Christopher E Kandel1, Matthew Young2, Mihaela Anca Serbanescu3, Jeff E Powis2, David Bulir4,5, James Callahan2, Kevin Katz6,7,8, Janine McCready2, Hilary Racher3,6, Elena Sheldrake7, Dorothy Quon2, Omid Kyle Vojdani2, Allison McGeer9, Lee W Goneau3,6, Christie Vermeiren7. 1. Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Michael Garron Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Dynacare Laboratory, Brampton, Canada. 4. Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 5. Research Institute of St Joe's Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 6. Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 7. Shared Hospital Laboratory, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 8. North York General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 9. Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Kirsty McLennan; Ellen Barton; Christie Lang; Ian R Adams; Gina McAllister; Martin A M Reijns; Kate Templeton; Ingólfur Johannessen; Alastair Leckie; Nick Gilbert Journal: Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Sandra S Chaves; Ju-Hyeong Park; Mila M Prill; Brett Whitaker; Reena Park; Ginger L Chew Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-01-15 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Anja Schienkiewitz; Susanne Jordan; Anselm Hornbacher; Hanna Perlitz; Marie-Luise Zeisler; Anna Sandoni; Ulrike Kubisch; Barbara Wess; Tim Kuttig; Angelika Schaffrath-Rosario; Stefan Damerow; Petra Rattay; Gianni Varnaccia; Anne-Kathrin M Loer; Jan Wormsbächer; Carolin Cohrdes; Matthias Wetzstein; Stefan Albrecht; Isabell Hey; Janine Michel; Livia Schrick; Antje Gößwald; Jennifer Allen; Martin Schlaud; Markus A Busch; Hans Butschalowsky; Jörg Wernitz; Eveline Otte Im Kampe; Udo Buchholz; Walter Haas; Lars Schaade; Lothar H Wieler; Thomas Ziese; Thomas Lampert; Julika Loss Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2021-12-13
Authors: Niko Kohmer; Lisa Eckermann; Boris Böddinghaus; Udo Götsch; Annemarie Berger; Eva Herrmann; Marhild Kortenbusch; Peter Tinnemann; Rene Gottschalk; Sebastian Hoehl; Sandra Ciesek Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-12-08 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Patrick Benoit; Annie-Claude Labbé; Linda Lalancette; Simon Gagnon; Eric Bonneau; Christian Lavallée; Michel Roger; Judith Fafard; Jeannot Dumaresq; Stéphanie Beauchemin; François Coutlée Journal: J Med Virol Date: 2021-08-05 Impact factor: 20.693