Cargando…
Stick with the nose…Saliva rapid antigen testing is not a viable method for testing children under 5 years old
AIM: Respiratory testing with rapid antigen tests (RATs) in children under 5 years of age may be uncomfortable and presents specific challenges to testing due to compliance and procedural distress. The aim of this study was to investigate sensitivity and feasibility of self‐collected nasal and saliv...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10100334/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36401338 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jpc.16277 |
_version_ | 1785025254862618624 |
---|---|
author | Tosif, Shidan Lee, Lai‐yang Nguyen, Jill McMinn, Alissa Selman, Chris Grobler, Anneke C Daley, Andrew Crawford, Nigel W |
author_facet | Tosif, Shidan Lee, Lai‐yang Nguyen, Jill McMinn, Alissa Selman, Chris Grobler, Anneke C Daley, Andrew Crawford, Nigel W |
author_sort | Tosif, Shidan |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIM: Respiratory testing with rapid antigen tests (RATs) in children under 5 years of age may be uncomfortable and presents specific challenges to testing due to compliance and procedural distress. The aim of this study was to investigate sensitivity and feasibility of self‐collected nasal and saliva RAT tests compared with a combined nose and throat (CTN) swab PCR in children under 5. METHODS: Children aged between 1 month and 5 years, with confirmed COVID‐19 or who were a household contact within 7 days were included. A saliva RAT, nasal RAT and CTN swab were collected by the parent. SARS‐CoV‐2 cycle threshold (Ct) values for CTN tested by PCR were compared with saliva and nasal RAT results. Parent preference for method of sample was recorded. RESULTS: Forty‐one children were recruited with median age of 1.5 (interquartile range 0.7–4.0) years. Only 22/41 (54%) of parents were able to successfully collect a saliva RAT from their child. Sensitivity of the nasal RAT and saliva RAT was 0.889 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.739–0.969) and 0.158 (95% CI 0.034–0.396), respectively. Upper limit of nasal RAT detection by CTN Ct value was higher than saliva (36.05 vs. 27.29). While saliva RAT was rated most comfortable, nasal RAT was rated the preferred specimen by parents for future testing, due to saliva collection difficulties and time taken. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid antigen testing with nasal RAT is a more feasible and sensitive method for SARS‐CoV‐2 detection in young children compared with saliva RAT. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10100334 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101003342023-04-14 Stick with the nose…Saliva rapid antigen testing is not a viable method for testing children under 5 years old Tosif, Shidan Lee, Lai‐yang Nguyen, Jill McMinn, Alissa Selman, Chris Grobler, Anneke C Daley, Andrew Crawford, Nigel W J Paediatr Child Health Original Articles AIM: Respiratory testing with rapid antigen tests (RATs) in children under 5 years of age may be uncomfortable and presents specific challenges to testing due to compliance and procedural distress. The aim of this study was to investigate sensitivity and feasibility of self‐collected nasal and saliva RAT tests compared with a combined nose and throat (CTN) swab PCR in children under 5. METHODS: Children aged between 1 month and 5 years, with confirmed COVID‐19 or who were a household contact within 7 days were included. A saliva RAT, nasal RAT and CTN swab were collected by the parent. SARS‐CoV‐2 cycle threshold (Ct) values for CTN tested by PCR were compared with saliva and nasal RAT results. Parent preference for method of sample was recorded. RESULTS: Forty‐one children were recruited with median age of 1.5 (interquartile range 0.7–4.0) years. Only 22/41 (54%) of parents were able to successfully collect a saliva RAT from their child. Sensitivity of the nasal RAT and saliva RAT was 0.889 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.739–0.969) and 0.158 (95% CI 0.034–0.396), respectively. Upper limit of nasal RAT detection by CTN Ct value was higher than saliva (36.05 vs. 27.29). While saliva RAT was rated most comfortable, nasal RAT was rated the preferred specimen by parents for future testing, due to saliva collection difficulties and time taken. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid antigen testing with nasal RAT is a more feasible and sensitive method for SARS‐CoV‐2 detection in young children compared with saliva RAT. John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. 2022-11-18 2023-02 /pmc/articles/PMC10100334/ /pubmed/36401338 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jpc.16277 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Paediatrics and Child Health Division (The Royal Australasian College of Physicians). https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Tosif, Shidan Lee, Lai‐yang Nguyen, Jill McMinn, Alissa Selman, Chris Grobler, Anneke C Daley, Andrew Crawford, Nigel W Stick with the nose…Saliva rapid antigen testing is not a viable method for testing children under 5 years old |
title | Stick with the nose…Saliva rapid antigen testing is not a viable method for testing children under 5 years old |
title_full | Stick with the nose…Saliva rapid antigen testing is not a viable method for testing children under 5 years old |
title_fullStr | Stick with the nose…Saliva rapid antigen testing is not a viable method for testing children under 5 years old |
title_full_unstemmed | Stick with the nose…Saliva rapid antigen testing is not a viable method for testing children under 5 years old |
title_short | Stick with the nose…Saliva rapid antigen testing is not a viable method for testing children under 5 years old |
title_sort | stick with the nose…saliva rapid antigen testing is not a viable method for testing children under 5 years old |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10100334/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36401338 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jpc.16277 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tosifshidan stickwiththenosesalivarapidantigentestingisnotaviablemethodfortestingchildrenunder5yearsold AT leelaiyang stickwiththenosesalivarapidantigentestingisnotaviablemethodfortestingchildrenunder5yearsold AT nguyenjill stickwiththenosesalivarapidantigentestingisnotaviablemethodfortestingchildrenunder5yearsold AT mcminnalissa stickwiththenosesalivarapidantigentestingisnotaviablemethodfortestingchildrenunder5yearsold AT selmanchris stickwiththenosesalivarapidantigentestingisnotaviablemethodfortestingchildrenunder5yearsold AT groblerannekec stickwiththenosesalivarapidantigentestingisnotaviablemethodfortestingchildrenunder5yearsold AT daleyandrew stickwiththenosesalivarapidantigentestingisnotaviablemethodfortestingchildrenunder5yearsold AT crawfordnigelw stickwiththenosesalivarapidantigentestingisnotaviablemethodfortestingchildrenunder5yearsold |