Natural spring water gargle samples as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection using a laboratory-developed test
© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC..
The objective of this study was to validate the use of spring water gargle (SWG) as an alternative to oral and nasopharyngeal swab (ONPS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection with a laboratory-developed test. Healthcare workers and adults from the general population, presenting to one of two COVID-19 screening clinics in Montréal and Québec City, were prospectively recruited to provide a gargle sample in addition to the standard ONPS. The paired specimens were analyzed using thermal lysis followed by a laboratory-developed nucleic acid amplification test (LD-NAAT) to detect SARS-CoV-2, and comparative performance analysis was performed. An individual was considered infected if a positive result was obtained on either sample. A total of 1297 adult participants were recruited. Invalid results (n = 18) were excluded from the analysis. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 144/1279 (11.3%) participants: 126 from both samples, 15 only from ONPS, and 3 only from SWG. Overall, the sensitivity was 97.9% (95% CI: 93.7-99.3) for ONPS and 89.6% (95% CI: 83.4-93.6; p = 0.005) for SWG. The mean ONPS cycle threshold (Ct ) value was significantly lower for the concordant paired samples as compared to discordant ones (22.9 vs. 32.1; p < 0.001). In conclusion, using an LD-NAAT with thermal lysis, SWG is a less sensitive sampling method than the ONPS. However, the higher acceptability of SWG might enable a higher rate of detection from a population-based perspective. Nonetheless, in patients with a high clinical suspicion of COVID-19, a repeated analysis with ONPS should be considered. The sensitivity of SWG using NAAT preceded by chemical extraction should be evaluated.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2022 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2022 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:94 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Journal of medical virology - 94(2022), 3 vom: 21. März, Seite 985-993 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Gobeille Paré, Sarah [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
059QF0KO0R |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 03.06.2022 Date Revised 05.10.2022 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1002/jmv.27407 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM332125777 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM332125777 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231225214946.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1002/jmv.27407 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1107.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM332125777 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)34672374 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Gobeille Paré, Sarah |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Natural spring water gargle samples as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection using a laboratory-developed test |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2022 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 03.06.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 05.10.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC. | ||
| 520 | |a The objective of this study was to validate the use of spring water gargle (SWG) as an alternative to oral and nasopharyngeal swab (ONPS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection with a laboratory-developed test. Healthcare workers and adults from the general population, presenting to one of two COVID-19 screening clinics in Montréal and Québec City, were prospectively recruited to provide a gargle sample in addition to the standard ONPS. The paired specimens were analyzed using thermal lysis followed by a laboratory-developed nucleic acid amplification test (LD-NAAT) to detect SARS-CoV-2, and comparative performance analysis was performed. An individual was considered infected if a positive result was obtained on either sample. A total of 1297 adult participants were recruited. Invalid results (n = 18) were excluded from the analysis. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 144/1279 (11.3%) participants: 126 from both samples, 15 only from ONPS, and 3 only from SWG. Overall, the sensitivity was 97.9% (95% CI: 93.7-99.3) for ONPS and 89.6% (95% CI: 83.4-93.6; p = 0.005) for SWG. The mean ONPS cycle threshold (Ct ) value was significantly lower for the concordant paired samples as compared to discordant ones (22.9 vs. 32.1; p < 0.001). In conclusion, using an LD-NAAT with thermal lysis, SWG is a less sensitive sampling method than the ONPS. However, the higher acceptability of SWG might enable a higher rate of detection from a population-based perspective. Nonetheless, in patients with a high clinical suspicion of COVID-19, a repeated analysis with ONPS should be considered. The sensitivity of SWG using NAAT preceded by chemical extraction should be evaluated | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't | |
| 650 | 4 | |a COVID-19 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a PCR | |
| 650 | 4 | |a SARS-CoV-2 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a diagnosis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a gargle | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Mouthwashes |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Water |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a 059QF0KO0R |2 NLM | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Bestman-Smith, Julie |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Fafard, Judith |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Doualla-Bell, Florence |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Jacob-Wagner, Mariève |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Lavallée, Christian |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Charest, Hugues |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Beauchemin, Stéphanie |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Coutlée, François |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Dumaresq, Jeannot |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Busque, Lambert |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a St-Hilaire, Manon |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Lépine, Guylaine |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Boucher, Valérie |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Desforges, Marc |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Goupil-Sormany, Isabelle |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Labbé, Annie-Claude |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a G-SPIT study group |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of medical virology |d 1990 |g 94(2022), 3 vom: 21. März, Seite 985-993 |w (DE-627)NLM000285676 |x 1096-9071 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:94 |g year:2022 |g number:3 |g day:21 |g month:03 |g pages:985-993 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmv.27407 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 94 |j 2022 |e 3 |b 21 |c 03 |h 985-993 | ||