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:Background/purposeWhile current guidelines recommend the use of respiratory tract specimens for the direct detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, saliva has recently been suggested as preferred sample type for the sensitive detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron). By comparing saliva collected using buccal swabs and oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs from patients hospitalized due to COVID-19, we aimed at identifying potential differences in virus detection sensitivity between these sample types.MethodsWe compare the clinical diagnostic sensitivity of paired buccal swabs and combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs from hospitalized, symptomatic COVID-19 patients collected at median six days after symptom onset by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and antigen test.ResultsOf the tested SARS-CoV-2 positive sample pairs, 55.8% were identified as SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and 44.2% as Omicron BA.2. Real-time PCR from buccal swabs generated significantly higher quantification cycle (Cq) values compared to those from matched combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs and resulted in an increased number of false-negative PCR results. Reduced diagnostic sensitivity of buccal swabs by real-time PCR was observed already at day one after symptom onset. Similarly, antigen test detection rates were reduced in buccal swabs compared to combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs.ConclusionOur results suggest reduced clinical diagnostic sensitivity of saliva collected using buccal swabs when compared to combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron in symptomatic individuals.
| S-EPMC10207859 | 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:Purpose Chemiluminescence Immunoassay (CLIA) is high throughput, rapid diagnostic test which has recently come up for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen. The present study evaluated performance of CLIA antigen test in nasopharyngeal swab samples stored at different temperatures for 7 days to simulate the transport conditions and transit time across the country from remote peripheral laboratories to central facilities. Materials and methods Limit of detection (LOD), sensitivity and specificity of VITROS® SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay was determined using Real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (rRT-PCR) confirmed SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative samples. To detect the effect of storage temperatures on VITROS ®SARS-CoV-2 antigen results, samples were stored at 4 °C, 25 °C & 37 °C for 7 days followed by detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen and compared with N-gene rRT-PCR. Results The VITROS® SARS-CoV-2 antigen test was found to have a sensitivity and specificity of 78.9% and 100% respectively with high sensitivity of 88.1% for samples with Ct < 30. The LOD of VITROS assay was equivalent to 3800 copies of RNA per reactions as compared to 72 copies per reaction for rRT-PCR. We observed that more than 80% of samples with <30 Ct values could be detected by VITROS SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay at day 7 even when stored at 37 °C. For samples with Ct values between 26 and 30, on day 7 the positivity rate of N-antigen at 4 °C was 90.9% and 37 °C was 63.6%. Conclusions CLIA testing can be carried out for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 N-protein in NP-swab samples transported in cold chain even with 7 days transit time, particularly for Ct < 30 samples which represents cases with higher transmissibility. As drop in positivity for VITROS assay was lower as compared to rRT-PCR on day 7 in cold chain-maintained samples, the assay can be useful to screen samples received from remote peripheral areas before performing rRT-PCR.
| S-EPMC10163922 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNasal swabs and saliva samples are being considered alternatives to nasopharyngeal swabs (NPSs) for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2); however, few studies have compared the usefulness of nasal swabs, NPSs, and saliva samples for detecting SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory virus infections. We compared the positivity rates and concentrations of viruses detected in nasal swabs, NPSs, and saliva samples using cycle threshold (Ct) values from real-time PCR tests for respiratory viruses.MethodsIn total, 236 samples (48 five-rub and 10 10-rub nasal swabs, 96 NPSs collected using two different products, 48 saliva swabs, and 34 undiluted saliva samples) from 48 patients (34 patients with SARS-CoV-2 and 14 with other respiratory virus infections) and 40 samples from eight healthy controls were obtained. The PCR positivity and Ct values were compared using Allplex Respiratory Panels 1/2/3 and Allplex SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR.ResultsNPSs showed the lowest Ct values (indicating the highest virus concentrations); however, nasal and saliva samples yielded positive results for SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses. The median Ct value for SARS-CoV-2 E gene PCR using nasal swab samples collected with 10 rubs was significantly different from that obtained using nasal swabs collected with five rubs (Ct=24.3 vs. 28.9; P=0.002), but not from that obtained using NPSs.ConclusionsOur results confirm that the NPS is the best sample type for detecting respiratory viruses, but nasal swabs and saliva samples can be alternatives to NPSs. Vigorously and sufficiently rubbed nasal swabs can provide SARS-CoV-2 concentrations similar to those obtained with NPSs.
| S-EPMC10151282 | biostudies-literature
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