Comparable specimen collection from both ends of at-home mid-turbinate swabs.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Truong M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7743106 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8091862 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8336969 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDiagnostic confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 by self-collection of specimens is a reliable method compared with healthcare worker collected samples. Citizens' preferences for collection methods are unknown, but at-home collection could have several advantages.MethodsThis study investigated the preference for guided at-home self-collection versus at-hospital specimen collection by healthcare workers.ResultsAmong the 3709 participants, at-home swab collection was the preferred setting for 2362 (63.7%) compared with 1347 (36.3%) reporting a preference for an at-hospital swabbing procedure.ConclusionA high preference for guided at-home self-collection of oropharyngeal/nasal SARS-CoV-2 specimens exists and could be a future norm beyond COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8245307 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The human microbiome has received significant attention over the past decade regarding its potential impact on health. Epidemiological and intervention studies often rely on at-home stool collection methods designed for high-resource settings, such as access to an improved toilet with a modern toilet seat. However, this is not always appropriate or applicable to low-resource settings. Therefore, the design of a user-friendly stool collection kit for low-resource rural settings is needed. We describe the development, assembly, and user experience of a simple and low-cost at-home stool collection kit for women living in rural Cambodia as part of a randomized controlled trial in 2020. Participants were provided with the stool collection kit and detailed verbal instruction. Enrolled women (n = 480) provided two stool specimens (at the start of the trial and after 12 weeks) at their home and brought them to the health centre that morning in a sterile collection container. User specimen collection compliance was high, with 90% (n = 434) of women providing a stool specimen at the end of the trial (after 12 weeks). This feasible and straightforward method has strong potential for similar or adapted use among adults residing in other rural or low-resource contexts.
| S-EPMC8656988 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We evaluated the feasibility of asking pregnant women to self-collect and ship respiratory specimens.In a preliminary laboratory study, we compared the RT-PCR cycle threshold (CT) values of influenza A and B viruses incubated at 4 storage temperatures (from 4 to 35°C) for 6 time periods (8, 24, 48, 72, and 168 hours and 30 days), resulting in 24 conditions that were compared to an aliquot tested after standard freezing (-20°C) (baseline condition). In a subsequent pilot study, during January-February, 2014, we delivered respiratory specimen collection kits to 53 pregnant women with a medically attended acute respiratory illness using three delivery methods.CT values were stable after storage at temperatures <27°C for up to 72 hours for influenza A viruses and 48 hours for influenza B viruses. Of 53 women who received kits during the pilot, 89% collected and shipped nasal swabs as requested. However, 30% (14/47) of the women took over 2 days to collect and ship their specimen. The human control gene, ribonuclease P (RNase P), was detected in 100% of nasal swab specimens. However, the mean CT values for RNase P (26.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 26.0-27.1) and for the 8 influenza A virus positives in our pilot (32.2, 95% CI = 28.9-35.5) were significantly higher than the CTs observed in our 2010-2012 study using staff-collected nasal pharyngeal swabs (P-values < 0.01).Self-collection of respiratory specimens is a promising research method, but further research is needed to quantify the sensitivity and specificity of the approach.
| S-EPMC4415700 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundSelf-sampling for SARS-CoV-2 would significantly raise testing capacity and reduce healthcare worker (HCW) exposure to infectious droplets personal, and protective equipment (PPE) use.MethodsWe conducted a diagnostic accuracy study where subjects with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 (n = 401) and healthy volunteers (n = 100) were asked to self-swab from their oropharynx and mid-turbinate (OPMT), and self-collect saliva. The results of these samples were compared to an OPMT performed by a HCW in the same patient at the same session.ResultsIn subjects confirmed to have COVID-19, the sensitivities of the HCW-swab, self-swab, saliva, and combined self-swab plus saliva samples were 82.8%, 75.1%, 74.3% and 86.5% respectively. All samples obtained from healthy volunteers were tested negative. Compared to HCW-swab, the sensitivities of a self-swab sample and saliva sample were inferior by 8.7% (95%CI: 2.4% to 15.0%, p = 0.006) and 9.5% (95%CI: 3.1% to 15.8%, p = 0.003) respectively. The combined detection rate of self-swab and saliva had a sensitivity of 2.7% (95%CI: -2.6% to 8.0%, p = 0.321). The sensitivity of both the self-collection methods are higher when the Ct value of the HCW swab is less than 30. The specificity of both the self-swab and saliva testing was 100% (95% CI 96.4% to 100%).ConclusionOur study provides evidence that sensitivities of self-collected OPMT swab and saliva samples were inferior to a HCW swab, but they could still be useful testing tools in the appropriate clinical settings.
| S-EPMC7744114 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionMost SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests require nasopharyngeal sampling, which is frequently perceived as uncomfortable and requires healthcare professionals, thus limiting scale-up. Nasal sampling could enable self-sampling and increase acceptability. The term nasal sampling is often not used uniformly and sampling protocols differ.MethodsThis manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study, compared professional anterior nasal and nasal mid-turbinate sampling for a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test. The second group of participants collected a nasal mid-turbinate sample themselves and underwent a professional nasopharyngeal swab for comparison. The reference standard was real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) using combined oro-/nasopharyngeal sampling. Individuals with high suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection were tested. Sensitivity, specificity, and percent agreement were calculated. Self-sampling was observed without intervention. Feasibility was evaluated by observer and participant questionnaires.ResultsAmong 132 symptomatic adults, both professional anterior nasal and nasal mid-turbinate sampling yielded a sensitivity of 86.1% (31/36 RT-PCR positives detected; 95%CI: 71.3-93.9) and a specificity of 100.0% (95%CI: 95.7-100). The positive percent agreement was 100% (95%CI: 89.0-100). Among 96 additional adults, self nasal mid-turbinate and professional nasopharyngeal sampling yielded an identical sensitivity of 91.2% (31/34; 95%CI 77.0-97.0). Specificity was 98.4% (95%CI: 91.4-99.9) with nasal mid-turbinate and 100.0% (95%CI: 94.2-100) with nasopharyngeal sampling. The positive percent agreement was 96.8% (95%CI: 83.8-99.8). Most participants (85.3%) considered self-sampling as easy to perform.ConclusionProfessional anterior nasal and nasal mid-turbinate sampling are of equivalent accuracy for an antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test in ambulatory symptomatic adults. Participants were able to reliably perform nasal mid-turbinate sampling themselves, following written and illustrated instructions. Nasal self-sampling will facilitate scaling of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing.
| S-EPMC8425459 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of a remote specimen collection strategy employing a kit designed for unobserved self-collection for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) can decrease the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and exposure risk. To assess the impact of unobserved specimen self-collection on test performance, we examined results from a SARS-CoV-2 qualitative RT-PCR test for self-collected specimens from participants in a return-to-work screening program and assessed the impact of a pooled testing strategy in this cohort.MethodsSelf-collected anterior nasal swabs from employee return-to-work programs were tested using the Quest Diagnostics Emergency Use Authorization SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. The cycle threshold (Ct) values for the N1 and N3 N-gene targets and a human RNase P (RP) gene control target were tabulated. For comparison, we utilized Ct values from a cohort of health care provider-collected specimens from patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019 symptoms.ResultsAmong 47 923 participants, 1.8% were positive. RP failed to amplify for 13/115 435 (0.011%) specimens. The median (interquartile range) Cts were 32.7 (25.0-35.7) for N1 and 31.3 (23.8-34.2) for N3. Median Ct values in the self-collected cohort were significantly higher than those of symptomatic but not asymptomatic patients. Based on Ct values, pooled testing with 4 specimens would have yielded inconclusive results in 67/1268 (5.2%) specimens but only a single false-negative result.ConclusionsUnobserved self-collection of nasal swabs provides adequate sampling for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing. These findings alleviate concerns of increased false negatives in this context. Specimen pooling could be used for this population, as the likelihood of false-negative results is very low when using a sensitive, dual-target methodology.
| S-EPMC7928651 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding the importance of respiratory viruses in children with cystic fibrosis (CF) has been limited because of challenges using clinic- or hospital-based diagnostic testing. We conducted a pilot study to assess feasibility of home self- (or parent-) collection of nasal swabs (NS).MethodsCystic fibrosis patients aged 6-18 years with new respiratory illness participated. In clinic, a deep nasal flocked swab was collected by research staff and compared with an anterior foam NS obtained after instillation of saline spray. At home, up to 2 self-collections of paired foam NS (with and without saline) were collected and mailed for real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing.ResultsPaired swabs were collected from 28 patients: 18 sets in clinic (deep nasal vs saline foam NS) and 43 sets at home (saline vs dry foam NS) with 9 (50%) and 35 (81%) virus detections, respectively. Home-collected NS were obtained closer to illness onset, with a mean difference in symptom days of -2.3 between home and clinic collections (95% confidence interval [CI] -3.5, -1.2; P < .001). Rhinovirus comprised 73% of virus detections; the difference in mean PCR cycle threshold values for rhinovirus between swabs collected at home versus clinic was -3.8 (95% CI -6.8, -0.9; P = .014), indicating significantly higher viral load for home-collected swabs.ConclusionsHome-collected foam NS had a higher positivity rate compared with clinic-collected swabs, likely because collection was closer to illness onset. Home self-collection is feasible and well tolerated for timely respiratory virus diagnosis and provides a novel approach for clinical diagnostics and surveillance of respiratory virus infections among CF patients.
| S-EPMC3869469 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Panbio COVID-19/Flu A&B Panel (Abbott) is an in vitro diagnostic rapid test designed for the qualitative detection of nucleocapsid proteins SARS-CoV-2 and nucleoprotein influenza A and B antigens in nasal mid-turbinate (NMT) swab specimens from symptomatic individuals meeting COVID-19 and influenza clinical and/or epidemiological criteria. This study, the largest global one to date using fresh samples, aimed to assess the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the Panbio COVID-19/Flu A&B Panel in freshly collected NMT swab specimens from individuals suspected of respiratory viral infection consistent with COVID-19 and/or influenza within the first 5 days of symptom onset compared with results obtained with the cobas SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B qualitative assay (cobas 6800/8800 systems), which were tested using nasopharyngeal swab samples. A total of 512 evaluable subjects were enrolled in the COVID-19 cohort across 18 sites, and 1,148 evaluable subjects were enrolled in the influenza cohort across 22 sites in the Asia-Pacific, Europe, and the USA. The Panbio COVID-19/Flu A&B Panel demonstrated a sensitivity of 80.4% and a specificity of 99.7% for COVID-19. For influenza A, the sensitivity and specificity rates were 80.6% and 99.3%, respectively. Likewise, for influenza B, the sensitivity and specificity rates were 80.8% and 99.4%, respectively. In conclusion, the Panbio COVID-19/Flu A&B Panel emerges as a suitable rapid test for detecting COVID-19 and influenza in symptomatic subjects across diverse global populations, exhibiting high sensitivity. The assay achieved a sensitivity of 94.4% in samples with Ct ≤24 for COVID-19 and 92.6% in samples with Ct ≤30 for influenza A and B.ImportanceThe Panbio COVID-19/Flu A&B Panel is a suitable rapid test for detecting COVID-19 and influenza in symptomatic subjects across diverse global populations, exhibiting high sensitivity. The assay achieved a sensitivity of 94.0% in samples with Ct ≤24 for COVID-19 and 92.6% in samples with Ct ≤30 for influenza A and B.
| S-EPMC11250729 | biostudies-literature