Comparable Specimen Collection from Both Ends of At-Home Midturbinate Swabs.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Truong M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8091862 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Comparable Specimen Collection from Both Ends of At-Home Midturbinate Swabs.
Truong Melissa M Pfau Brian B McDermot Evan E Han Peter D PD Brandstetter Elisabeth E Richardson Matthew M Kim Ashley E AE Rieder Mark J MJ Chu Helen Y HY Englund Janet A JA Nickerson Deborah A DA Shendure Jay J Lockwood Christina M CM Konnick Eric Q EQ Starita Lea M LM
Journal of clinical microbiology 20210420 5
Similar Datasets
Project description:Unsupervised upper respiratory specimen collection is a key factor in the ability to massively scale SARS-CoV-2 testing. But there is concern that unsupervised specimen collection may produce inferior samples. Across two studies that included unsupervised at-home mid-turbinate specimen collection, ∼1% of participants used the wrong end of the swab. We found that molecular detection of respiratory pathogens and a human biomarker were comparable between specimens collected from the handle of the swab and those collected correctly. Older participants were more likely to use the swab backwards. Our results suggest that errors made during home-collection of nasal specimens do not preclude molecular detection of pathogens and specialized swabs may be an unnecessary luxury during a pandemic.
| S-EPMC7743106 | 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: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: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:Viral genomic surveillance has been integral in the global response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Surveillance efforts rely on the availability of representative clinical specimens from ongoing testing activities. However, testing practices have recently shifted due to the widespread availability and use of rapid antigen tests, which could lead to gaps in future monitoring efforts. As such, genomic surveillance strategies must adapt to include laboratory workflows that are robust to sample type. To that end, we compare the results of RT-qPCR and viral genome sequencing using samples from positive BinaxNOW COVID-19 Antigen Card swabs (N = 555) to those obtained from nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs used for nucleic acid amplification testing (N = 135). We show that swabs obtained from antigen cards are comparable in performance to samples from NP swabs, providing a viable alternative and allowing for the potential expansion of viral genomic surveillance to outpatient clinic as well as other settings where rapid antigen tests are often used.
| S-EPMC10338537 | 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: Not available
| S-EPMC10664955 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC7750656 | biostudies-literature