Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

A combined oropharyngeal/nares swab is a suitable alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

ABSTRACT: Given the global shortage of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs typically used for respiratory virus detection, alternative collection methods were evaluated during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study showed that a combined oropharyngeal/nares swab is a suitable alternative to NP swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, with sensitivities of 91.7% and 94.4%, respectively.

SUBMITTER: LeBlanc JJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7228872 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Publications

A combined oropharyngeal/nares swab is a suitable alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

LeBlanc Jason J JJ Heinstein Charles C MacDonald Jimmy J Pettipas Janice J Hatchette Todd F TF Patriquin Glenn G

Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology 20200516

Given the global shortage of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs typically used for respiratory virus detection, alternative collection methods were evaluated during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study showed that a combined oropharyngeal/nares swab is a suitable alternative to NP swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, with sensitivities of 91.7% and 94.4%, respectively. ...[more]

PMID: 32540034

Similar Datasets

Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 quantification from oropharyngeal swabs, nasopharyngeal swabs, and naso-oropharyngeal swabs: A cross-sectional study

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC10998208 | biostudies-literature

Exploring alternative swabs for use in SARS-CoV-2 detection from the oropharynx and anterior nares.

Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a worldwide shortage of nasopharyngeal swabs and universal transport media. This study evaluated a combined oropharynx/nares (OP/Na) sample collection using two readily-available non-flocked swabs, transported in phosphate-buffered saline, and demonstrates equivalent performance in SARS-CoV-2 detection compared to a previously-validated OP/Na collection kit.

| S-EPMC7415171 | biostudies-literature

Nasopharyngeal Swabs Are More Sensitive Than Oropharyngeal Swabs for COVID-19 Diagnosis and Monitoring the SARS-CoV-2 Load.

Project description:Objective: Detection of SARS-CoV-2 by oropharyngeal swabs (OPS) and nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) is an essential method for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) management. It is not clear how detection rate, sensitivity, and the risk of exposure for medical providers differ in two sampling methods. Methods: In this prospective study, 120 paired NPS and OPS specimens were collected from 120 inpatients with confirmed COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid in swabs were detected by real-time RT-PCR. The SARS-CoV-2 detection rate, sensitivity, and viral load were analyzed with regards NPS and OPS. Sampling discomfort reported by patients was evaluated. Results: The SARS-CoV-2 detection rate was significantly higher for NPS [46.7% (56/120)] than OPS [10.0% (12/120)] (P < 0.001). The sensitivity of NPS was also significantly higher than that of OPS (P < 0.001). At the time of sampling, the time of detectable SARS-CoV-2 had a longer median duration (25.0 vs. 20.5 days, respectively) and a longer maximum duration (41 vs. 39 days, respectively) in NPS than OPS. The mean cycle threshold (Ct) value of NPS (37.8, 95% CI: 37.0-38.6) was significantly lower than that of OPS (39.4, 95% CI: 38.9-39.8) by 1.6 (95% CI 1.0-2.2, P < 0.001), indicating that the SARS-CoV-2 load was significantly higher in NPS specimens than OPS. Patient discomfort was low in both sampling methods. During NPS sampling, patients were significantly less likely to have nausea and vomit. Conclusions: NPS had significantly higher SARS-CoV-2 detection rate, sensitivity, and viral load than OPS. NPS could reduce droplets production during swabs. NPS should be recommended for diagnosing COVID-19 and monitoring SARS-CoV-2 load. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, number: ChiCTR2000029883.

| S-EPMC7314917 | biostudies-literature

An alternative way to perform diagnostic nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Project description:On March 11, 2020, WHO has defined the novel coronavirus disease SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) outbreak as a pandemic and still today continues to affect much of the world. Among the reasons for the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection, there is not only the high transmissibility of the virus, but also the role of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic carriers. Therefore diagnostic testing is central to contain the global pandemic. Up to now real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-based molecular assays for detecting SARSCoV-2 in respiratory specimens is the current reference standard for COVID-19 diagnosis. Nasopharyngeal swab is the preferred choice for SARS-CoV-2 testing; however is not always a free of complications procedure. In patients with severe coagulopathies or diseases such as HHT, the risk of nosebleeding may be high. As in all those conditions like advanced stage sinonasal neoplasms or unfavorable anatomical characteristics, the nasopharyngeal swab may not be feasible. This work reports a safe and effective procedure of nasopharyngeal swab collection for COVID-19 testing, through the transoral way, in patients with contraindication to perform it transnasally. The procedure proved feasible and well tolerated. The discomfort for the patient is comparable with the execution of an oropharyngeal swab without exposing him to additional complications. In selected cases, the procedure described represents a valid alternative to nasopharyngeal swab performed transnasally. In particular, it allows reaching the area with the highest diagnostic sensitivity. Moreover it can be performed by Otolaryngology and, with adequate training, also by non-specialist staff.

| S-EPMC7670921 | biostudies-literature

Self-Collection of Saliva Specimens as a Suitable Alternative to Nasopharyngeal Swabs for the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR.

Project description:A nasopharyngeal swab is a sample used for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Saliva is a sample easier to obtain and the risk of contagion for the professional is lower. This study aimed to evaluate the utility of saliva for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This prospective study involved 674 patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. Paired nasopharyngeal and saliva samples were processed by RT-qPCR. Sensitivity, specificity, and kappa coefficient were used to evaluate the results from both samples. We considered the influence of age, symptoms, chronic conditions, and sample processing with lysis buffer. Of the 674 patients, 636 (94.4%) had valid results from both samples. The virus detection in saliva compared to a nasopharyngeal sample (gold standard) was 51.9% (95% CI: 46.3%-57.4%) and increased to 91.6% (95% CI: 86.7%-96.5%) when the cycle threshold (Ct) was ≤ 30. The specificity of the saliva sample was 99.1% (95% CI: 97.0%-99.8%). The concordance between samples was 75% (κ = 0.50; 95% CI: 0.45-0.56). The Ct values were significantly higher in saliva. In conclusion, saliva sample utility is limited for clinical diagnosis, but could be a useful alternative for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in massive screening studies, when the availability of trained professionals for sampling or personal protection equipment is limited.

| S-EPMC7830328 | biostudies-literature

SARS-CoV-2 Oropharyngeal and Nasopharyngeal samples

Project description:Microbiome analysis of oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal samples of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients

2021-02-06 | GSE166281 | GEO

Clinical evaluation of nasopharyngeal, midturbinate nasal and oropharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Project description:In the setting of supply chain shortages of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs, we sought to compare the ability of nasopharyngeal, midturbinate nasal, and oropharyngeal swabs (NPS, MTS, and OPS) to detect SARS-CoV-2. Community and hospitalized participants post-COVID-19 diagnosis were swabbed and tested for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR. Thirty-six participants had all 3 swabs collected. Using detection at any site as the standard, the percent positive agreements were 90% (95% CI 74.4-96.5), 80% (70.3-94.7) and 87% (62.7-90.5) for NPS, MTS, and OPS, respectively. Subsequently, 43 participants had OPS and NPS collected. Thirty-nine were positive with a percent positive agreement of 82.1% (95% CI 67.3-91.0) for OPS and 87.2% (73.3-94.4) for NPS. Combining all 79 patients tested, 67 were positive at either site with a positive agreement was 86.5% (76.4-92.7) for OPS and 91.1% (81.8-95.8) for NPS. OPS are an acceptable alternative to NPS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections.

| S-EPMC8675123 | biostudies-literature

Proteome Map of Human nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swab samples in VTM media following SARS-CoV-2 infection

Project description:A detailed proteomic analysis of the nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swab samples collected from normal individuals and individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 involving high throughput quantitative (iTRAQ) proteomics analysis.

2022-12-22 | PXD032150 | Pride

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 Testing in Anterior Nasal Vestibular Swabs vs. Oropharyngeal Swabs.

Project description:PurposeTo investigate the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 testing in specimens collected from the anterior nasal vestibules of COVID-19 patients.MethodsA cross-sectional analysis was performed on 30 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 at the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center from March 14, 2020 to March 21, 2020. Paired specimens were collected from both the anterior nasal vestibule and the oropharynx from all patients. All specimens were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays.ResultsOf the 30 patients with confirmed COVID-19, 17 patients (56.7%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 when oropharyngeal specimens were used, while 20 patients (66.7%) tested positive when nasal swab specimens were used. There was no statistically significant difference in sensitivity between the two methods.ConclusionsRespiratory swabs collected from the nasal vestibule offer a less invasive alternative to oropharyngeal swabs for specimen collection in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and have adequate sensitivity.

| S-EPMC8293915 | biostudies-literature

Relative sensitivity of anterior nares and nasopharyngeal swabs for initial detection of SARS-CoV-2 in ambulatory patients: Rapid review and meta-analysis.

Project description:Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs are considered "gold standard" for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infections, but anterior nares or mid-turbinate swabs (nasal swabs) are often used. We performed a meta-analysis comparing the sensitivity of nasal and nasopharyngeal swabs against a composite reference standard for the initial diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in ambulatory patients. The study is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020221827). Data sources included studies appearing between January 1, 2020 and March 20, 2021, identified by searches of PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv. Studies included at least 20 subjects who simultaneously provided nasal and nasopharyngeal specimens for reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction testing, and for which confusion matrices could be constructed. Authors individually assessed studies for inclusion and compared assessments. Each author independently extracted all data elements; differences were reconciled by review of initial data sources. Extracted data included specimen site, patient characteristics, collection site, and confusion matrices comparing results for nasal and nasopharyngeal swabs. Assessed against a composite reference standard, anterior nares swabs are less sensitive (82% - 88%) than nasopharyngeal swabs (98%). For populations with 10% specimen positivity, the negative predictive values of all swab types were greater than 98%. Mid-turbinate and anterior nares swabs seem to perform similarly. The lower sensitivity associated with nasal swab SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis is justified by the ability to screen more patients and reduced personal protective equipment requirements. Our conclusions are limited by the small number of studies and the significant heterogeneity of study designs and study outcomes.

| S-EPMC8291630 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data