Search

Although the nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of the SARS-CoV-2 infection, the Nasal Mid-Turbinate swab (NMTS) is often used due to its higher tolerance among patients. We compared the diagnostic performance of the NPS and the NMTS for the Panbio™ COVID-19 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT). Two hundred and forty-three individuals were swabbed three times by healthcare professionals: a NMTS and a NPS specimen for the Ag-RDT and an oropharyngeal swab for real time RT-PCR. Forty-nine participants were RNA-SARS-CoV-2 positive by real time RT-PCR: 45 and 40 were positive by the Ag-RDT with NPS and NMTS, respectively. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 91.8% (95% CI: 83.2–100.0) and 99.5% (95% CI: 98.2–100.0) for Ag-RDT with NPS, and 81.6% (95% CI: 69.8–93.5) and 100.0% (95% CI: 99.7–100.0) for the Ag-RDT with NMTS. The Cohen’s kappa index was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.85–0.98). Among asymptomatic individuals, the Ag-RDT with both sampling techniques showed a high sensitivity [100.0% (95% CI: 95.5–100.0) with NPS; 90.9% (95% CI: 69.4–100.0) with NMTS], while the performance of the test decreased in samples with Ct≥ 30 and in patients tested after the first 7 days from symptom onset. Although the NMTS yielded a lower sensitivity compared to NPS, it might be considered a reliable alternative, as it presents greater adherence among patients, enabling scaling of antigen testing strategies, particularly in countries with under-resourced health systems.

Background The current COVID-19 pandemic has overloaded the diagnostic capacity of laboratories by the gold standard method rRT-PCR. This disease has a high spread rate and almost a quarter of infected individuals never develop symptoms. In this scenario, active surveillance is crucial to stop the virus propagation. Methods Between July 2020 and April 2021, 11,580 oropharyngeal swab samples collected in closed and semi-closed institutions were processed for SARS-CoV-2 detection in pools, implementing this strategy for the first time in Córdoba, Argentina. Five-sample pools were constituted before nucleic acid extraction and amplification by rRT-PCR. Comparative analysis of cycle threshold (Ct) values from positive pools and individual samples along with a cost-benefit report of the whole performance of the results was performed. Results From 2,314 5-sample pools tested, 158 were classified as positive (6.8%), 2,024 as negative (87.5%), and 132 were categorized as indeterminate (5.7%). The Ct value shift due to sample dilution showed an increase in Ct of 2.6±1.53 cycles for N gene and 2.6±1.78 for ORF1ab gene. Overall, 290 pools were disassembled and 1,450 swabs were analyzed individually. This strategy allowed correctly identifying 99.8% of the samples as positive (7.6%) or negative (92.2%), avoiding the execution of 7,806 rRT-PCR reactions which represents a cost saving of 67.5%. Conclusion This study demonstrates the feasibility of pooling samples to increase the number of tests performed, helping to maximize molecular diagnostic resources and reducing the work overload of specialized personnel during active surveillance of the COVID-19 pandemic.