Search

Testing of pooled samples is an effective strategy for increasing testing capacity while saving resources and time. This study aimed to validate pooled testing and gather real-life data on its use for Covid-19 surveillance with a gargle lavage (GL) self-sampling strategy. Two-stage pooled testing with pools of 6 and 12 samples was used for preventive testing of an asymptomatic population and Covid-19 surveillance in Czech schools. Both GL and nasopharyngeal swabs were used for sampling. In total, 61,111 samples were tested. The use of pooled testing for large-scale Covid-19 surveillance reduced consumable costs by almost 75% and increased testing capacity up to 3.8-fold compared to standard methods. RT-PCR experiments revealed a minimal loss of sensitivity (0–2.2%) when using pooled samples, enabling the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) genes with Ct values >35. The minor loss of sensitivity was counterbalanced by a significantly increased throughput and the ability to substantially increase testing frequencies. Pooled testing is considerably more cost-effective and less time-consuming than standard testing for large-scale Covid-19 surveillance even when the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 is fluctuating. Gargle lavage self-sampling is a non-invasive technique suitable for sample collection without a healthcare worker's assistance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused considerable disruption worldwide. For efficient SARS-CoV-2 detection, new methods of rapid, non-invasive sampling are needed. This study aimed to investigate the stability of SARS-CoV-2 in a novel medium for gargle-lavage (GL) self-sampling and to compare the performance of SARS-CoV-2 detection in paired self-collected GL and clinician-obtained nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples. The stability study for SARS-CoV-2 preservation in a novel medium was performed over 14 days (4 °C, 24–27 °C, and 37 °C). In total, 494 paired GL and NPS samples were obtained at the University Hospital in Olomouc in April 2021. SARS-CoV-2 detection in paired samples was performed with a SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Detection Kit (Zybio, Chongqing Municipality, Chongqing, China), an Elecsys® SARS-CoV-2 Antigen assay (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany), and a SARS-CoV-2 Antigen ELISA (EUROIMMUN, Lübeck, Germany). The stability study demonstrated excellent SARS-CoV-2 preservation in the novel medium for 14 days. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 55.7% of NPS samples and 55.7% of GL samples using rRT-PCR, with an overall agreement of 91.9%. The positive percent agreement (PPA) of the rRT-PCR in the GL samples was 92.7%, and the negative percent agreement (NPA) was 90.9%, compared with the NPS samples. The PPA of the rRT-PCR in the NPS and GL samples was 93.2% when all positive tests were used as the reference standard. Both antigen detection assays showed poor sensitivity compared to rRT-PCR (33.2% and 36.0%). rRT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 detection in self-collected GL samples had a similar PPA and NPA to that of NPSs. GL self-sampling offers a suitable and more comfortable alternative for SARS-CoV-2 detection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused considerable disruption worldwide. For efficient SARS-CoV-2 detection, new methods of rapid, non-invasive sampling are needed. This study aimed to investigate the stability of SARS-CoV-2 in a novel medium for gargle-lavage (GL) self-sampling and to compare the performance of SARS-CoV-2 detection in paired self-collected GL and clinician-obtained nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples. The stability study for SARS-CoV-2 preservation in a novel medium was performed over 14 days (4 °C, 24–27 °C, and 37 °C). In total, 494 paired GL and NPS samples were obtained at the University Hospital in Olomouc in April 2021. SARS-CoV-2 detection in paired samples was performed with a SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Detection Kit (Zybio, Chongqing Municipality, Chongqing, China), an Elecsys® SARS-CoV-2 Antigen assay (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany), and a SARS-CoV-2 Antigen ELISA (EUROIMMUN, Lübeck, Germany). The stability study demonstrated excellent SARS-CoV-2 preservation in the novel medium for 14 days. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 55.7% of NPS samples and 55.7% of GL samples using rRT-PCR, with an overall agreement of 91.9%. The positive percent agreement (PPA) of the rRT-PCR in the GL samples was 92.7%, and the negative percent agreement (NPA) was 90.9%, compared with the NPS samples. The PPA of the rRT-PCR in the NPS and GL samples was 93.2% when all positive tests were used as the reference standard. Both antigen detection assays showed poor sensitivity compared to rRT-PCR (33.2% and 36.0%). rRT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 detection in self-collected GL samples had a similar PPA and NPA to that of NPSs. GL self-sampling offers a suitable and more comfortable alternative for SARS-CoV-2 detection.

ABSTRACT Current procurement of specimens for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection requires trained personnel and dedicated equipment. We compared standard nasopharyngeal swabs with self-collected gargle lavage fluid obtained from 80 mostly symptomatic outpatients. After RNA extraction, RT-PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2 was performed. Qualitative results obtained with the paired samples from individual outpatients were 100% congruent. Therefore, self-collected gargle lavage fluid can serve as a suitable specimen for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing in outpatients. IMPORTANCE The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic still strains health care systems worldwide. While COVID-19 testing is considered an essential pillar in combating this infectious disease, shortages in supplies and trained health care personnel often limit the procurement of patient samples, in particular in outpatient settings. Here, we compared the simple self-collection of gargle lavage fluid with the gold standard nasopharyngeal swab as a specimen for COVID-19 testing. By finding complete congruence of results obtained with paired samples of a sizeable patient cohort, our results strongly support the idea that the painless self-collection of gargle lavage fluid provides a suitable and uncomplicated sample for reliable SARS-CoV-2 detection.

One year into the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, diagnostic strategies, although central for contact tracing and other preventive measures, are still limited. To meet the global demand, lower cost and faster antigen tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) detection are a convenient alternative to the gold standard reverse transcription‐polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) assay. We tested laboratory‐based RT‐PCR RNA detection and two rapid antigen detection (RAD) tests, based on the immunochromatography test for nucleocapsid protein of SARS‐CoV‐2 (COVID‐19 Ag ECO Test, ECO Diagnóstica, and Panbio COVID‐19 Ag Rapid Test Abbott). Paired collection and testing were done in a small prospective open study in three clinical services in São Paulo, constituted of mostly symptomatic volunteers at collection (97%, 109/112) for a median of 4 days (interquartile range: 3–6), ranging from 1 to 30. Among the 108 paired RT‐PCR/RAD tests, results were concordant in 96.4% (101/108). The test's performance was comparable, with an overall sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 96%. These observations add to other data that suggest that antigen tests may provide reasonable sensitivity and specificity and deserve a role to improve testing strategies, especially in resource‐limited settings. Research Highlights: Testing and isolating individuals transmitting SARS‐CoV‐2, generally with high viral load, is crucial to pandemic control.We documented comparable performance (96%) of two rapid test to standard RT‐qPCR.Lower cost and immediate results of rapid antigen tests may allow innovative containment measures or, at least, complement current testing limitations, specially in resource limited setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Testing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by RT-PCR is a vital public health tool in the pandemic. Self-collected samples are increasingly used as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs. Several studies suggested that they are sufficiently sensitive to be a useful alternative. However, there are limited data directly comparing several different types of self-collected materials to determine which material is preferable. A total of 102 predominantly symptomatic adults with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection self-collected native saliva, a tongue swab, a mid-turbinate nasal swab, saliva obtained by chewing a cotton pad and gargle lavage, within 48 h of initial diagnosis. Sample collection was unsupervised. Both native saliva and gargling with tap water had high diagnostic sensitivity of 92.8% and 89.1%, respectively. Nasal swabs had a sensitivity of 85.1%, which was not significantly inferior to saliva (p = 0.092), but 16.6% of participants reported they had difficult in self-collection of this sample. A tongue swab and saliva obtained by chewing a cotton pad had a significantly lower sensitivity of 74.2% and 70.2%, respectively. Diagnostic sensitivity was not related to the presence of clinical symptoms or to age. When comparing self-collected specimens from different material, saliva, gargle lavage or mid-turbinate nasal swabs may be considered for most symptomatic patients. However, complementary experiments are required to verify that differences in performance observed among the five sampling modes were not attributed to collection impairment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current procurement of specimens for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection requires trained personnel and dedicated equipment. We compared standard nasopharyngeal swabs with self-collected gargle lavage fluid obtained from 80 mostly symptomatic outpatients. After RNA extraction, RT-PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2 was performed. Qualitative results obtained with the paired samples from individual outpatients were 100% congruent. Therefore, self-collected gargle lavage fluid can serve as a suitable specimen for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing in outpatients. IMPORTANCE The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic still strains health care systems worldwide. While COVID-19 testing is considered an essential pillar in combating this infectious disease, shortages in supplies and trained health care personnel often limit the procurement of patient samples, in particular in outpatient settings. Here, we compared the simple self-collection of gargle lavage fluid with the gold standard nasopharyngeal swab as a specimen for COVID-19 testing. By finding complete congruence of results obtained with paired samples of a sizeable patient cohort, our results strongly support the idea that the painless self-collection of gargle lavage fluid provides a suitable and uncomplicated sample for reliable SARS-CoV-2 detection.

Background & Objectives: In the present scenario, the most common sample for diagnosis of COVID-19 by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is nasal and throat swab (NTS). Other sampling options such as gargle lavage have found limited application in clinical use mostly because of unavailability of an appropriate gargling liquid. This study was conducted to assess the stability of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in normal saline at 4°C that can serve as a gargling liquid as well as a transport medium. The study also looked at the agreement between NTS and gargle lavage/saliva for the detection of SARS-CoV-2., Methods: In 29 consecutive real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR) positive COVID-19 patients, paired NTS, gargle and saliva samples were taken. Samples were processed by rRT-PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. To assess the SARS-CoV-2 RNA stability in normal saline, gargle lavage specimens were divided into two aliquots; one subset of the specimen was run within 4-6 h along with the routine samples (NTS and saliva) and the other subset was stored at 4°C and processed after 24-30 h. Agreement between cycle threshold (Ct) values from both the runs was compared using Bland-Altman (BA) analysis., Results: The positivity rates of rRT-PCR in NTS, saliva and gargle lavage samples were 82.7 (24/29), 79.3 (23/29) and 86.2 per cent (25/29), respectively. BA plot showed a good agreement between the Ct values of fresh and stored gargle samples, stipulating that there were no significant differences in the approximate viral load levels between the fresh and stored gargle lavage samples (bias: E gene -0.64, N gene -0.51, ORF gene -0.19)., Interpretation & Conclusions: Our study results show stability of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the gargle samples collected using normal saline up to 24-30 h. Gargle lavage and saliva specimen collection are cost-effective and acceptable methods of sampling for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by rRT-PCR. These simplified, inexpensive and acceptable methods of specimen collection would reduce the cost and workload on healthcare workers for sample collection., Competing Interests: None

Background & Objectives: Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab (NPS and OPS) collection is widely accepted as the preferred method for obtaining respiratory samples. However, it has certain disadvantages which may be overcome by gargling. The primary objective of this study was to assess agreement between gargle lavage and swab as an appropriate respiratory sample for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. The secondary objective was to assess the patient acceptability of the two sampling methods., Methods: It was a cross-sectional study done at a tertiary care hospital in New Delhi, India, on 50 confirmed COVID-19 patients. Paired swab (NPS and OPS) and gargle samples were taken within 72 h of their diagnosis. Samples were processed by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Post-sample collection, a 10-point scale was administered to assess the level of discomfort with either of the collection methods., Results: All gargle samples were positive and comparable to their corresponding swab samples irrespective of the symptoms and duration of illness. The cycle threshold (C t ) values for gargle samples were slightly higher but comparable to those of swabs. Bland-Altman plot showed good agreement between the two methods. Majority (72%) of the patients reported moderate-to-severe discomfort with swab collection in comparison to 24 per cent reporting only mild discomfort with gargle collection., Interpretation & Conclusions: Our preliminary results show that the gargle lavage may be a viable alternative to swabs for sample collection for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Adoption of gargle lavage for sample collection will have a significant impact as it will enable easy self-collection, relieve healthcare workers and also lead to substantial cost savings by reducing the need for swabs and personal protective equipment., Competing Interests: None