{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03492276695768973, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018132975151108125, 'mean_word_length': 4.797665369649805, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
SARS-CoV-2 Detection Limits in Swab and Gargle Samples by Comparing Antigen and RT-qPCR Testing

Background: Antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 testing are rapid and inexpensive but usually have lower sensitivity than RT-qPCR and are only validated for nasopharyngeal/throat swabs; the latter are considered the gold standard in terms of material collection but are not tolerated by patients with frequent sampling. The present study, therefore, investigates the extent to which SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing is comparable to RT-qPCR from an easily obtained gargle solution compared to nasopharyngeal swabs. Methods: The performance of a high-quality POC fluorescence immune antigen test in single nasal swab samples and gargle samples compared to RT-qPCR was investigated (total n = 620 samples (gargle samples = 309, and nasal swabs = 311)). Findings: In our setting, the detection of SARS-CoV2 with an antigen test was reliable up to a Ct value of 30 for single nasal swab samples and was reduced to Ct:20 for single gargle samples. The overall antigen-test sensitivity is 83.92% (swab samples) and 75.72% (gargle samples). Interpretation: Antigen tests showed reliable results up to a detection limit of Ct: 30 with only nasal swab samples but not gargle samples. If the use of gargle samples is preferred due to their advantages, such as painless testing, easy handling, and the lack of a need to involve trained personnel for sample taking, reliable results can only be achieved with RT-qPCR.