Cargando…

Clinical evaluation of nasopharyngeal, midturbinate nasal and oropharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2

In the setting of supply chain shortages of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs, we sought to compare the ability of nasopharyngeal, midturbinate nasal, and oropharyngeal swabs (NPS, MTS, and OPS) to detect SARS-CoV-2. Community and hospitalized participants post-COVID-19 diagnosis were swabbed and tested for...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Berenger, Byron M., Fonseca, Kevin, Schneider, Angela R., Hu, Jia, Zelyas, Nathan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Published by Elsevier Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8675123/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35007959
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2021.115618
Descripción
Sumario:In the setting of supply chain shortages of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs, we sought to compare the ability of nasopharyngeal, midturbinate nasal, and oropharyngeal swabs (NPS, MTS, and OPS) to detect SARS-CoV-2. Community and hospitalized participants post-COVID-19 diagnosis were swabbed and tested for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR. Thirty-six participants had all 3 swabs collected. Using detection at any site as the standard, the percent positive agreements were 90% (95% CI 74.4−96.5), 80% (70.3−94.7) and 87% (62.7−90.5) for NPS, MTS, and OPS, respectively. Subsequently, 43 participants had OPS and NPS collected. Thirty-nine were positive with a percent positive agreement of 82.1% (95% CI 67.3−91.0) for OPS and 87.2% (73.3−94.4) for NPS. Combining all 79 patients tested, 67 were positive at either site with a positive agreement was 86.5% (76.4−92.7) for OPS and 91.1% (81.8−95.8) for NPS. OPS are an acceptable alternative to NPS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections.