Sensitivity of midturbinate versus nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jamal AJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7750656 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Sensitivity of midturbinate versus nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).
Jamal Alainna J AJ Mozafarihashjin Mohammad M Coomes Eric E Anceva-Sami Sofia S Barati Shiva S Crowl Gloria G Faheem Amna A Farooqi Lubna L Kandel Christopher E CE Khan Saman S Li Angel X AX Mistry Henna H Paterson Aimee A Plenderleith Simon S Prost Karren K Poutanen Susan S Powis Jeff J Schryer Renée R Taylor Maureen M Yip Lily L Zhong Xi Zoe XZ McGeer Allison J AJ Mubareka Samira S
Infection control and hospital epidemiology 20201118 8
To compare sensitivity of specimens for COVID-19 diagnosis, we tested 151 nasopharyngeal/midturbinate swab pairs from 117 COVID-19 inpatients using reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Sensitivity was 94% for nasopharyngeal and 75% for midturbinate swabs (P = .0001). In 88 nasopharyngeal/midturbinate pairs with matched saliva, sensitivity was 86% for nasopharyngeal swabs and 88% for combined midturbinate swabs/saliva. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
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
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:Saliva has been proposed as an alternative to upper airway swabs when testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Although some studies have suggested higher viral loads and clinical sensitivity when testing saliva, studies have been relatively small and have given rise to contradictory results. To better understand the relative performance characteristics of saliva and upper airway samples, I performed a rapid systematic review (registered on PROSPERO as CRD42020205035), focusing on studies that included at least 20 subjects who provided diagnostic saliva and upper airway samples on the same day, which were tested by nucleic acid amplification methods and for which a confusion matrix could be constructed for based on a composite reference standard. Nineteen studies comprising 21 cohorts that met predetermined acceptance criteria were identified following a search of PubMed, medRxiv, and bioRxiv. Seven of these cohorts were incorporated into a meta-analysis using a random effects model, which suggests that nasopharyngeal swabs are somewhat more sensitive than saliva samples for the diagnosis of early disease in ambulatory patients, such as in drive-through centers or community health centers. Nevertheless, the difference is modest, and the reduced need for personal protective equipment for saliva sampling may justify the difference. Conclusions are limited by the significant heterogeneity of disease prevalence in the study populations and variation in the approaches to saliva sample collection.
| S-EPMC7775608 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is present in the vaginal secretions of both reproductive-aged and postmenopausal women during acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.DesignProspective study.SettingA single tertiary, university-affiliated medical centre in Israel. Time period, 1 June 2020 through to 31 July 2020.PopulationWomen who were hospitalised in a single tertiary medical centre, who were diagnosed with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection by a nasopharyngeal RT-PCR test.MethodsWomen were diagnosed with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection by a nasopharyngeal RT-PCR test. Vaginal RT-PCR swabs were obtained from all study participants after a proper cleansing of the perineum.Main outcome measuresDetection of SARS-CoV-2 in vaginal RT-PCR swabs.ResultsVaginal and nasopharyngeal swabs were obtained from 35 women, aged 21-93 years. Twenty-one women (60%) were in their reproductive years, of whom, five were in their third trimester of pregnancy. Most of the participants (57%) were healthy without any underlying medical conditions. Of the 35 patients sampled, 2 (5.7%) had a positive vaginal RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2, one was premenopausal and the other was a postmenopausal woman. Both women had mild disease.ConclusionOur findings contradict most previous reports, which did not detect the presence of viral colonisation in the vagina. Although passage through the birth canal exposes neonates to the vaginal polymicrobial flora, an acquisition of pathogens does not necessarily mandate neonatal infection or clinical disease. Nevertheless, when delivering the infant of a woman with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, a clinician should consider the possibility of vaginal colonisation, even if it is uncommon.Tweetable abstractWhen delivering the infant of a woman with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, a clinician should consider the possibility of vaginal colonisation.
| S-EPMC7675593 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNasopharyngeal swabs are the primary sampling method used for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but they require a trained health care professional and extensive personal protective equipment.PurposeTo determine the difference in sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection between nasopharyngeal swabs and saliva and estimate the incremental cost per additional SARS-CoV-2 infection detected with nasopharyngeal swabs.Data sourcesEmbase, Medline, medRxiv, and bioRxiv were searched from 1 January to 1 November 2020. Cost inputs were from nationally representative sources in Canada and were converted to 2020 U.S. dollars.Study selectionStudies including at least 5 paired nasopharyngeal swab and saliva samples and reporting diagnostic accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 detection.Data extractionData were independently extracted using standardized forms, and study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2).Data synthesisThirty-seven studies with 7332 paired samples were included. Against a reference standard of a positive result on either sample, the sensitivity of saliva was 3.4 percentage points lower (95% CI, 9.9 percentage points lower to 3.1 percentage points higher) than that of nasopharyngeal swabs. Among persons with previously confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, saliva's sensitivity was 1.5 percentage points higher (CI, 7.3 percentage points lower to 10.3 percentage points higher) than that of nasopharyngeal swabs. Among persons without a previous SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, saliva was 7.9 percentage points less (CI, 14.7 percentage points less to 0.8 percentage point more) sensitive. In this subgroup, if testing 100 000 persons with a SARS-CoV-2 prevalence of 1%, nasopharyngeal swabs would detect 79 more (95% uncertainty interval, 5 fewer to 166 more) persons with SARS-CoV-2 than saliva, but with an incremental cost per additional infection detected of $8093.LimitationThe reference standard was imperfect, and saliva collection procedures varied.ConclusionSaliva sampling seems to be a similarly sensitive and less costly alternative that could replace nasopharyngeal swabs for collection of clinical samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing.Primary funding sourceMcGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity. (PROSPERO: CRD42020203415).
| S-EPMC7822569 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The effectiveness of virus culturing in 24 hours for the sequencing of SARS-CoV-2
2022-06-29 | GSE189731 | GEO
Project description:Early identification and isolation of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals is central to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) serve as a specimen for detection by RT-PCR and rapid antigen screening tests. Saliva has been confirmed as a reliable alternative specimen for RT-PCR and has been shown to be valuable for diagnosing children and in repetitive mass testing due to its non-invasive collection. Combining the advantages of saliva with those of antigen tests would be highly attractive to further increase test capacities. Here, we evaluated the performance of the Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen assay (Roche) in RT-PCR-positive paired NPS and saliva samples (N = 87) and unpaired NPS (N = 100) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 IVD test). We observed a high positive percent agreement (PPA) of the antigen assay with RT-PCR in NPS, reaching 87.2% across the entire cohort, whereas the overall PPA for saliva was insufficient (40.2%). At Ct values ≤ 28, PPA were 100% and 91.2% for NPS and saliva, respectively. At lower viral loads, the sensitivity loss of the antigen assay in saliva was striking. At Ct values ≤ 35, the PPA for NPS remained satisfactory (91.5%), whereas the PPA for saliva dropped to 46.6%. In conclusion, saliva cannot be recommended as a reliable alternative to NPS for testing with the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antigen assay. As saliva is successfully used broadly in combination with RT-PCR testing, it is critical to create awareness that suitability for RT-PCR cannot be translated to implementation in antigen assays without thorough evaluation of each individual test system.
| S-EPMC8401978 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe ideal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARs-CoV-2) testing method would be accurate and also be patient-performed to reduce exposure to healthcare workers. The aim of this study was to compare patient-performed testing based on a morning saliva sample with the current standard testing method, healthcare worker-collected sampling via a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS).MethodsThis was a prospective single center study which recruited 217 asymptomatic adult male participants in a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) quarantine center who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 8-10 days prior to isolation. Paired NPS and saliva specimens were collected and processed within 5 hours of sample collection. Real time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) targeting Envelope (E) and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) genes was performed and the results were compared.ResultsOverall, 160 of the 217 (74%) participants tested positive for COVID-19 based on saliva, NPS, or both testing methods. The detection rate for SARS-CoV-2 was higher in saliva compared to NPS testing (93.1%, 149/160 vs 52.5%, 84/160, P < .001). The concordance between the 2 tests was 45.6% (virus was detected in both saliva and NPS in 73/160), whereas 47.5% were discordant (87/160 tested positive for 1 whereas negative for the other). The cycle threshold (Ct) values for E and RdRp genes were significantly lower in saliva specimens compared to NP swab specimens.ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate that saliva is a better alternative specimen for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Taking into consideration, the simplicity of specimen collection, shortage of PPE and the transmissibility of the virus, saliva could enable self-collection for an accurate SARS-CoV-2 surveillance testing.
| S-EPMC7454325 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) caused the current coronavirus disease (Covid-19) epidemic. Reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is used as the gold standard for clinical detection of SARS-CoV-2. Under ideal conditions, RT-qPCR Covid-19 assays have analytical sensitivity and specificity greater than 95%. However, when the sample panel is enlarged including asymptomatic individuals, the sensitivity decreases and false negatives are reported. Moreover, RT-qPCR requires up to 3-6 h with most of the time involved in RNA extraction from swab samples. We introduce CovidArray, a microarray-based assay, to detect SARS-CoV-2 markers N1 and N2 in the nasopharyngeal swabs. The method is based on solid-phase hybridization of fluorescently-labeled amplicons upon RNA extraction and reverse transcription. This approach combines the physical-optical properties of the silicon substrate with the surface chemistry used to coat the substrate to obtain a diagnostic tool of great sensitivity. Furthermore, we used an innovative approach, RNAGEM, to extract and purify viral RNA in less than 15 min. We correctly assigned 12 nasopharyngeal swabs, previously analyzed by RT-qPCR. Thanks to the CovidArray sensitivity we were able to identify a false-negative sample. CovidArray is the first DNA microarray-based assay to detect viral genes in the swabs. Its high sensitivity and the innovative viral RNA extraction by RNAGEM allows the reduction of both the amount of false-negative results and the total analysis time to about 2 h.
| S-EPMC8038375 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this study was to compare the sensitivity of self-collected versus healthcare worker (HCW)-collected swabs for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing. Symptomatic individuals referred for SARS-CoV-2 testing were invited to provide mobile-phone video-instructed self-collected oropharyngeal and nasal samples followed by a HCW-collected oropharyngeal sample. All samples were sent for analysis to the same microbiology laboratory, and the number of SARS-CoV-2-positive participants in the two tests was compared. A total of 109 participants were included, and 19 participants had SARS-CoV-2-positive results. The diagnostic sensitivity of the self-collected and HCW-collected swabs was 84.2% and 89.5%, respectively, with an acceptable agreement, Cohens kappa 0.82, p < 0.001. Further, results from a questionnaire answered by the participants found that loss of smell as a self-reported symptom was a strong predictor for a SARS-CoV-2-positive test. In conclusion, we found that self-collected oropharyngeal and nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing can be reliable compared to HCW-collected oropharyngeal samples.
| S-EPMC7554687 | biostudies-literature