Dataset Information

Polyester nasal swabs collected in a dry tube are a robust and inexpensive, minimal self-collection kit for SARS-CoV-2 testing.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In order to identify an inexpensive yet highly stable SARS-CoV-2 collection device as an alternative to foam swabs stored in transport media, both contrived ("surrogate") CoV-positive and patient-collected spun polyester swabs stored in dry tubes were evaluated for time- and temperature-stability using qPCR.

Methods

Surrogate specimens were prepared by combining multiple, residual SARS-CoV-2-positive clinical specimens and diluting to near-LOD levels in either porcine or human mucus ("matrix"), inoculating foam or polyester nasal swabs, and sealing in dry tubes. Swabs were then subjected to one of three temperature excursions: (1) 4°C for up to 72 hours; (2) 40°C for 12 hours, followed by 32°C for up to 60 hours; or (3) multiple freeze-thaw cycles (-20°C). The stability of extracted SARS-CoV-2 RNA for each condition was evaluated by qPCR. Separate usability studies for the dry polyester swab-based HealthPulse@home COVID-19 Specimen Collection Kit were later conducted in both adult and pediatric populations.

Results

Polyester swabs stored dry demonstrated equivalent performance to foam swabs for detection of low and moderate SARS-CoV-2 viral loads. Mimicking warm- and cold- climate shipment, surrogate specimens were stable following either 72 hours of a high-temperature excursion or two freeze-thaw cycles. In addition, usability studies comprised of self-collected patient specimens yielded sufficient material for molecular testing, as demonstrated by RNase P detection.

Conclusions

Polyester nasal swabs stored in dry collection tubes offer a robust and inexpensive self-collection method for SARS-CoV-2 viral load testing, as viral RNA remains stable under conditions required for home collection and shipment to the laboratory.

SUBMITTER: Padgett LR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8046217 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceDespite the expansion of SARS-CoV-2 testing, available tests have not received Emergency Use Authorization for performance with self-collected anterior nares (nasal) swabs from children younger than 14 years because the effect of pediatric self-swabbing on SARS-CoV-2 test sensitivity is unknown.ObjectiveTo characterize the ability of school-aged children to self-collect nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing compared with collection by health care workers.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional study of 197 symptomatic children and adolescents aged 4 to 14 years old. Individuals were recruited based on results of testing in the Children's Healthcare of Atlanta system from July to August 2021.ExposuresChildren and adolescents were given instructional material consisting of a short instructional video and a handout with written and visual steps for self-swab collection. Participants first provided a self-collected nasal swab. Health care workers then collected a second specimen.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 detection and relative quantitation by cycle threshold (Ct) in self- vs health care worker-collected nasal swabs when tested with a real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction test with Emergency Use Authorization.ResultsAmong the study participants, 108 of 194 (55.7%) were male and the median age was 9 years (IQR, 6-11). Of the 196 participants, 87 (44.4%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 105 (53.6%) tested negative by both self- and health care worker-collected swabs. Two children tested positive by self- or health care worker-collected swab alone; 1 child had an invalid health care worker swab. Compared with health care worker-collected swabs, self-collected swabs had 97.8% (95% CI, 94.7%-100.0%) and 98.1% (95% CI, 95.6%-100.0%) positive and negative percent agreement, respectively, and SARS-CoV-2 Ct values did not differ significantly between groups (mean [SD] Ct, self-swab: 26.7 [5.4] vs health care worker swab: 26.3 [6.0]; P = .65).Conclusions and relevanceAfter hearing and seeing simple instructional materials, children and adolescents aged 4 to 14 years self-collected nasal swabs that closely agreed on SARS-CoV-2 detection with swabs collected by health care workers.

Project description:BackgroundPolymerase chain reaction-based Xpert human papillomavirus (HPV) assay is a rapid test that detects high-risk HPV (hrHPV) infection. This point-of-care test is usually performed by collecting a cervical specimen in a vial of PreservCyt® transport medium. We compared HPV test positivity and accuracy between self-collected sample with a dry swab (s-DRY) versus physician-collected cervical sampling using a broom like brush and immediate immersion in PreservCyt (dr-WET).MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, we recruited 150 women ? 18 years old attending the colposcopy clinic in the University Hospital of Geneva. Each participant first self-collected a vaginal sample using a dry swab and then the physician collected a cervical specimen in PreservCyt. HPV analysis was performed with Xpert. Part of the PreservCyt-collected sample was used for hrHPV detection with the cobas® HPV test. HPV test positivity and performance of the two collection methods was compared.ResultsHPV positivity was 49.1% for s-DRY, 41.8% for dr-WET and 46.2% for cobas. Good agreement was found between s-DRY and dr-WET samples (kappa±Standard error (SE) = 0.64±0.09,), particularly for low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL+) (kappa±SE = 0.80±0.17). Excellent agreement was found between the two samples for HPV16 detection in general (kappa±SE = 0.91±0.09) and among LSIL+ lesions (kappa±SE = 1.00±0.17). Sensitivities and specificities were, respectively, 84.2% and 47.1%(s-DRY), 73.1% and 58.7%. (dr-WET) and 77.8% and 45.7% (cobas) for CIN2+ detection. The median delay between sampling and HPV analysis was 7 days for the Xpert HPV assay and 19 days for cobas. There were 36 (24.0%) invalid results among s-DRY samples and 4 (2.7%) among dr-WET (p = 0.001). Invalid results happened due to the long interval between collection and analysis.ConclusionSelf-collected vaginal dry swabs are a valid alternative to collecting cervical samples in PreservCyt solution for HPV testing with the Xpert HPV assay.ImpactHPV self-collection with dry cotton swabs might assist in the implementation of an effective screening strategy in developing countries.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry ISRCTN83050913.