Self-swabbing versus assisted swabbing for viral detection by qRT-PCR: the experience from SARS-CoV-2 based on a meta-analysis of six prospectively designed evaluations conducted in a UK setting.

PURPOSE: In April 2020, the UK Government implemented NHS Test and Trace to provide SARS-CoV-2 quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) testing for the public, with nose-and-throat swabbing for samples performed by trained staff. Self-swabbing (SS) would allow rapid scale-up of testing capacity and access. Six studies were undertaken to determine whether SS was as effective for detecting SARS-CoV-2 as swabbing performed by trained staff. METHODS: Six prospective studies were conducted between April-October 2020, using six swab/media combinations. Differences between assisted swabbing (AS) and SS were evaluated for concordance, positivity, sensitivity, cycle threshold (Ct) values and void rates. Statistical analysis was performed using 95% confidence intervals (CIs), paired t-tests and model-based methods. RESULTS: Overall, 3,253 individuals were recruited (median age 37 years, 49% female), with 2,933 having valid paired qRT-PCR results. Pooled concordance rate was 98% (95% CI: 96%, 99%). Positivity rate differences for SS (8.1%) and AS (8.4%) and differences in pooled sensitivities between SS (86%; 95% CI: 78%, 92%) and AS (91%; 95% CI: 78%, 96%) were nonsignificant. Both types of swabbing led to pooled void rates below 2% and strongly correlated Ct values. Age, sex and previous swabbing experience did not have a significant impact on concordance or sensitivity. CONCLUSION: The UK adopted a policy to promote self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 based on data demonstrating equivalence of SS versus AS. Positive outcomes with SS are likely generalisable to testing for other respiratory pathogens, and we consider self-sampling and self-testing essential for future pandemic preparedness.

The evaluation of a multi-day testing approach with antigen lateral flow devices for people eligible for community-based COVID-19 treatments.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 therapeutics including antiviral and monoclonal antibody treatments (hereafter 'COVID-19 treatments') require rapid administration to be effective. As part of the community-based antiviral and therapeutic treatment pathway for COVID-19 there has been a move from PCR testing in those eligible to a rapid antigen lateral flow testing regime. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a multi-day lateral flow device (LFD) testing regime is a feasible alternative to PCR for diagnosing symptomatic patients eligible for COVID-19 treatments. An LFD regime might return a positive result more quickly than a PCR and hence expedite access to COVID-19 treatments. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 with a combination of PCR and LFDs of symptomatic patients eligible for COVID-19 treatments. LFD testing patterns were not assigned. Patients self-censored and the patterns were retro-fitted to the observed results. RESULTS: The LFD testing patterns offered high sensitivity, close to 92%; however, the false positive rate also increased, with most of the multi-day testing patterns having a false positive rate greater than 3%. The highest sensitivity was seen among patients who tested with LFD on the same day as PCR. CONCLUSIONS: There were multiple observed testing behaviours. We conclude that multi-day LFD testing for COVID-19 provides a feasible alternative to PCR to in eligible patients, allowing swift prescription of COVID-19 treatments in most cases. This approach requires acceptance of a trade-off for a small increase in false-positive and -negative results.