Sensitivity and Specificity of Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection Using Different Sampling Methods: A Clinical Unicentral Study

Faisal Alonaizan, Jehan AlHumaid, Reem AlJindan, Sumit Bedi, Heba Dardas, Dalia Abdulfattah, Hanadi Ashour, Mohammed AlShahrani and Omar Omar
Additional contact information
Faisal Alonaizan: Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 34212, Saudi Arabia
Jehan AlHumaid: Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 34212, Saudi Arabia
Reem AlJindan: Department of Microbiology, College of Medicine, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 34212, Saudi Arabia
Sumit Bedi: Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 34212, Saudi Arabia
Heba Dardas: Emergency Department, King Fahad University Hospital, Al Khobar 34445, Saudi Arabia
Dalia Abdulfattah: Clinical Nursing Supervisor Operating Room, King Fahad University Hospital, Al Khobar 34445, Saudi Arabia
Hanadi Ashour: College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 34212, Saudi Arabia
Mohammed AlShahrani: Department of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 34212, Saudi Arabia
Omar Omar: Department of Biomedical Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 34212, Saudi Arabia

IJERPH, 2022, vol. 19, issue 11, 1-10

Abstract: Rapid antigen detection of SARS-CoV-2 has been widely used. However, there is no consensus on the best sampling method. This study aimed to determine the level of agreement between SARS-CoV-2 fluorescent detection and a real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), using different swab methods. Fifty COVID-19 and twenty-six healthy patients were confirmed via rRT-PCR, and each patient was sampled via four swab methods: oropharyngeal (O), nasal (N), spit saliva (S), and combined O/N/S swabs. Each swab was analyzed using an immunofluorescent Quidel system. The combined O/N/S swab provided the highest sensitivity (86%; Kappa = 0.8), followed by nasal (76%; Kappa = 0.68), whereas the saliva revealed the lowest sensitivity (66%; kappa = 0.57). Further, when considering positive detection in any of the O, N, and S samples, excellent agreements with rRT-PCR were achieved (Kappa = 0.91 and 0.97, respectively). Finally, among multiple factors, only patient age revealed a significant negative association with antigenic detection in the saliva. It is concluded that immunofluorescent detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen is a reliable method for rapid diagnosis under circumstances where at least two swabs, one nasal and one oropharyngeal, are analyzed. Alternatively, a single combined O/N/S swab would improve the sensitivity in contrast to each site swabbed alone.

Keywords: coronavirus/SARS-CoV-2; diagnostic systems; fluorescent immunoassay; oropharyngeal swab; nasal swab; saliva swab (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/11/6836/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/11/6836/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:11:p:6836-:d:830940

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().