Exploring alternative swabs for use in SARS-CoV-2 detection from the oropharynx and anterior nares.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Patriquin G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7415171 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Exploring alternative swabs for use in SARS-CoV-2 detection from the oropharynx and anterior nares.
Patriquin Glenn G Davis Ian I Heinstein Charles C MacDonald Jimmy J Hatchette Todd F TF LeBlanc Jason J JJ
Journal of virological methods 20200809
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. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC7228872 | biostudies-literature
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
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
Project description:BACKGROUND:The global pandemic of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Related Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) has resulted in unprecedented challenges for healthcare systems. One barrier to widespread testing has been a paucity of traditional respiratory viral swab collection kits relative to the demand. Whether other sample collection kits, such as widely available MRSA nasal swabs can be used to detect SARS-CoV-2 is unknown. METHODS:We compared simultaneous nasal MRSA swabs (COPAN ESwabs ® 480C flocked nasal swab in 1mL of liquid Amies medium) and virals wabs (BD H192(07) flexible mini-tip flocked nasopharyngeal swabs in 3mL Universal Transport Medium) for SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing using Simplexa COVID-19 Direct assay on patients over a 4-day period. When the results were discordant, the viral swab sample was run again on the Cepheid Xpert Xpress ® SARS-CoV-2 assay. RESULTS:Of the 81 included samples, there were 19 positives and 62 negatives in viral media and 18 positives and 63 negative in the MRSA swabs. Amongst all included samples, there was concordance between the COPAN ESwabs ® 480C and the viral swabs in 78 (96.3%). CONCLUSION:We found a high rate of concordance in test results between COPAN ESwabs ® 480C in Amies solution and BD H192(07) nasopharyngeal swabs in in 3 mL of Universal Viral Transport medium viral media. Clinicians and laboratories should feel better informed and assured using COPAN ESwabs ® 480C to help in the diagnosis of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7406068 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The SARS-CoV-2 virus is continuously evolving, with appearance of new variants characterized by multiple genomic mutations, some of which can affect functional properties, including infectivity, interactions with host immunity, and disease severity. The rapid spread of new SARS-CoV-2 variants has highlighted the urgency to trace the virus evolution, to help limit its diffusion, and to assess effectiveness of containment strategies. We propose here a PCR-based rapid, sensitive and low-cost allelic discrimination assay panel for the identification of SARS-CoV-2 genotypes, useful for detection in different sample types, such as nasopharyngeal swabs and wastewater. The tests carried out demonstrate that this in-house assay, whose results were confirmed by SARS-CoV-2 whole-genome sequencing, can detect variations in up to 10 viral genome positions at once and is specific and highly sensitive for identification of all tested SARS-CoV-2 clades, even in the case of samples very diluted and of poor quality, particularly difficult to analyze.
2022-06-03 | E-MTAB-11261 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:Abstract Background Anterior nasal swabs (ANS) are established specimen collection methods for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection detection. While saliva (SA) specimens provide an alternative, few studies have comprehensively characterized the performance of SA specimens in longitudinal studies. Methods We compared SARS-CoV-2 detections between paired self-collected ANS and SA specimens from a household transmission study. Participants recorded symptoms and paired ANS and SA specimens daily for 14 days. Specimens were tested using RT-PCR. We calculated the proportion of detections identified by each specimen type among the detections from both types combined. We computed percent agreement and Kappa statistics to assess concordance in detections. We also computed estimates stratified by presence of symptoms and examined the influence of traditional and inactivating transport media on the performance of ANS. Results We examined 2535 self-collected paired specimens from 216 participants. Among 1238 (49%) paired specimens with detections by either specimen type, ANS identified 77.1% (954; 95% CI, 74.6% to 79.3%) and SA 81.9% (1014; 95% CI, 79.7% to 84.0%), with a difference of 4.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 8.5%). Overall agreement was 80.0%, and Kappa was 0.6 (95% CI, 0.5 to 0.6). Nevertheless, the difference in the proportion of detections identified by ANS and SA using traditional and inactivating transport media was 32.5% (95% CI, 26.8% to 38.0%) and –9.5% (95% CI, −13.7% to –5.2%), respectively. Among participants who remained asymptomatic, the difference in detections between SA and ANS was 51.2% (95% CI, 31.8% to 66.0%) and 26.1% (95% CI, 0% to 48.5%) using traditional and inactivating media, respectively. Conclusions Self-collected saliva specimens provide a noninvasive alternative to nasal swabs, especially to those collected in traditional transport media, for longitudinal field studies that aim to detect both symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections.
| S-EPMC8522395 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundReadily available testing for SARS-CoV-2 is necessary to mitigate COVID-19 disease outbreaks. At-home collection kits, in which samples are self-collected without requiring a laboratory or clinic visit and sent to an external laboratory for testing, can provide convenient testing to those with barriers to access. They can prevent unnecessary exposure between patient and clinical staff, increase access for patients with disabilities or remote workers, and decrease burdens on health care resources, such as provider time and personal protective equipment. Exact Sciences developed an at-home collection kit for samples to be tested to detect SARS-CoV-2 that includes an Instructions for Use (IFU) document, which guides people without prior experience on collecting a nasal swab sample. Demonstrating successful sample collection and usability is critical to ensure that these samples meet the same high-quality sample collection standards as samples collected in clinics.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine the usability of a SARS-CoV-2 at-home nasal swab sample collection kit.MethodsA human factors usability study was conducted with 30 subjects without prior medical, laboratory, or health care training and without COVID-19 sample self-collection experience. Subjects were observed while they followed the IFU for the at-home sample collection portion of the SARS-CoV-2 test in a setting that simulated a home environment. IFU usability was further evaluated by requiring the subjects to complete a survey, answer comprehension questions, provide written feedback, and respond to questions from the observer about problems during use.ResultsAll 30 subjects successfully completed the sample collection process, and all 30 samples were determined by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing to meet quality standards for SARS-CoV-2 testing. The subjects' written feedback and comments revealed several recommendations to improve the IFU.ConclusionsThe study demonstrated the overall usability of an at-home SARS-CoV-2 collection kit. Various feedback mechanisms provided opportunities to improve the wording and graphics for some critical tasks, including placing the label correctly on the tube. A modified IFU was prepared based on study outcomes.
| S-EPMC8673714 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Saliva is an attractive sample for detecting SARS-CoV-2. However, contradictory reports exist concerning the sensitivity of saliva versus nasal swabs. We followed close contacts of COVID-19 cases for up to 14 days from the last exposure and collected self-reported symptoms, midturbinate swabs (MTS), and saliva every 2 or 3 days. Ct values, viral load, and frequency of viral detection by MTS and saliva were compared. Fifty-eight contacts provided 200 saliva-MTS pairs, and 14 contacts (13 with symptoms) had one or more positive samples. Saliva and MTS had similar rates of viral detection (P = 0.78) and substantial agreement (κ = 0.83). However, sensitivity varied significantly with time since symptom onset. Early on (days -3 to 2), saliva had 12 times (95% CI: 1.2, 130) greater likelihood of viral detection and 3.2 times (95% CI: 2.8, 3.8) higher RNA copy numbers compared to MTS. After day 2 of symptoms, there was a nonsignificant trend toward greater sensitivity using MTS. Saliva and MTS demonstrated high agreement making saliva a suitable alternative to MTS for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Saliva was more sensitive early in the infection when the transmission was most likely to occur, suggesting that it may be a superior and cost-effective screening tool for COVID-19. IMPORTANCE The findings of this manuscript are increasingly important with new variants that appear to have shorter incubation periods emerging, which may be more prone to detection in saliva before detection in nasal swabs. Therefore, there is an urgent need to provide the science to support the use of a detection method that is highly sensitive and widely acceptable to the public to improve screening rates and early detection. The manuscript presents the first evidence that saliva-based RT-PCR is more sensitive than MTS-based RT-PCR in detecting SARS-CoV-2 during the presymptomatic period - the critical period for unwitting onward transmission. Considering other advantages of saliva samples, including the lower cost, greater acceptability within the general population, and less risk to health care workers, our findings further supported the use of saliva to identify presymptomatic infection and prevent transmission of the virus.
| S-EPMC9045394 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We prospectively compared health care worker-collected nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) to self-collected anterior nasal swabs (ANS) and straight saliva for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in 354 patients. The percent positive agreement between NPS and ANS or saliva was 86.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76.7 to 92.9%) and 93.8% (95% CI, 86.0 to 97.9%), respectively. The percent negative agreement was 99.6% (95% CI, 98.0 to 100.0%) for NPS versus ANS and 97.8% (95% CI, 95.3 to 99.2%) for NPS versus saliva. More cases were detected by the use of NPS (n = 80) and saliva (n = 81) than by the use of ANS (n = 70), but no single specimen type detected all severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections.
| S-EPMC7587122 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 is a serious health threat causing worldwide morbidity and mortality. Real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR) is currently the standard for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Although various nucleic acid-based assays have been developed to aid the detection of SARS-CoV-2 from COVID-19 patient samples, the objective of this study was to develop a diagnostic test that can be completed in 30 minutes without having to isolate RNA from the samples. Here, we present an RNA amplification detection method performed using reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) reactions to achieve specific, rapid (30 min), and sensitive (<100 copies) fluorescent detection in real-time of SARS-CoV-2 directly from patient nasopharyngeal swab (NP) samples. When compared to RT-qPCR, positive NP swab samples assayed by fluorescent RT-LAMP had 98% (n = 41/42) concordance and negative NP swab samples assayed by fluorescent RT-LAMP had 87% (n = 59/68) concordance for the same samples. Importantly, the fluorescent RT-LAMP results were obtained without purification of RNA from the NP swab samples in contrast to RT-qPCR. We also show that the fluorescent RT-LAMP assay can specifically detect live virus directly from cultures of both SARS-CoV-2 wild type (WA1/2020), and a SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 (alpha) variant strain with equal sensitivity to RT-qPCR. RT-LAMP has several advantages over RT-qPCR including isothermal amplification, speed (<30 min), reduced costs, and similar sensitivity and specificity.
| S-EPMC8448339 | biostudies-literature