Higher SARS-CoV-2 detection of oropharyngeal compared with nasopharyngeal or saliva specimen for molecular testing: a multicentre randomised comparative accuracy study

Comparative evaluation of swabbing sites for Omicron variant detection in PCR testing

PURPOSE

The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 raised concerns about the best sampling sites for PCR testing, with early indications suggesting throat swab samples were better than nasal swab samples. Our study evaluated the sensitivity of detecting SARS-CoV-2 across different swabbing sites.

METHODS

Participants undergoing testing at NHS Test and Trace sites in England provided self-collected samples using nose only, throat only, and combined nose and throat swabs, which were analysed by realtime PCR.

RESULTS

Among 815 participants, combined swabs had higher viral concentrations than nose only or throat only swabs. Sensitivity for detecting SARS-CoV-2 by PCR was 91 % for nose only and 97 % for throat only, relative to the combined approach. VC remained stable in nose swabs but declined in throat swabs with time.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined nose and throat swabbing remains the most effective method for SARS-CoV-2 detection. If a single swab is used, a throat swab has a higher sensitivity than nose swabs, although VC in the throat decreases faster in later infection stages. The variations in VC over time and intra-person variation between sampling sites underscore the complexity of viral dynamics, highlighting the importance of considering both nose and throat samples for comprehensive testing.

Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2 From Throat Swabs Performed With or Without Specimen Collection From the Tonsils: Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Testing for SARS-CoV-2 is essential to provide early COVID-19 treatment for people at high risk of severe illness and to limit the spread of infection in society. Proper upper respiratory specimen collection is the most critical step in the diagnosis of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in public settings, and throat swabs were the preferred specimens used for mass testing in many countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is still a discussion about whether throat swabs have a high enough sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing, as previous studies have reported a large variability in the sensitivity from 52% to 100%. Many previous studies exploring the diagnostic accuracy of throat swabs lack a detailed description of the sampling technique, which makes it difficult to compare the different diagnostic accuracy results. Some studies perform a throat swab by only collecting specimens from the posterior oropharyngeal wall, while others also include a swab of the palatine tonsils for SARS-CoV-2 testing. However, studies suggest that the palatine tonsils could have a tissue tropism for SARS-CoV-2 that may improve the SARS-CoV-2 detection during sampling. This may explain the variation of sensitivity reported, but no clinical studies have yet explored the differences in sensitivity and patient discomfort whether the palatine tonsils are included during the throat swab or not.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to examine the sensitivity and patient discomfort of a throat swab including the palatine tonsils compared to only swabbing the posterior oropharyngeal wall in molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

We will conduct a randomized controlled study to compare the molecular detection rate of SARS-CoV-2 by a throat swab performed from the posterior oropharyngeal wall and the palatine tonsils (intervention group) or the posterior oropharyngeal wall only (control group). Participants will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio. All participants fill out a baseline questionnaire upon enrollment in the trial, examining their reason for being tested, symptoms, and previous tonsillectomy. A follow-up questionnaire will be sent to participants to explore the development of symptoms after testing.

RESULTS

A total of 2315 participants were enrolled in this study between November 10, 2022, and December 22, 2022. The results from the follow-up questionnaire are expected to be completed at the beginning of 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

This randomized clinical trial will provide us with information about whether throat swabs including specimens from the palatine tonsils will improve the diagnostic sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection. These results can, therefore, be used to improve future testing recommendations and provide additional information about tissue tropism for SARS-CoV-2.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05611203; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05611203.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/47446.

Comparative Performance of COVID-19 Test Methods in Healthcare Workers during the Omicron Wave

The COVID-19 pandemic presents unique requirements for accessible, reliable testing, and many testing platforms and sampling techniques have been developed over the course of the pandemic. Not all test methods have been systematically compared to each other or a common gold standard, and the performance of tests developed in the early epidemic have not been consistently re-evaluated in the context of new variants. We conducted a repeated measures study with adult healthcare workers presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing. Participants were tested using seven testing modalities. Test sensitivity was compared using any positive PCR test as the gold standard. A total of 325 individuals participated in the study. PCR tests were the most sensitive (saliva PCR 0.957 ± 0.048, nasopharyngeal PCR 0.877 ± 0.075, oropharyngeal PCR 0.849 ± 0.082). Standard nasal rapid antigen tests were less sensitive but roughly equivalent (BinaxNOW 0.613 ± 0.110, iHealth 0.627 ± 0.109). Oropharyngeal rapid antigen tests were the least sensitive (BinaxNOW 0.400 ± 0.111, iHealth brands 0.311 ± 0.105). PCR remains the most sensitive testing modality for the diagnosis of COVID-19 and saliva PCR is significantly more sensitive than oropharyngeal PCR and equivalent to nasopharyngeal PCR. Nasal AgRDTs are less sensitive than PCR but have benefits in convenience and accessibility. Saliva-based PCR testing is a viable alternative to traditional swab-based PCR testing for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

A SARS-CoV-2 and influenza rapid antigen test-based hospital isolation policy awaiting RT-PCR, a prospective observational study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of a combined SARS-CoV-2/influenza rapid antigen test (SIRAT) and to evaluate a SIRAT-based hospital isolation policy awaiting RT-PCR results for patients presenting at the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

We performed a prospective observational study including all adult patients presenting with influenza-like symptoms at the ED of two hospitals from 31 October 2022 to 31 March 2023. A SIRAT and SARS-CoV-2 and influenza RT-PCR were performed on upper respiratory samples. SIRAT results were compared with RT-PCR. Droplet and contact isolation measures (DCIM) were imposed based on SIRAT results awaiting RT-PCR. We monitored symptomatic nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 and influenza infections potentially caused by delayed isolation of patients with false negative SIRAT and the hours of unnecessary DCIM saved.

RESULTS

We included 1740 patients of whom 1296 were hospitalized. SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B prevalence were 12.7% (221/1740) and 9.9% (171/1740). Sensitivity and specificity of the SIRAT were 67.7% (95% CI 61.1-73.9%) (149/220) and 99.4% (95% CI 99.0-99.8%) (1510/1518) for SARS-CoV-2 and 52.7% (95% CI 44.9-60.4%) (89/169) and 99.1% (95% CI 98.5-99.5%) (1530/1544) for influenza A/B. We found a 0% nosocomial transmission risk for SARS-CoV-2 (95% CI 0-8.8%) and influenza (95% CI 0-10%). In all, 8712 hours in total or a median up to 6 hours 59 minutes (IQR (interquartile range) 11h03) per patient of unnecessary DCIM were saved.

DISCUSSION

A SIRAT-guided hospital isolation policy awaiting RT-PCR results for patients who present at the ED can save unnecessary isolation hours without having to lead to significant symptomatic nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 or influenza viruses.

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.