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
Source: Eur Respir J, 57 (5) 2004430; 10.1183/13993003.04430-2020 Abstract
Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are likely to play a substantial role in innovative testing strategies for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (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 as either 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].
Rating:
You must login to grade this presentation.
Share or cite this content
Citations should be made in the following way:
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. Head-to-head comparison of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test with professional-collected nasal versus nasopharyngeal swab. Eur Respir J, 57 (5) 2004430; 10.1183/13993003.04430-2020
You must login to share this Presentation/Article on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn or by email.
Member's Comments
Related content which might interest you:
Related content which might interest you:
Head-to-head comparison of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test with self-collected nasal swab versus professional-collected nasopharyngeal swab Source: Eur Respir J, 57 (4) 2003961; 10.1183/13993003.03961-2020 Year: 2021
Comparative study of RSV detection by two collect methodologies: nasopharyngeal aspirate and oropharyngeal rubbing Source: Eur Respir J 2005; 26: Suppl. 49, 27s Year: 2005
Accuracy of the multidisciplinary diagnosis of COVID-19 in patients with negative nasopharyngeal swabs RT-PCR, evaluated using BAL as diagnostic gold standard. Source: Virtual Congress 2021 – Bronchoscopy in the COVID - 19 era: cryobiopsy Year: 2021
Comparison of Mendel-Mantoux skin test and detection of specific CD4-T-cells with an IFN-γ assay in whole blood Source: Eur Respir J 2007; 30: Suppl. 51, 753s Year: 2007
Evaluation of mycoplasma-DNA/chlamydia-DNA infection and serology in patients with nasal polyps Source: Annual Congress 2009 - Host factors in paediatric bacterial respiratory infection Year: 2009
High sensitivity of nasopharyngeal swab for molecular diagnosis of viral respiratory infections in infants Source: Annual Congress 2007 - Bronchiolitis - viruses, treatment and outcome Year: 2007
Changes in the lung in radiological studies in children with a positive tuberculin skin test. Source: International Congress 2017 – MDRTB: detection and management Year: 2017
Gene Xpert MTB/RIF assay in bronchoscopy guided bronchial wash specimens in sputum negative pulmonary tuberculosis: Sensitive, rapid and most useful test for drug sensitive and drug resistant tuberculosis Source: International Congress 2016 – Microbiology: bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) and PCR Year: 2016
Evaluation of AMD test for detection of M.Tuberculosis in respiratory specimens Source: Eur Respir J 2003; 22: Suppl. 45, 156s Year: 2003
Limited role for bronchoalveolar lavage to exclude COVID-19 after negative upper respiratory tract swabs: a multicentre study Source: Eur Respir J, 56 (4) 2001733; 10.1183/13993003.01733-2020 Year: 2020
Correlation between nasal inflammation and COVID-19 related pneumonia evaluated by nasal cytology. Source: Virtual Congress 2021 – COVID - 19: lessons learned Year: 2021
Comparison of exercise provocation and induced sputum measurement in patients with positive methacholine provocation test Source: Eur Respir J 2005; 26: Suppl. 49, 371s Year: 2005
Diagnostic accuracy of sputum induction test compared with bronchoscopic results in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis Source: Annual Congress 2011 - Novel strategies for the diagnosis of tuberculosis Year: 2011
The tuberculin skin test and QuantiFERON test comparison in the diagnosis of latent tuberculosis infection in children Source: Annual Congress 2010 - Tuberculosis in children Year: 2010
Diagnosing TB infection in children: analysis of discordances using in vitro tests and the tuberculin skin test Source: Eur Respir J 2011; 37: 1166-1174 Year: 2011
Clinical utility of bronchial washing fluid amplified mycobacterium tuberculosis direct test Source: Annual Congress 2003 - Diagnosis of tuberculosis Year: 2003
Reduced dropout rate with interferon-γ release assays compared to tuberculin skin test for TB screening Source: Annual Congress 2007 - Gamma-interferon-based tests to diagnose tuberculosis infection and disease Year: 2007
Role of bronchial aspirate samples for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in patients with negative smear and negative Xpert MTB/Rif in sputum Source: Virtual Congress 2020 – Diagnostic challenges in tuberculosis Year: 2020
Comparative results of the QuantiFERON laboratory test with a skin test containing the recombinant protein CFP-10-ESAT-6 and a Mantoux test with 2 TE in children with chronic non-specific lung diseases and tuberculosis. Source: Virtual Congress 2020 – The young, the old and extrapulmonary tuberculosis Year: 2020