Danish citizens' preferences for at-home oropharyngeal/nasal SARS-CoV-2 specimen collection

Citizens' perspectives on relocating care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Healthcare systems around the world are facing large challenges. There are increasing demands and costs while at the same time a diminishing health workforce. Without reform, healthcare systems are unsustainable. Relocating care, for example, from hospitals to sites closer to patients' homes, is expected to make a key contribution to keeping healthcare sustainable. Given the significant impact of this initiative on citizens, we conducted a scoping review to provide insight into the factors that influence citizens' attitudes towards relocating care.

METHOD

A scoping review was conducted. The search was performed in the following databases: Pubmed, Embase, Cinahl, and Scopus. Articles had to include relocating healthcare and citizens' perspectives on this topic and the articles had to be about a European country with a strong primary care system. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 70 articles remained.

RESULTS

Factors positively influencing citizens' attitudes towards relocating care included: convenience, familiarity, accessibility, patients having more control over their disease, and privacy. Factors influencing negative attitudes included: concerns about the quality of care, familiarity, the lack of physical examination, contact with others, convenience, and privacy. Furthermore, in general, most citizens preferred to relocate care in the studies we found, especially from the hospital to care provided at home.

CONCLUSION

Several factors influencing the attitude of citizens towards relocating care were found. These factors are very important when determining citizens' preferences for the location of their healthcare. The majority of studies in this review reported that citizens are in favour of relocating care. In general citizens' perspectives on relocating care are very often missing in articles. It was significant that very few studies on relocation from the hospital to the general practitioner were identified.

COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Tests With Self-Collected vs Health Care Worker-Collected Nasal and Throat Swab Specimens: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Self- or health care worker (HCW)-collected nasal swab specimens are the preferred sampling method to perform rapid antigen testing for COVID-19, but it is debated whether throat specimens can improve test sensitivity.

Objective

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of self- and HCW-collected nasal vs throat swab specimens for COVID-19 rapid antigen testing.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This per-protocol multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted from February 15 through March 25, 2022. The participants, individuals aged 16 years or older requesting a COVID-19 test for diagnostic or screening purposes, had 4 specimens collected for individual testing at 1 of 2 urban COVID-19 outpatient test centers in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Interventions

Participants were randomized 1:1 to self-collected or HCW-collected nasal and throat swab specimens for rapid antigen testing. Additional HCW-collected nasal and throat swab specimens for reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) were used as the reference standard.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was sensitivity to diagnose COVID-19 of a self- vs HCW-collected nasal and throat specimen for rapid antigen testing compared with RT-PCR.

Results

Of 2941 participants enrolled, 2674 (90.9%) had complete test results and were included in the final analysis (1535 [57.4%] women; median age, 40 years [IQR, 28-55 years]); 1074 (40.2%) had COVID-19 symptoms, and 827 (30.9%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. Health care worker-collected throat specimens had higher mean sensitivity than HCW-collected nasal specimens for rapid antigen testing (69.4% [95% CI, 65.1%-73.6%] vs 60.0% [95% CI, 55.4%-64.5%]). However, a subgroup analysis of symptomatic participants found that self-collected nasal specimens were more sensitive than self-collected throat specimens for rapid antigen testing (mean sensitivity, 71.5% [95% CI, 65.3%-77.6%] vs 58.0% [95% CI, 51.2%-64.7%]; P < .001). Combining nasal and throat specimens increased sensitivity for HCW- and self-collected specimens by 21.4 and 15.5 percentage points, respectively, compared with a single nasal specimen (both P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

This randomized clinical trial found that a single HCW-collected throat specimen had higher sensitivity for rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 than a nasal specimen. In contrast, the self-collected nasal specimens had higher sensitivity than throat specimens for symptomatic participants. Adding a throat specimen to the standard practice of collecting a single nasal specimen could improve sensitivity for rapid antigen testing in health care and home-based settings.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05209178.

Head-to-Head Comparison of Nasopharyngeal, Oropharyngeal and Nasal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Testing

Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) are considered the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 testing but are technically challenging to perform and associated with discomfort. Alternative specimens for viral testing, such as oropharyngeal swabs (OPS) and nasal swabs, may be preferable, but strong evidence regarding their diagnostic sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 testing is still missing. We conducted a head-to-head prospective study to compare the sensitivity of NPS, OPS and nasal swabs specimens for SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing. Adults with an initial positive SARS-CoV-2 test were invited to participate. All participants had OPS, NPS and nasal swab performed by an otorhinolaryngologist. We included 51 confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive participants in the study. The sensitivity was highest for OPS at 94.1% (95% CI, 87 to 100%) compared to NPS at 92.5% (95% CI, 85 to 99%) (p = 1.00) and lowest for nasal swabs at 82.4% (95% CI, 72 to 93%) (p = 0.07). Combined OPS/NPS was detected in 100% of cases, while the combined OPS/nasal swab increased the sensitivity significantly to 96.1% (95% CI, 90 to 100%) compared to that of the nasal swab alone (p = 0.03). The mean Ct value for NPS was 24.98 compared to 26.63 for OPS (p = 0.084) and 30.60 for nasal swab (p = 0.002). OPS achieved a sensitivity comparable to NPS and should be considered an equivalent alternative for SARS-CoV-2 testing.

A comparison of conventional and advanced electroanalytical methods to detect SARS-CoV-2 virus: A concise review

Respiratory viruses are a serious threat to human wellbeing that can cause pandemic disease. As a result, it is critical to identify virus in a timely, sensitive, and precise manner. The present novel coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) disease outbreak has increased these concerns. The research of developing various methods for COVID-19 virus identification is one of the most rapidly growing research areas. This review article compares and addresses recent improvements in conventional and advanced electroanalytical approaches for detecting COVID-19 virus. The popular conventional methods such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), loop mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), serology test, and computed tomography (CT) scan with artificial intelligence require specialized equipment, hours of processing, and specially trained staff. Many researchers, on the other hand, focused on the invention and expansion of electrochemical and/or bio sensors to detect SARS-CoV-2, demonstrating that they could show a significant role in COVID-19 disease control. We attempted to meticulously summarize recent advancements, compare conventional and electroanalytical approaches, and ultimately discuss future prospective in the field. We hope that this review will be helpful to researchers who are interested in this interdisciplinary field and desire to develop more innovative virus detection methods.

Valid and Reliable Assessment of Upper Respiratory Tract Specimen Collection Skills during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Proper specimen collection is the most important step to ensure accurate testing for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and other infectious diseases. Assessment of healthcare workers' upper respiratory tract specimen collection skills is needed to ensure samples of high-quality clinical specimens for COVID-19 testing. This study explored the validity evidence for a theoretical MCQ-test and checklists developed for nasopharyngeal (NPS) and oropharyngeal (OPS) specimen collection skills assessment. We found good inter-item reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.76) for the items of the MCQ-test and high inter-rater reliability using the checklist for the assessment of OPS and NPS skills on 0.86 and 0.87, respectively. The MCQ scores were significantly different between experts (mean 98%) and novices (mean 66%), p < 0.001, and a pass/fail score of 91% was established. We found a significant discrimination between checklist scores of experts (mean 95% score for OPS and 89% for NPS) and novices (mean 50% score for OPS and 36% for NPS), p < 0.001, and a pass/fail score was established of 76% for OPS and 61% for NPS. Further, the results also demonstrated that a group of non-healthcare educated workers can perform upper respiratory tract specimen collection comparably to experts after a short and focused simulation-based training session. This study, therefore, provides validity evidence for the use of a theoretical and practical test for upper respiratory specimens' collection skills that can be used for competency-based training of the workers in the COVID-19 test centers.