Detection of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in outpatients: A multicenter comparison of self-collected saline gargle, oral swab, and combined oral–anterior nasal swab to a provider collected nasopharyngeal swab
| Autor: | Mihaela Anca Serbanescu, James Callahan, Hilary Racher, Lee W. Goneau, Christie Vermeiren, Omid Kyle Vojdani, Janine McCready, Allison McGeer, Dorothy Quon, Christopher Kandel, Elena Sheldrake, Kevin Katz, Jeff Powis, Matthew Young, David Bulir |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2021 |
| Předmět: |
0301 basic medicine
Microbiology (medical) medicine.medical_specialty Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Epidemiology Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) 030106 microbiology medicine.disease_cause Virus Specimen Handling 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine stomatognathic system Nasopharynx Internal medicine Outpatients Humans Medicine 030212 general & internal medicine Respiratory system Saliva Coronavirus Saline gargle Cycle threshold SARS-CoV-2 business.industry COVID-19 Infectious Diseases Nasal Swab Original Article business |
| Zdroj: | Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology |
| ISSN: | 1559-6834 0899-823X |
| Popis: | Background:Widespread 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.Methods:Three 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.Results:The 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).Conclusions:Self-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. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|