Self-testing for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection with rapid antigen tests for people with suspected COVID-19 in the community

Abstract

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Comparison between Nasal and Nasopharyngeal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Detection in an Asymptomatic Population, and Direct Confirmation by RT-PCR from the Residual Buffer

“…It is less invasive, which is more acceptable by people compared to NP swabs ( 26 , 27 ), and the ease of use facilitates volunteer training and self-testing at home or workplace ( 28 , 29 ). These factors, combined with rapid turnaround time, low cost, and ease of use afforded by Ag-RDTs ( 30 – 32 ), can help facilitate repeat testing over time and may compensate for reduced sensitivity ( 5 , 9 , 33 ).…”

Evaluation of the Practicability of Biosynex Antigen Self-Test COVID-19 AG+ for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Protein from Self-Collected Nasal Mid-Turbinate Secretions in the General Public in France

“…Recent reports have established the achievability of NMT self-sampling under supervision [ 12 , 14 ]. Data on the clinical performance of self-testing with Ag-RDT are, however, limited to comparisons with quantitative real-time RT-PCR (rtRT-PCR) detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA [ 25 , 26 ].…”

Validation of the RT-LAMP assay in a large cohort of nasopharyngeal swab samples shows that it is a useful screening method for detecting SARS-CoV-2 and its VOC variants

“…Due to the fact that the sensitivity of this test declines with later CTs, it was classified as moderate (95%; CT 25 to 30), low (44.8%; CT 30 to 35) and very low sensitivity (22.2%; CT > 35) (61). Other studies describe this test with sensitivity of 61.5% (62), 66.3% (63), up to 71.43% (64). Rapid tests, such as the Abott CLMSRDL, and DIALAB, show a sensitivity between 45.2% and 88.9%, respectively.…”