Real-world assessment of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nasopharyngeal swab testing in a region with a high burden of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sangal RB
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8111191 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Molecular diagnosis on nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) is the current standard for COVID-19 diagnosis, but saliva may be an alternative specimen to facilitate access to diagnosis. We compared analytic performances, feasibility and acceptability of NPS, saliva, and oral-self sampling swab for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). A prospective, multicenter study was conducted in military hospitals in France among adult outpatients attending COVID-19 diagnosis centers or hospitalized patients. For each patient, all samples were obtained and analyzed simultaneously with RT-PCR or transcription-mediated amplification method. Clinical signs, feasibility, and acceptability for each type of sample were collected. A total of 1220 patients were included, corresponding to 1205 NPS and saliva and 771 OS. Compared to NPS, the sensitivity, specificity, and kappa coefficient for tests performed on saliva were 87.8% (95% CI 83.3-92.3), 97.1% (95% CI 96.1-98.1), and 0.84 (95% CI 0.80-0.88). Analytical performances were better in symptomatic patients. Ct values were significantly lower in NPS than saliva. For OS, sensitivity was estimated to be 61.1% (95% CI 52.7-69.4) and Kappa coefficient to be 0.69 (95% CI 0.62-0.76). OS was the technique preferred by the patients (44.3%) before saliva (42.4%) and NPS (13.4%). Instructions were perceived as simple by patients (> 90%) for saliva and OS. Finally, the painful nature was estimated to be 0.9 for OS, on a scale from 0 to 10, and to be 5.3 for NPS. Performances of OS are not sufficient. Saliva is an acceptable alternative to NPS for symptomatic patient but the process required additional steps to fluidize the sample.
| S-EPMC8118679 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo show how to safely perform nasopharyngeal and/or oropharyngeal swabs for 2019-novel coronavirus.MethodsThe video describes in detail the dressing and undressing procedures of health personnel, with the appropriate personal protective equipment. Technical notes for the execution of the nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab are also provided to avoid sampling errors.ResultsThe undressing phase is the procedure with the highest risk of self-contamination for the health worker. Following the various steps as shown in the video, there were no cases of contagion among the otolaryngology team appointed to perform the swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates the technical feasibility of safely performing nasopharyngeal and/or oropharyngeal swabs for identification of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA.
| S-EPMC7267608 | 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:Respiratory particle generation and dispersal during nasoendoscopy and swab testing is studied with high-speed video and laser light illumination. Video analysis reveals droplet formation in three manoeuvres during nasoendoscopy - sneezing, vocalization, and nasal decongestion spray. A capillary bridge of mucus can be seen when a nasoendoscope exits wet nares. No droplet formation is seen during oral and nasopharyngeal swab testing. We outline the following recommendations: pull the face mask down partially and keep the mouth covered, only allowing nasal access during nasoendoscopy; avoid nasal sprays if possible; if nasal sprays are used, procedurists should be in full personal protective equipment prior to using the spray; withdrawal of swabs and scopes should be performed in a slow and controlled fashion to reduce potential dispersion of droplets when the capillary bridge of mucus breaks up.
| S-EPMC7362138 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has strained healthcare systems with patient hospitalizations and deaths. Anti-spike monoclonal antibodies, including bamlanivimab, have demonstrated reduction in hospitalization rates in clinical trials, yet real-world evidence is lacking.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective case-control study across a single healthcare system of nonhospitalized patients, age 18 years or older, with documented positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing, risk factors for severe COVID-19, and referrals for bamlanivimab via emergency use authorization. Cases were defined as patients who received bamlanivimab; contemporary controls had a referral order placed but did not receive bamlanivimab. The primary outcome was 30-day hospitalization rate from initial positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Descriptive statistics, including χ 2 and Mann-Whitney U test, were performed. Multivariable logistic regression was used for adjusted analysis to evaluate independent associations with 30-day hospitalization.ResultsBetween 30 November 2020 and 19 January 2021, 218 patients received bamlanivimab (cases), and 185 were referred but did not receive drug (controls). Thirty-day hospitalization rate was significantly lower among patients who received bamlanivimab (7.3% vs 20.0%, risk ratio [RR] 0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI]: .21-.64, P < .001), and the number needed to treat was 8. On logistic regression, odds of hospitalization were increased in patients not receiving bamlanivimab and with a higher number of pre-specified comorbidities (odds ratio [OR] 4.19 ,95% CI: 1.31-2.16, P < .001; OR 1.68, 95% CI: 2.12-8.30, P < .001, respectively).ConclusionsAmbulatory patients with COVID-19 who received bamlanivimab had a lower 30-day hospitalization than control patients in real-world experience. We identified receipt of bamlanivimab and fewer comorbidities as protective factors against hospitalization.Bamlanivimab's role in preventing hospitalization associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear. In a real-world, retrospective study of 403 high-risk, ambulatory patients with COVID-19, receipt of bamlanivimab compared to no monoclonal antibody therapy was associated with lower 30-day hospitalization.
| S-EPMC8083260 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionNearly all existing respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) incidence estimates are based on real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing of nasal or nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs. Adding testing of additional specimen types to NP swab RT-PCR increases RSV detection. However, prior studies only made pairwise comparisons and the synergistic effect of adding multiple specimen types has not been quantified. We compared RSV diagnosis by NP swab RT-PCR alone versus NP swab plus saliva, sputum, and serology.MethodsThis was a prospective cohort study over two study periods (27 December 2021 to 1 April 2022 and 22 August 2022 to 11 November 2022) of patients aged ≥ 40 years hospitalized for acute respiratory illness (ARI) in Louisville, KY. NP swab, saliva, and sputum specimens were collected at enrollment and PCR tested (Luminex ARIES platform). Serology specimens were obtained at acute and convalescent timepoints (enrollment and 30-60-day visit). RSV detection rate was calculated for NP swab alone and for NP swab plus all other specimen type/test.ResultsAmong 1766 patients enrolled, 100% had NP swab, 99% saliva, 34% sputum, and 21% paired serology specimens. RSV was diagnosed in 56 (3.2%) patients by NP swab alone, and in 109 (6.2%) patients by NP swab plus additional specimens, corresponding to a 1.95 times higher rate [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.62, 2.34]. Limiting the comparison to the 150 subjects with all four specimen types available (i.e., NP swab, saliva, sputum, and serology), there was a 2.60-fold increase (95% CI 1.31, 5.17) compared to NP swab alone (3.3% versus 8.7%). Sensitivities by specimen type were: NP swab 51%, saliva 70%, sputum 72%, and serology 79%.ConclusionsDiagnosis of RSV in adults was several-fold greater when additional specimen types were added to NP swab, even with a relatively low percentage of subjects with sputum and serology results available. Hospitalized RSV ARI burden estimates in adults based solely on NP swab RT-PCR should be adjusted for underestimation.
| S-EPMC10163290 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWidespread testing for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is necessary to curb the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but testing is undermined when the only option is a nasopharyngeal swab. Self-collected swab techniques can overcome many of the disadvantages of a nasopharyngeal swab, but they require evaluation.MethodsThree self-collected non-nasopharyngeal swab techniques (saline gargle, oral swab and combined oral-anterior nasal swab) were compared to a nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 detection at multiple COVID-19 assessment centers in Toronto, Canada. The performance characteristics of each test were assessed.ResultsThe adjusted sensitivity of the saline gargle was 0.90 (95% CI 0.86-0.94), the oral swab was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.72-0.89) and the combined oral-anterior nasal swab was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.77-0.93) compared to a nasopharyngeal swab, which demonstrated a sensitivity of ˜90% when all positive tests were the reference standard. The median cycle threshold values for the SARS-CoV-2 E-gene for concordant and discordant saline gargle specimens were 17 and 31 (P < .001), for the oral swabs these values were 17 and 28 (P < .001), and for oral-anterior nasal swabs these values were 18 and 31 (P = .007).ConclusionsSelf-collected saline gargle and an oral-anterior nasal swab have a similar sensitivity to a nasopharyngeal swab for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. These alternative collection techniques are cheap and can eliminate barriers to testing, particularly in underserved populations.
| S-EPMC7870921 | biostudies-literature
Project description:During March 2016-March 2019, a total of 200,936 suspected cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection were identified in Saudi Arabia; infections were confirmed in 698 cases (0.3% [0.7/100,000 population per year]). Continued surveillance is necessary for early case detection and timely infection control response.
| S-EPMC7323557 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Case identification, isolation, and contact tracing are fundamental strategies used to control the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This has led to widespread testing that interrupted the supply chain for testing materials around the world. A prospective study was conducted to compare inexpensive and easily sourced 3-dimensionally (3D)-printed polylactic acid and polyester nasopharyngeal swabs to commercially manufactured swabs for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). During the study period, 287 laboratory-confirmed hospitalized COVID-19 patients, at multiple stages of their illness, were enrolled. The median age for the study population was 47.6 years (interquartile range [IQR], 34.4 to 56.6 years), and two-thirds (67.6%) of the subjects were male. The median duration of hospitalization, at the time of sampling, was 13 days (IQR, 10 to 16 days). Overall concordance between the prototype and control swabs was 80.8% (Cohen's kappa coefficient, 0.61). Most discrepant results were due to prototype-positive control-negative results. When considering all positive results to be true positives, the prototype swab had a higher sensitivity (90.6% versus 80.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 85.7% to 94.0% and 74.7% to 85.7%, respectively; P < 0.015). The cost to produce the prototype swab was estimated to be $0.05 per swab. Polylactic acid 3D-printed polyester-tipped swabs were shown to be effective for nasopharyngeal sample collection. We believe that this design can easily be adopted in countries where commercial swabs are not readily available and can play a vital role in public health efforts for disease control in low-income countries.
| S-EPMC7587115 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10364491 | biostudies-literature