 83.9–100) and 94.7% (18/19 PCR positives detected; 95% CI 76.4–99.7) with NP-sampling. In contrast, the Ag-RDT more frequently did not detect patients with lower viral load or with symptoms >7 days (table 1), as commonly observed in studies on Ag-RDTs [7, 8].

The strengths of the study are the standardised sampling methods, two independent blinded readers and an additional semi-quantitative assessment of Ag-RDT results. The cohort was representative, judging from the comparable sensitivity observed in the recent independent validation study of STANDARD Q (sensitivity 76.6%; 95% CI 62.8–86.4) [9]. The study is limited as it was performed in a single centre. Theoretically, the previous NMT sample collection could have negatively influenced the test result of the NP sample in patients with a low viral load.

In conclusion, this study demonstrates that sensitivity of a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT using professional nasal-sampling kit is at least equal to that of NP-sampling kit, although confidence intervals overlap. Of note, differences in the instructions for use of the test procedures could have contributed to different sensitivities. NMT-sampling can be performed with less training, reduces patient discomfort, and enables scaling of antigen testing strategies. Additional studies of patient self-sampling should be considered to further facilitate scale-up of Ag-RDT testing [6].

Acknowledgements

Heike Rössig, Mia Wintel, Franka Kausch, Elisabeth Linzbach, Katja von dem Busche, Stephanie Padberg, Melanie Bothmann, Zümrüt Tuncer, Stefanie Lunow, Beate Zimmer, Astrid Barrera Pesek, Sabrina Pein, Nicole Buchholz, Verena Haack, Oliver Deckwart.

Footnotes

  • DRKS00021220 - German Clinical Trial Registry

  • Data availability: Available data; - De-identified data that underlie the results in this paper - Study protocol - Analysis code Until 5 years after publication Available to: researchers who provide a sound proposal and all study sites agree to sharing the data Proposals should be directed towards the corresponding author

  • Author contributions: AKL, LJK, FL and CMD designed the study and developed standard operating procedures. AKL and ON implemented the study design, enrolled patients, performed laboratory work and led the writing of the manuscript. FPM and JS coordinated and supervised the study site. CR, SB, CH, AB enrolled patients. MGe coordinated the testing facility. MGa and FT led the data analysis. TCJ and JH were responsible for PCR testing and contributed to the interpretation of the data. JAS supported the study design setup and the interpretation of the data. All authors have reviewed the manuscript.

  • Support statement: The study was supported by FIND, Heidelberg University Hospital and Charité University Hospital internal funds, as well as a grant of the Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts of Baden-Württemberg, Germany. FIND provided input on the study design, and data analysis in collaboration with the rest of the study team. Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst Baden-Württemberg; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100003542; Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND).

  • Conflict of interest: Dr. Lindner has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: Dr. Nikolai has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: Dr. Rohardt has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: Dr. Burock has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: Dr. Hülso has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: Dr. Bölke has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: Dr. Gertler has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: Lisa Johanna Krüger has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: Dr. Gaeddert has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: Mr. Tobian has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: Dr. Lainati has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: Dr. Seybold has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: Dr. Jones has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: Dr. Hofmann has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: Dr. Sacks reports grants from UK Department of International Development (DFID, recently replaced by FCMO), grants from World Health Organization (WHO), grants from Unitaid, during the conduct of the study.

  • Conflict of interest: Dr. Mockenhaupt has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: Dr. Denkinger reports grants from Foundation of Innovative Diagnostics, grants from Ministry of Science, Research and Culture, State of Baden Wuerttemberg, Germany, during the conduct of the study.

  • Received December 6, 2020.
  • Accepted January 24, 2021.
  • ©The authors 2021.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org

References

  1. ↵
    European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Options for the use of rapid antigen tests for COVID-19 in the EU/EEA and the UK. www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/options-use-rapid-antigen-tests-covid-19-eueea-and-uk. Date last accessed: November 21, 2020.
  2. ↵
    European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Surveillance of COVID-19 at long-term care facilities in the EU/EEA. www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/surveillance-COVID-19-long-term-care-facilities-EU-EEA. Date last accessed: November 21, 2020.
  3. ↵
    CDC. Interim Guidelines for Collecting, Handling, and Testing Clinical Specimens for COVID-19. www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/guidelines-clinical-specimens.html. Date last accessed: January 3, 2021.
  4. ↵
    WHO. Instructions and requirements for Emergency Use Listing (EUL) submission: In vitro diagnostics detecting SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid and rapid diagnostics tests detecting SARS-CoV-2 antigens. https://extranet.who.int/pqweb/sites/default/files/documents/PQDx_347_NAT-antigen_instructions.pdf. Version 4, June 2020. Date last accessed: November 27, 2020.
  5. ↵
    SD Biosensor. COVID-19 Ag STANDARDTM Q COVID-19 Ag Test 2020. http://sdbiosensor.com/xe/product/7672. Date last accessed: October 15, 2020.
  6. ↵
    1. Lindner AK,
    2. Nikolai O,
    3. Kausch F, et al.
    Head-to-head comparison of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test with self-collected anterior nasal swab versus professional-collected nasopharyngeal swab. medRxiv 2020. 2020.10.26.20219600.
  7. ↵
    1. Berger A,
    2. Ngo Nsoga MT,
    3. Perez-Rodriguez FJ, et al.
    Diagnostic accuracy of two commercial SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-detecting rapid tests at the point of care in community-based testing centers. medRxiv 2020. 2020.11.20.20235341.
  8. ↵
    1. Schwob JM,
    2. Miauton A,
    3. Petrovic D, et al.
    Antigen rapid tests, nasopharyngeal PCR and saliva PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2: a prospective comparative clinical trial. medRxiv 2020. 2020.11.23.20237057.
  9. ↵
    1. Krueger LJ,
    2. Gaeddert M,
    3. Koeppel L, et al.
    Evaluation of the accuracy, ease of use and limit of detection of novel, rapid, antigen-detecting point-of-care diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2. medRxiv 2020. 2020.10.01.20203836.
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 57 Issue 2 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 57 (2)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Head-to-head comparison of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test with professional-collected nasal versus nasopharyngeal swab
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Head-to-head comparison of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test with professional-collected nasal versus nasopharyngeal swab
Andreas K. Lindner, Olga Nikolai, Chiara Rohardt, Susen Burock, Claudia Hülso, Alisa Bölke, Maximilian Gertler, Lisa J. Krüger, Mary Gaeddert, Frank Tobian, Federica Lainati, Joachim Seybold, Terry C. Jones, Jörg Hofmann, Jilian A. Sacks, Frank P. Mockenhaupt, Claudia M. Denkinger
European Respiratory Journal Jan 2021, 2004430; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.04430-2020

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Head-to-head comparison of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test with professional-collected nasal versus nasopharyngeal swab
Andreas K. Lindner, Olga Nikolai, Chiara Rohardt, Susen Burock, Claudia Hülso, Alisa Bölke, Maximilian Gertler, Lisa J. Krüger, Mary Gaeddert, Frank Tobian, Federica Lainati, Joachim Seybold, Terry C. Jones, Jörg Hofmann, Jilian A. Sacks, Frank P. Mockenhaupt, Claudia M. Denkinger
European Respiratory Journal Jan 2021, 2004430; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.04430-2020
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Ethical obligations for supporting healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic
  • Is high-dose glucocorticoid beneficial in COVID-19? Response to Correspondence
  • BAL lymphocyte % is as good as the company it keeps
Show more Correspondence

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Reviewers
  • CME
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Submit a manuscript
  • ERS author centre

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2021 by the European Respiratory Society