Swabs Collected by Patients or Health Care Workers for SARS-CoV-2 Testing.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tu YP
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7289274 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Swabs Collected by Patients or Health Care Workers for SARS-CoV-2 Testing.
Tu Yuan-Po YP Jennings Rachel R Hart Brian B Cangelosi Gerard A GA Wood Rachel C RC Wehber Kevin K Verma Prateek P Vojta Deneen D Berke Ethan M EM
The New England journal of medicine 20200603 5
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceDespite the expansion of SARS-CoV-2 testing, available tests have not received Emergency Use Authorization for performance with self-collected anterior nares (nasal) swabs from children younger than 14 years because the effect of pediatric self-swabbing on SARS-CoV-2 test sensitivity is unknown.ObjectiveTo characterize the ability of school-aged children to self-collect nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing compared with collection by health care workers.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional study of 197 symptomatic children and adolescents aged 4 to 14 years old. Individuals were recruited based on results of testing in the Children's Healthcare of Atlanta system from July to August 2021.ExposuresChildren and adolescents were given instructional material consisting of a short instructional video and a handout with written and visual steps for self-swab collection. Participants first provided a self-collected nasal swab. Health care workers then collected a second specimen.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 detection and relative quantitation by cycle threshold (Ct) in self- vs health care worker-collected nasal swabs when tested with a real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction test with Emergency Use Authorization.ResultsAmong the study participants, 108 of 194 (55.7%) were male and the median age was 9 years (IQR, 6-11). Of the 196 participants, 87 (44.4%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 105 (53.6%) tested negative by both self- and health care worker-collected swabs. Two children tested positive by self- or health care worker-collected swab alone; 1 child had an invalid health care worker swab. Compared with health care worker-collected swabs, self-collected swabs had 97.8% (95% CI, 94.7%-100.0%) and 98.1% (95% CI, 95.6%-100.0%) positive and negative percent agreement, respectively, and SARS-CoV-2 Ct values did not differ significantly between groups (mean [SD] Ct, self-swab: 26.7 [5.4] vs health care worker swab: 26.3 [6.0]; P = .65).Conclusions and relevanceAfter hearing and seeing simple instructional materials, children and adolescents aged 4 to 14 years self-collected nasal swabs that closely agreed on SARS-CoV-2 detection with swabs collected by health care workers.
| S-EPMC9419070 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic spurred the development of innovative solutions for specimen collection and molecular detection for large-scale community testing. Among these developments is the RHINOstic nasal swab, a plastic anterior nares swab built into the cap of a standard matrix tube that facilitates automated processing of up to 96 specimens at a time. In a study of unsupervised self-collection utilizing these swabs, we demonstrate comparable analytic performance and shipping stability compared to traditional anterior nares swabs, as well as significant improvements in laboratory processing efficiency. The use of these swabs may allow laboratories to accommodate large numbers of sample collections during periods of high testing demand. Automation-friendly nasal swabs are an important tool for high-throughput processing of samples that may be adopted in response to future respiratory viral pandemics.
| S-EPMC10865831 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Individualized antibody reacitivty levels for SARS-CoV-2 antigens were successfully quantified and reactivity classification (Reactive non reactive) was performed based on a logistic regression model. Individuals were tested at several time points including their reactivity before the mRNA vaccination (Pfizer and Moderna), soon after first and second doses and up to 6 months after immunization
2022-04-04 | GSE199668 | GEO
Project description:We prospectively compared health care worker-collected nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) to self-collected anterior nasal swabs (ANS) and straight saliva for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in 354 patients. The percent positive agreement between NPS and ANS or saliva was 86.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76.7 to 92.9%) and 93.8% (95% CI, 86.0 to 97.9%), respectively. The percent negative agreement was 99.6% (95% CI, 98.0 to 100.0%) for NPS versus ANS and 97.8% (95% CI, 95.3 to 99.2%) for NPS versus saliva. More cases were detected by the use of NPS (n = 80) and saliva (n = 81) than by the use of ANS (n = 70), but no single specimen type detected all severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections.
| S-EPMC7587122 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7923908 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn British Columbia (BC), self-collected saline gargle (SG) is the only alternative to health care provider (HCP)-collected nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs to detect SARS-CoV-2 in an outpatient setting by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). However, some individuals cannot perform a SG. Our study aimed to assess combined throat-bilateral nares (TN) swabbing as a swab-based alternative.MethodsSymptomatic individuals greater than 12 years of age seeking a COVID-19 PCR test at one of two COVID-19 collection centres in Metro Vancouver were asked to participate in this study. Participants provided a HCP-collected NP sample and a self-collected SG and TN sample for PCR testing, which were either HCP observed or unobserved.ResultsThree-hundred and eleven individuals underwent all three collections. Compared against HCP-NP, SG was 99% sensitive and 98% specific (kappa 0.97) and TN was 99% sensitive and 99% specific (kappa 0.98). Using the final clinical test interpretation as the reference standard, NP was 98% sensitive and 100% specific (kappa 0.98), and both SG and TN were 99% sensitive and 100% specific (both kappa 0.99). Mean cycle threshold values for each viral target were higher in SG specimens compared to the other sample types; however, this did not significantly impact the clinical performance, because the positivity rates were similar. The clinical performance of all specimen types was comparable within the first 7 days of symptom onset, regardless of the observation method. SG self-collections were rated the most acceptable, followed by TN.ConclusionsTN provides another less invasive self-collection modality for symptomatic outpatient SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing.
| S-EPMC10797771 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7376392 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo investigate the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 testing in specimens collected from the anterior nasal vestibules of COVID-19 patients.MethodsA cross-sectional analysis was performed on 30 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 at the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center from March 14, 2020 to March 21, 2020. Paired specimens were collected from both the anterior nasal vestibule and the oropharynx from all patients. All specimens were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays.ResultsOf the 30 patients with confirmed COVID-19, 17 patients (56.7%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 when oropharyngeal specimens were used, while 20 patients (66.7%) tested positive when nasal swab specimens were used. There was no statistically significant difference in sensitivity between the two methods.ConclusionsRespiratory swabs collected from the nasal vestibule offer a less invasive alternative to oropharyngeal swabs for specimen collection in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and have adequate sensitivity.
| S-EPMC8293915 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn order to protect health workers from SARS-CoV-2, there is need to characterise the different types of patient facing health workers. Our first aim was to determine both the infection status and seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in health workers. Our second aim was to evaluate the occupational and demographic predictors of seropositivity to inform the country's infection prevention and control (IPC) strategy.Methods and principal findingsWe invited 713 staff members at 24 out of 35 health facilities in the City of Bulawayo in Zimbabwe. Compliance to testing was defined as the willingness to uptake COVID-19 testing by answering a questionnaire and providing samples for both antibody testing and PCR testing. SARS-COV-2 antibodies were detected using a rapid diagnostic test kit and SAR-COV-2 infection was determined by real-time (RT)-PCR. Of the 713 participants, 635(89%) consented to answering the questionnaire and providing blood sample for antibody testing while 560 (78.5%) agreed to provide nasopharyngeal swabs for the PCR SARS-CoV-2 testing. Of the 635 people (aged 18-73) providing a blood sample 39.1% reported a history of past COVID-19 symptoms while 14.2% reported having current symptoms of COVID-19. The most-prevalent co-morbidity among this group was hypertension (22.0%) followed by asthma (7.0%) and diabetes (6.0%). The SARS-CoV-2 sero-prevalence was 8.9%. Of the 560 participants tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection, 2 participants (0.36%) were positive for SAR-CoV-2 infection by PCR testing. None of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody positive people were positive for SAR-CoV-2 infection by PCR testing.Conclusion and interpretationIn addition to clinical staff, several patient-facing health workers were characterised within Zimbabwe's health system and the seroprevalence data indicated that previous exposure to SAR-CoV-2 had occurred across the full spectrum of patient-facing staff with nurses and nurse aides having the highest seroprevalence. Our results highlight the need for including the various health workers in IPC strategies in health centres to ensure effective biosecurity and biosafety.
| S-EPMC8057594 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8444446 | biostudies-literature