Cargando…

Combined throat/nasal swab sampling for SARS-CoV-2 is equivalent to nasopharyngeal sampling

PURPOSE: PCR on a nasopharyngeal sample is the reference method for the detection of SARS-nCoV-2. However, combined throat/nasal sampling as a testing method has several advantages. We compared the combined throat/nasal sampling with nasopharyngeal sampling for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vlek, A. L. M., Wesselius, T. S., Achterberg, R., Thijsen, S. F. T.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7359435/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32666481
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10096-020-03972-y
_version_ 1783559049019654144
author Vlek, A. L. M.
Wesselius, T. S.
Achterberg, R.
Thijsen, S. F. T.
author_facet Vlek, A. L. M.
Wesselius, T. S.
Achterberg, R.
Thijsen, S. F. T.
author_sort Vlek, A. L. M.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: PCR on a nasopharyngeal sample is the reference method for the detection of SARS-nCoV-2. However, combined throat/nasal sampling as a testing method has several advantages. We compared the combined throat/nasal sampling with nasopharyngeal sampling for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers suspected of COVID-19. METHODS: In 107 healthcare workers with symptoms of COVID-19, combined throat/nasal sampling and nasopharyngeal sampling was performed. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 was performed by RT-PCR targeting. RESULTS: A total of 80 healthcare workers (74.8%) tested negative with both sampling methods, and 25 healthcare workers (23.4%) tested positive with both sampling methods. There were two discrepant results with positive PCR in combined throat/nasal swabs and negative PCR in nasopharyngeal swabs (1.9%). The κ index for concordance between the 2 sampling methods was high (0.95). The median cycle threshold (Ct) value of PCR on nasopharyngeal samples was significantly lower than the Ct value of PCR on combined throat/nasal samples (19 (IQR 17–20) versus 21 (IQR 18–29) cycles, p value 0.01). CONCLUSION: Combined throat/nasal swabs yield a similar sensitivity to detect SARS-CoV-2 as nasopharyngeal swabs and are a good alternative sampling method, despite a lower Ct value for the nasopharyngeal samples.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7359435
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73594352020-07-15 Combined throat/nasal swab sampling for SARS-CoV-2 is equivalent to nasopharyngeal sampling Vlek, A. L. M. Wesselius, T. S. Achterberg, R. Thijsen, S. F. T. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Brief Report PURPOSE: PCR on a nasopharyngeal sample is the reference method for the detection of SARS-nCoV-2. However, combined throat/nasal sampling as a testing method has several advantages. We compared the combined throat/nasal sampling with nasopharyngeal sampling for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers suspected of COVID-19. METHODS: In 107 healthcare workers with symptoms of COVID-19, combined throat/nasal sampling and nasopharyngeal sampling was performed. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 was performed by RT-PCR targeting. RESULTS: A total of 80 healthcare workers (74.8%) tested negative with both sampling methods, and 25 healthcare workers (23.4%) tested positive with both sampling methods. There were two discrepant results with positive PCR in combined throat/nasal swabs and negative PCR in nasopharyngeal swabs (1.9%). The κ index for concordance between the 2 sampling methods was high (0.95). The median cycle threshold (Ct) value of PCR on nasopharyngeal samples was significantly lower than the Ct value of PCR on combined throat/nasal samples (19 (IQR 17–20) versus 21 (IQR 18–29) cycles, p value 0.01). CONCLUSION: Combined throat/nasal swabs yield a similar sensitivity to detect SARS-CoV-2 as nasopharyngeal swabs and are a good alternative sampling method, despite a lower Ct value for the nasopharyngeal samples. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020-07-14 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC7359435/ /pubmed/32666481 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10096-020-03972-y Text en © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
spellingShingle Brief Report
Vlek, A. L. M.
Wesselius, T. S.
Achterberg, R.
Thijsen, S. F. T.
Combined throat/nasal swab sampling for SARS-CoV-2 is equivalent to nasopharyngeal sampling
title Combined throat/nasal swab sampling for SARS-CoV-2 is equivalent to nasopharyngeal sampling
title_full Combined throat/nasal swab sampling for SARS-CoV-2 is equivalent to nasopharyngeal sampling
title_fullStr Combined throat/nasal swab sampling for SARS-CoV-2 is equivalent to nasopharyngeal sampling
title_full_unstemmed Combined throat/nasal swab sampling for SARS-CoV-2 is equivalent to nasopharyngeal sampling
title_short Combined throat/nasal swab sampling for SARS-CoV-2 is equivalent to nasopharyngeal sampling
title_sort combined throat/nasal swab sampling for sars-cov-2 is equivalent to nasopharyngeal sampling
topic Brief Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7359435/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32666481
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10096-020-03972-y
work_keys_str_mv AT vlekalm combinedthroatnasalswabsamplingforsarscov2isequivalenttonasopharyngealsampling
AT wesseliusts combinedthroatnasalswabsamplingforsarscov2isequivalenttonasopharyngealsampling
AT achterbergr combinedthroatnasalswabsamplingforsarscov2isequivalenttonasopharyngealsampling
AT thijsensft combinedthroatnasalswabsamplingforsarscov2isequivalenttonasopharyngealsampling