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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |