Cargando…
A prospective diagnostic evaluation of accuracy of self-taken and healthcare worker-taken swabs for rapid COVID-19 testing
BACKGROUND: Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) developed for point of care detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen are recommended by WHO to use trained health care workers to collect samples. We hypothesised that self-taken samples are non-inferior for use with RDTs to diagnose COVID-19. We designed a prospecti...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9246218/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35771760 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270715 |
_version_ | 1784738925918552064 |
---|---|
author | Savage, Helen R. Finch, Lorna Body, Richard Watkins, Rachel L. Hayward, Gail Cook, Eloïse Cubas-Atienzar, Ana I. Cuevas, Luis E. MacPherson, Peter Adams, Emily R. |
author_facet | Savage, Helen R. Finch, Lorna Body, Richard Watkins, Rachel L. Hayward, Gail Cook, Eloïse Cubas-Atienzar, Ana I. Cuevas, Luis E. MacPherson, Peter Adams, Emily R. |
author_sort | Savage, Helen R. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) developed for point of care detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen are recommended by WHO to use trained health care workers to collect samples. We hypothesised that self-taken samples are non-inferior for use with RDTs to diagnose COVID-19. We designed a prospective diagnostic evaluation comparing self-taken and healthcare worker (HCW)-taken throat/nasal swabs to perform RDTs for SARS-CoV-2, and how these compare to RT-PCR. METHODS: Eligible participants 18 years or older with symptoms of COVID-19. 250 participants recruited at the NHS Test and Trace drive-through community PCR testing site (Liverpool, UK); one withdrew before analysis. Self-administered throat/nasal swab for the Covios® RDT, a trained HCW taken throat/nasal sample for PCR and HCW comparison throat/nasal swab for RDT were collected. RDT results were compared to RT-PCR, as the reference standard, to calculate sensitivity and specificity. FINDINGS: Seventy-five participants (75/249, 30.1%) were positive by RT-PCR. RDTs with self-taken swabs had a sensitivity of 90.5% (67/74, 95% CI: 83.9–97.2), compared to 78.4% (58/74, 95% CI: 69.0–87.8) for HCW-taken swabs (absolute difference 12.2%, 95% CI: 4.7–19.6, p = 0.003). Specificity for self-taken swabs was 99.4% (173/174, 95% CI: 98.3–100.0), versus 98.9% (172/174, 95% CI: 97.3–100.0) for HCW-taken swabs (absolute difference 0.6%, 95% CI: 0.5–1.7, p = 0.317). The PPV of self-taken RDTs (98.5%, 67/68, 95% CI: 95.7–100.0) and HCW-taken RDTs (96.7%, 58/60, 95% CI 92.1–100.0) were not significantly different (p = 0.262). However, the NPV of self-taken swab RDTs was significantly higher (96.1%, 173/180, 95% CI: 93.2–98.9) than HCW-taken RDTs (91.5%, 172/188, 95% CI 87.5–95.5, p = 0.003). INTERPRETATION: In conclusion, self-taken swabs for COVID-19 testing offer an accurate alternative to healthcare worker taken swabs for use with RDTs. Our results demonstrate that, with no training, self-taken throat/nasal samples can be used by lay individuals as part of rapid testing programmes for symptomatic adults. This is especially important where the lack of trained healthcare workers restricts access to testing. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9246218 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92462182022-07-01 A prospective diagnostic evaluation of accuracy of self-taken and healthcare worker-taken swabs for rapid COVID-19 testing Savage, Helen R. Finch, Lorna Body, Richard Watkins, Rachel L. Hayward, Gail Cook, Eloïse Cubas-Atienzar, Ana I. Cuevas, Luis E. MacPherson, Peter Adams, Emily R. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) developed for point of care detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen are recommended by WHO to use trained health care workers to collect samples. We hypothesised that self-taken samples are non-inferior for use with RDTs to diagnose COVID-19. We designed a prospective diagnostic evaluation comparing self-taken and healthcare worker (HCW)-taken throat/nasal swabs to perform RDTs for SARS-CoV-2, and how these compare to RT-PCR. METHODS: Eligible participants 18 years or older with symptoms of COVID-19. 250 participants recruited at the NHS Test and Trace drive-through community PCR testing site (Liverpool, UK); one withdrew before analysis. Self-administered throat/nasal swab for the Covios® RDT, a trained HCW taken throat/nasal sample for PCR and HCW comparison throat/nasal swab for RDT were collected. RDT results were compared to RT-PCR, as the reference standard, to calculate sensitivity and specificity. FINDINGS: Seventy-five participants (75/249, 30.1%) were positive by RT-PCR. RDTs with self-taken swabs had a sensitivity of 90.5% (67/74, 95% CI: 83.9–97.2), compared to 78.4% (58/74, 95% CI: 69.0–87.8) for HCW-taken swabs (absolute difference 12.2%, 95% CI: 4.7–19.6, p = 0.003). Specificity for self-taken swabs was 99.4% (173/174, 95% CI: 98.3–100.0), versus 98.9% (172/174, 95% CI: 97.3–100.0) for HCW-taken swabs (absolute difference 0.6%, 95% CI: 0.5–1.7, p = 0.317). The PPV of self-taken RDTs (98.5%, 67/68, 95% CI: 95.7–100.0) and HCW-taken RDTs (96.7%, 58/60, 95% CI 92.1–100.0) were not significantly different (p = 0.262). However, the NPV of self-taken swab RDTs was significantly higher (96.1%, 173/180, 95% CI: 93.2–98.9) than HCW-taken RDTs (91.5%, 172/188, 95% CI 87.5–95.5, p = 0.003). INTERPRETATION: In conclusion, self-taken swabs for COVID-19 testing offer an accurate alternative to healthcare worker taken swabs for use with RDTs. Our results demonstrate that, with no training, self-taken throat/nasal samples can be used by lay individuals as part of rapid testing programmes for symptomatic adults. This is especially important where the lack of trained healthcare workers restricts access to testing. Public Library of Science 2022-06-30 /pmc/articles/PMC9246218/ /pubmed/35771760 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270715 Text en © 2022 Savage et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Savage, Helen R. Finch, Lorna Body, Richard Watkins, Rachel L. Hayward, Gail Cook, Eloïse Cubas-Atienzar, Ana I. Cuevas, Luis E. MacPherson, Peter Adams, Emily R. A prospective diagnostic evaluation of accuracy of self-taken and healthcare worker-taken swabs for rapid COVID-19 testing |
title | A prospective diagnostic evaluation of accuracy of self-taken and healthcare worker-taken swabs for rapid COVID-19 testing |
title_full | A prospective diagnostic evaluation of accuracy of self-taken and healthcare worker-taken swabs for rapid COVID-19 testing |
title_fullStr | A prospective diagnostic evaluation of accuracy of self-taken and healthcare worker-taken swabs for rapid COVID-19 testing |
title_full_unstemmed | A prospective diagnostic evaluation of accuracy of self-taken and healthcare worker-taken swabs for rapid COVID-19 testing |
title_short | A prospective diagnostic evaluation of accuracy of self-taken and healthcare worker-taken swabs for rapid COVID-19 testing |
title_sort | prospective diagnostic evaluation of accuracy of self-taken and healthcare worker-taken swabs for rapid covid-19 testing |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9246218/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35771760 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270715 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT savagehelenr aprospectivediagnosticevaluationofaccuracyofselftakenandhealthcareworkertakenswabsforrapidcovid19testing AT finchlorna aprospectivediagnosticevaluationofaccuracyofselftakenandhealthcareworkertakenswabsforrapidcovid19testing AT bodyrichard aprospectivediagnosticevaluationofaccuracyofselftakenandhealthcareworkertakenswabsforrapidcovid19testing AT watkinsrachell aprospectivediagnosticevaluationofaccuracyofselftakenandhealthcareworkertakenswabsforrapidcovid19testing AT aprospectivediagnosticevaluationofaccuracyofselftakenandhealthcareworkertakenswabsforrapidcovid19testing AT aprospectivediagnosticevaluationofaccuracyofselftakenandhealthcareworkertakenswabsforrapidcovid19testing AT haywardgail aprospectivediagnosticevaluationofaccuracyofselftakenandhealthcareworkertakenswabsforrapidcovid19testing AT cookeloise aprospectivediagnosticevaluationofaccuracyofselftakenandhealthcareworkertakenswabsforrapidcovid19testing AT cubasatienzaranai aprospectivediagnosticevaluationofaccuracyofselftakenandhealthcareworkertakenswabsforrapidcovid19testing AT cuevasluise aprospectivediagnosticevaluationofaccuracyofselftakenandhealthcareworkertakenswabsforrapidcovid19testing AT macphersonpeter aprospectivediagnosticevaluationofaccuracyofselftakenandhealthcareworkertakenswabsforrapidcovid19testing AT adamsemilyr aprospectivediagnosticevaluationofaccuracyofselftakenandhealthcareworkertakenswabsforrapidcovid19testing AT savagehelenr prospectivediagnosticevaluationofaccuracyofselftakenandhealthcareworkertakenswabsforrapidcovid19testing AT finchlorna prospectivediagnosticevaluationofaccuracyofselftakenandhealthcareworkertakenswabsforrapidcovid19testing AT bodyrichard prospectivediagnosticevaluationofaccuracyofselftakenandhealthcareworkertakenswabsforrapidcovid19testing AT watkinsrachell prospectivediagnosticevaluationofaccuracyofselftakenandhealthcareworkertakenswabsforrapidcovid19testing AT prospectivediagnosticevaluationofaccuracyofselftakenandhealthcareworkertakenswabsforrapidcovid19testing AT prospectivediagnosticevaluationofaccuracyofselftakenandhealthcareworkertakenswabsforrapidcovid19testing AT haywardgail prospectivediagnosticevaluationofaccuracyofselftakenandhealthcareworkertakenswabsforrapidcovid19testing AT cookeloise prospectivediagnosticevaluationofaccuracyofselftakenandhealthcareworkertakenswabsforrapidcovid19testing AT cubasatienzaranai prospectivediagnosticevaluationofaccuracyofselftakenandhealthcareworkertakenswabsforrapidcovid19testing AT cuevasluise prospectivediagnosticevaluationofaccuracyofselftakenandhealthcareworkertakenswabsforrapidcovid19testing AT macphersonpeter prospectivediagnosticevaluationofaccuracyofselftakenandhealthcareworkertakenswabsforrapidcovid19testing AT adamsemilyr prospectivediagnosticevaluationofaccuracyofselftakenandhealthcareworkertakenswabsforrapidcovid19testing |