Self-Collected versus Healthcare Worker-Collected Swabs in the Diagnosis of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen tests for COVID19 compared to the viral genetic test in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the currently available and upcoming point-of-care rapid antigen tests (RATs) used in primary care settings relative to the viral genetic real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test as a reference for diagnosing COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 in adults.

INTRODUCTION

Accurate COVID-19 point-of-care diagnostic tests are required for real-time identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection in individuals. Real-time RT-PCR is the accepted gold standard for diagnostic testing, requiring technical expertise and expensive equipment that are unavailable in most primary care locations. RATs are immunoassays that detect the presence of a specific viral protein, which implies a current infection with SARS-CoV-2. RATs are qualitative or semi-quantitative diagnostics that lack thresholds that provide a result within a short time frame, typically within the hour following sample collection. In this systematic review, we synthesized the current evidence regarding the accuracy of RATs for detecting SARS-CoV-2 compared with RT-PCR.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Studies that included nonpregnant adults (18 years or older) with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of symptomology or disease severity, were included. The index test was any available SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care RAT. The reference test was any commercially distributed RT-PCR-based test that detects the RNA genome of SARS-CoV-2 and has been validated by an independent third party. Custom or in-house RT-PCR tests were also considered, with appropriate validation documentation. The diagnosis of interest was COVID-19 disease and SARS-CoV-2 infection. This review considered cross-sectional and cohort studies that examined the diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 infection where the participants had both index and reference tests performed.

METHODS

The keywords and index terms contained in relevant articles were used to develop a full search strategy for PubMed and adapted for Embase, Scopus, Qinsight, and the WHO COVID-19 databases . Studies published from November 2019 to July 12, 2022, were included, as SARS-CoV-2 emerged in late 2019 and is the cause of a continuing pandemic. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were critically appraised using QUADAS-2. Using a customized tool, data were extracted from included studies and were verified prior to analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive, and negative predictive values were calculated and presented with 95% CIs. When heterogeneity was observed, outlier analysis was conducted, and the results were generated by removing outliers.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis was performed on 91 studies of 581 full-text articles retrieved that provided true-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative values. RATs can identify individuals who have COVID-19 with high reliability (positive predictive value 97.7%; negative predictive value 95.2%) when considering overall performance. However, the lower level of sensitivity (67.1%) suggests that negative test results likely need to be retested through an additional method.

CONCLUSIONS

Most reported RAT brands had only a few studies comparing their performance with RT-PCR. Overall, a positive RAT result is an excellent predictor of a positive diagnosis of COVID-19. We recommend that Roche's SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test and Abbott's BinaxNOW tests be used in primary care settings, with the understanding that negative results need to be confirmed through RT-PCR. We recommend adherence to the STARD guidelines when reporting on diagnostic data.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020224250.

Self-swabbing versus assisted swabbing for viral detection by qRT-PCR: the experience from SARS-CoV-2 based on a meta-analysis of six prospectively designed evaluations conducted in a UK setting

PURPOSE

In April 2020, the UK Government implemented NHS Test and Trace to provide SARS-CoV-2 quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) testing for the public, with nose-and-throat swabbing for samples performed by trained staff. Self-swabbing (SS) would allow rapid scale-up of testing capacity and access. Six studies were undertaken to determine whether SS was as effective for detecting SARS-CoV-2 as swabbing performed by trained staff.

METHODS

Six prospective studies were conducted between April-October 2020, using six swab/media combinations. Differences between assisted swabbing (AS) and SS were evaluated for concordance, positivity, sensitivity, cycle threshold (Ct) values and void rates. Statistical analysis was performed using 95% confidence intervals (CIs), paired t-tests and model-based methods.

RESULTS

Overall, 3,253 individuals were recruited (median age 37 years, 49% female), with 2,933 having valid paired qRT-PCR results. Pooled concordance rate was 98% (95% CI: 96%, 99%). Positivity rate differences for SS (8.1%) and AS (8.4%) and differences in pooled sensitivities between SS (86%; 95% CI: 78%, 92%) and AS (91%; 95% CI: 78%, 96%) were nonsignificant. Both types of swabbing led to pooled void rates below 2% and strongly correlated Ct values. Age, sex and previous swabbing experience did not have a significant impact on concordance or sensitivity.

CONCLUSION

The UK adopted a policy to promote self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 based on data demonstrating equivalence of SS versus AS. Positive outcomes with SS are likely generalisable to testing for other respiratory pathogens, and we consider self-sampling and self-testing essential for future pandemic preparedness.

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.

Estimating the incidence of COVID-19, influenza and respiratory syncytial virus infection in three regions of Queensland, Australia, winter 2022: findings from a novel longitudinal testing-based sentinel surveillance programme

OBJECTIVE

The 2022 Australian winter was the first time that COVID-19, influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) were circulating in the population together, after two winters of physical distancing, quarantine and borders closed to international travellers. We developed a novel surveillance system to estimate the incidence of COVID-19, influenza and RSV in three regions of Queensland, Australia.

DESIGN

We implemented a longitudinal testing-based sentinel surveillance programme. Participants were provided with self-collection nasal swabs to be dropped off at a safe location at their workplace each week. Swabs were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR. Symptomatic participants attended COVID-19 respiratory clinics to be tested by multiplex PCR for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B and RSV. Rapid antigen test (RAT) results reported by participants were included in the analysis.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Between 4 April 2022 and 3 October 2022, 578 adults were recruited via their workplace. Due to rolling recruitment, withdrawals and completion due to positive COVID-19 results, the maximum number enrolled in any week was 423 people.

RESULTS

A total of 4290 tests were included. Participation rates varied across the period ranging from 25.9% to 72.1% of enrolled participants. The total positivity of COVID-19 was 3.3%, with few influenza or RSV cases detected. Widespread use of RAT may have resulted in few symptomatic participants attending respiratory clinics. The weekly positivity rate of SARS-CoV-2 detected during the programme correlated with the incidence of notified cases in the corresponding communities.

CONCLUSION

This testing-based surveillance programme could estimate disease trends and be a useful tool in settings where testing is less common or accessible. Difficulties with recruitment meant the study was underpowered. The frontline sentinel nature of workplaces meant participants were not representative of the general population but were high-risk groups providing early warning of disease.

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.

3D-printed simulator for nasopharyngeal swab collection for COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

Diagnosis of COVID-19 is essential to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) remain the gold standard in screening, although associated with false negative results (up to 30%). We developed a 3D simulator of the nasal and pharyngeal cavities for the learning and improvement of NPS collection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Simulator training sessions were carried out in 11 centers in France. A questionnaire assessing the simulator was administered at the end of the sessions. The study population included both healthcare workers (HCW) and volunteers from the general population.

RESULTS

Out of 589 participants, overall satisfaction was scored 9.0 [8.9-9.1] on a scale of 0 to 10 with excellent results in the 16 evaluation items of each category (HCWs and general population, NPS novices and experienced). The simulator was considered very realistic (95%), easy to use (97%), useful to understand the anatomy (89%) and NPS sampling technique (93%). This educational tool was considered essential (93%). Participants felt their future NPS would be more reliable (72%), less painful (70%), easier to perform (88%) and that they would be carried out more serenely (90%). The mean number of NPS conducted on the simulator to feel at ease was two; technical fluency with the simulator can thus be acquired quickly.

CONCLUSION

Our simulator, whose 3D printing can be reproduced freely using a permanent open access link, is an essential educational tool to standardize the learning and improvement of NPS collection. It should enhance virus detection and thus contribute to better pandemic control.

SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostics Based on Nucleic Acids Amplification: From Fundamental Concepts to Applications and Beyond

COVID-19 pandemic ignited the development of countless molecular methods for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 based either on nucleic acid, or protein analysis, with the first establishing as the most used for routine diagnosis. The methods trusted for day to day analysis of nucleic acids rely on amplification, in order to enable specific SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection. This review aims to compile the state-of-the-art in the field of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) used for SARS-CoV-2 detection, either at the clinic level, or at the Point-Of-Care (POC), thus focusing on isothermal and non-isothermal amplification-based diagnostics, while looking carefully at the concerning virology aspects, steps and instruments a test can involve. Following a theme contextualization in introduction, topics about fundamental knowledge on underlying virology aspects, collection and processing of clinical samples pave the way for a detailed assessment of the amplification and detection technologies. In order to address such themes, nucleic acid amplification methods, the different types of molecular reactions used for DNA detection, as well as the instruments requested for executing such routes of analysis are discussed in the subsequent sections. The benchmark of paradigmatic commercial tests further contributes toward discussion, building on technical aspects addressed in the previous sections and other additional information supplied in that part. The last lines are reserved for looking ahead to the future of NAATs and its importance in tackling this pandemic and other identical upcoming challenges.

Sensitivity and Specificity of SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Detection Tests Using Oral, Anterior Nasal, and Nasopharyngeal Swabs: a Diagnostic Accuracy Study

The objective of our study was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of rapid antigen detection tests versus those of reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) using oral, anterior nasal, and nasopharyngeal swabs. The underlying prospective, diagnostic case-control-type accuracy study included 87 hospitalized and nonhospitalized participants in a positive and a negative sample cohort between 16 March and 14 May 2021 in two hospitals in Vienna. SARS-CoV-2 infection status was confirmed by RT-PCR. Participants self-performed one oral and one anterior nasal swab for the rapid antigen test, immediately followed by two nasopharyngeal swabs for the rapid antigen test and RT-PCR by the investigator. Test results were read after 15 min, and participants completed a questionnaire in the meantime. Test parameters were calculated based on the evaluation of 87 participants. The overall sensitivity of rapid antigen detection tests versus that of RT-PCR with oral, anterior nasal, and nasopharyngeal samples was 18.18% (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.19% to 32.71%), 63.04% (95% CI 47.55% to 76.79%), and 73.33% (95% CI 58.06% to 85.4%), respectively. All sampling methods had a test specificity of 100% regardless of the cycle threshold (CT) value. Rapid antigen detection tests using self-collected anterior nasal swabs proved to be as sensitive as and more tolerable than professionally collected nasopharyngeal swabs for CT values up to 30 determined by RT-PCR. This finding illustrates the reliability of tests obtained by adequate self-collected anterior nasal specimen. Sensitivity was dependent upon the CT value for each sampling method. While the main advantage of rapid antigen detection tests is the immediate availability of results, PCR should be preferred in crucial settings wherever possible. IMPORTANCE Rapid antigen detection devices for SARS-CoV-2 represent a valuable tool for monitoring the spread of infection. However, the reliability of the tests depends largely on the test performance and the respective sampling method. Nasopharyngeal swabs mark the gold standard for sample collection in suspected respiratory tract infections but are unsuitable for widespread application, as they must be performed by medically trained personnel. With the underlying study, the head-to-head test performance and the usability of self-collected samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection using rapid antigen detection devices were evaluated. The results confirm similar sensitivity of self-collected anterior nasal swabs to that of professionally collected nasopharyngeal swabs for patients with a CT of < 30 determined by RT-PCR.

Accuracy of anterior nasal swab rapid antigen tests compared with RT-PCR for massive SARS-CoV-2 screening in low prevalence population

The aim was to determine the accuracy of anterior nasal swab in rapid antigen (Ag) tests in a low SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and massive screened community. Individuals, aged 18 years or older, who self-booked an appointment for real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test in March 2021 at a public test center in Copenhagen, Denmark were included. An oropharyngeal swab was collected for RT-PCR testing, followed by a swab from the anterior parts of the nose examined by Ag test (SD Biosensor). Accuracy of the Ag test was calculated with RT-PCR as reference. We included 7074 paired conclusive tests (n = 3461, female: 50.7%). The median age was 48 years (IQR: 36-57 years). The prevalence was 0.9%, that is, 66 tests were positive on RT-PCR. Thirty-two had a paired positive Ag test. The sensitivity was 48.5% and the specificity was 100%. This study conducted in a low prevalence setting in a massive screening set-up showed that the Ag test had a sensitivity of 48.5% and a specificity of 100%, that is, no false positive tests. The lower sensitivity is a challenge especially if Ag testing is not repeated frequently allowing this scalable test to be a robust supplement to RT-PCR testing in an ambitious public SARS-CoV-2 screening.

Different Respiratory Samples for COVID-19 Detection by Standard and Direct Quantitative RT-PCR: A Literature Review

The most common diagnostic method for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is real-time quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Upper respiratory tract samples, including nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), oropharyngeal swab (OPS), saliva and lower respiratory tract samples such as sputum, are the most widely used specimens for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 using RT-qPCR. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of different samples for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) detection. It was found that NPS, the reference respiratory specimen for COVID-19 detection, is more sensitive than OPS. However, the application of NPS has many drawbacks, including challenging sampling process and increased risk of transmission to healthcare workers (HCWs). Saliva samples can be collected less invasively and quickly by HCWs with less contact or by own patients, and they can be considered as an alternative to NPS for COVID-19 detection by RT-qPCR. Additionally, sputum, which demonstrates higher viral load can be applied in patients with productive coughs and negative results from NPS. Commonly, after viral RNA purification from patient samples, which is time-consuming and costly, RT-qPCR is performed to diagnose SARS-CoV-2. Herein, different approaches including physical (heat inactivation) and chemical (proteinase K treatment) methods, used in RNA extraction free- direct RT-qPCR, were reviewed. The results of direct RT-qPCR assays were comparable to the results of standard RT-qPCR, while cost and time were saved. However, optimal protocol to decrease cost and processing time, proper transport medium and detection kit should be determined.

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.

Usability of an At-Home Anterior Nares SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Sample Collection Kit: Human Factors Feasibility Study

Background

Readily available testing for SARS-CoV-2 is necessary to mitigate COVID-19 disease outbreaks. At-home collection kits, in which samples are self-collected without requiring a laboratory or clinic visit and sent to an external laboratory for testing, can provide convenient testing to those with barriers to access. They can prevent unnecessary exposure between patient and clinical staff, increase access for patients with disabilities or remote workers, and decrease burdens on health care resources, such as provider time and personal protective equipment. Exact Sciences developed an at-home collection kit for samples to be tested to detect SARS-CoV-2 that includes an Instructions for Use (IFU) document, which guides people without prior experience on collecting a nasal swab sample. Demonstrating successful sample collection and usability is critical to ensure that these samples meet the same high-quality sample collection standards as samples collected in clinics.

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine the usability of a SARS-CoV-2 at-home nasal swab sample collection kit.

Methods

A human factors usability study was conducted with 30 subjects without prior medical, laboratory, or health care training and without COVID-19 sample self-collection experience. Subjects were observed while they followed the IFU for the at-home sample collection portion of the SARS-CoV-2 test in a setting that simulated a home environment. IFU usability was further evaluated by requiring the subjects to complete a survey, answer comprehension questions, provide written feedback, and respond to questions from the observer about problems during use.

Results

All 30 subjects successfully completed the sample collection process, and all 30 samples were determined by reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing to meet quality standards for SARS-CoV-2 testing. The subjects’ written feedback and comments revealed several recommendations to improve the IFU.

Conclusions

The study demonstrated the overall usability of an at-home SARS-CoV-2 collection kit. Various feedback mechanisms provided opportunities to improve the wording and graphics for some critical tasks, including placing the label correctly on the tube. A modified IFU was prepared based on study outcomes.

Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions in SARS-CoV-2 infection: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Among Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) manifestations, Olfactory (OD) and Gustatory (GD) Dysfunctions (OGD) have drawn considerable attention, becoming a sort of hallmark of the disease. Many have speculated on the pathogenesis and clinical characteristics of these disturbances; however, no definite answers have been produced on the topic. With this systematic review, we aimed to collect all the available evidence regarding the prevalence of OGD, the timing of their onset and their resolution, their rate of recovery and their role as diagnostic and prognostic tools for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.

METHODS

A systematic review comprising all the observational studies that reported the prevalence and/or the longitudinal trajectories of OGD in COVID-19 patients, as self-reported by patients or measured through objective psychophysical tests.

RESULTS

After the selection process, 155 studies were included, with a total of 70,920 patients and 105,291 not-infected individuals. Prevalence reports were extremely variable across studies, with wide ranges for OD (0%-98%) and GD (0-89%) prevalence. OGD occurred early during the disease course and only rarely preceded other symptoms; out of 30 studies with a follow-up time of at least 20 days, only in 5 studies OGD fully resolved in more than 90% of patients. OGD had low sensitivity and high specificity for SARS-CoV-2 infection; accuracy of OD and GD for infection identification was higher than 80% in 10 out of 33 studies and in 8 out of 22 studies considered, respectively. 28 out of 30 studies that studied the association between OGD and disease severity found how OGD were associated with lower rates of severe pneumonia, hospitalization and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

OGD seem to be highly prevalent in SARS-CoV-2 infection. They occur early, concomitantly with other symptoms and often persist after recovery, in some cases for months; whether a full recovery eventually occurs in all cases is not clear yet. OGD are good predictors of SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with a milder disease course.

Take-home kits to detect respiratory viruses among healthcare personnel: Lessons learned from a cluster randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Health care personnel (HCP) working in outpatient settings routinely interact with patients with acute respiratory illnesses. Absenteeism following symptom development and lack of staff trained to obtain samples limit efforts to identify pathogens among infected HCP.

METHODS

The Respiratory Protection Effectiveness Clinical Trial assessed respiratory infection incidence among HCP between 2011 and 2015. Research assistants obtained anterior nasal and oropharyngeal swabs from HCP in the workplace following development of respiratory illness symptoms and randomly while asymptomatic. Participants received take-home kits to self-collect swabs when absent from work. Samples mailed to a central laboratory were tested for respiratory viruses by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction.

RESULTS

Among 2,862 participants, 3,467 swabs were obtained from symptomatic participants. Among symptomatic HCP, respiratory virus was detected in 904 of 3,467 (26.1%) samples. Self-collected samples by symptomatic HCP at home had higher rates of viral detection (40.3%) compared to 24% obtained by trained research assistants in the workplace (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomized clinical trial, take-home kits were an easily implemented, effective method to self-collect samples by HCP. Other studies have previously shown relative equivalence of self-collected samples to those obtained by trained healthcare workers. Take-home kit self-collection could diminish workforce exposures and decrease the demand for personnel protective equipment worn to protect workers who collect respiratory samples.

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

INTRODUCTION

Diagnostic confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 by self-collection of specimens is a reliable method compared with healthcare worker collected samples. Citizens' preferences for collection methods are unknown, but at-home collection could have several advantages.

METHODS

This study investigated the preference for guided at-home self-collection versus at-hospital specimen collection by healthcare workers.

RESULTS

Among the 3709 participants, at-home swab collection was the preferred setting for 2362 (63.7%) compared with 1347 (36.3%) reporting a preference for an at-hospital swabbing procedure.

CONCLUSION

A high preference for guided at-home self-collection of oropharyngeal/nasal SARS-CoV-2 specimens exists and could be a future norm beyond COVID-19.

Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers : A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Observational evidence suggests that mask wearing mitigates transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It is uncertain if this observed association arises through protection of uninfected wearers (protective effect), via reduced transmission from infected mask wearers (source control), or both.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether recommending surgical mask use outside the home reduces wearers' risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial (DANMASK-19 [Danish Study to Assess Face Masks for the Protection Against COVID-19 Infection]). (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04337541).

SETTING

Denmark, April and May 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults spending more than 3 hours per day outside the home without occupational mask use.

INTERVENTION

Encouragement to follow social distancing measures for coronavirus disease 2019, plus either no mask recommendation or a recommendation to wear a mask when outside the home among other persons together with a supply of 50 surgical masks and instructions for proper use.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 infection in the mask wearer at 1 month by antibody testing, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), or hospital diagnosis. The secondary outcome was PCR positivity for other respiratory viruses.

RESULTS

A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was -0.3 percentage point (95% CI, -1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.

LIMITATION

Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.

CONCLUSION

The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

The Salling Foundations.

Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers : A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Observational evidence suggests that mask wearing mitigates transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It is uncertain if this observed association arises through protection of uninfected wearers (protective effect), via reduced transmission from infected mask wearers (source control), or both.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether recommending surgical mask use outside the home reduces wearers' risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial (DANMASK-19 [Danish Study to Assess Face Masks for the Protection Against COVID-19 Infection]). (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04337541).

SETTING

Denmark, April and May 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults spending more than 3 hours per day outside the home without occupational mask use.

INTERVENTION

Encouragement to follow social distancing measures for coronavirus disease 2019, plus either no mask recommendation or a recommendation to wear a mask when outside the home among other persons together with a supply of 50 surgical masks and instructions for proper use.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 infection in the mask wearer at 1 month by antibody testing, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), or hospital diagnosis. The secondary outcome was PCR positivity for other respiratory viruses.

RESULTS

A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was -0.3 percentage point (95% CI, -1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.

LIMITATION

Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.

CONCLUSION

The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

The Salling Foundations.

Evolution of Specimen Self-Collection in the COVID-19 Era: Implications for Population Health Management of Infectious Disease

Laboratory testing is an important component in the diagnosis of respiratory tract infections such as with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, specimen collection not only risks exposure of health care workers and other patients to infection, but also necessitates use of personal protective equipment that may be in short supply during periods of heightened disease activity. Self-collection of nasal or oropharyngeal swabs offers an alternative to address these drawbacks. Although studies in the past decade have demonstrated the utility of this approach for respiratory infections, it has not been widely adopted in routine clinical practice. The rapid spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2, has focused attention on the need for safe, convenient, timely, and scalable methods for collecting upper respiratory specimens for testing. The goals of this article are to highlight the literature regarding self-collected nasal or oropharyngeal specimens for respiratory pathogen testing; discuss the role of self-collection in helping prevent the spread of the COVID-19 disease from infected patients and facilitating a shift toward “virtual” medicine or telemedicine; and describe the current and future state of self-collection for infectious agents, and the impacts these approaches can have on population health management and disease diagnosis and prevention.

Performance of at-home self-collected saliva and nasal-oropharyngeal swabs in the surveillance of COVID-19

Background: SARS-CoV-2 quickly spreads in the worldwide population, imposing social restrictions to control the infection, being the massive testing another essential strategy to break the chain of transmission.

Aim: To compare the performance of at-home self-collected samples – saliva and combined nasal-oropharyngeal swabs (NOP) – for SARS-CoV-2 detection in a telemedicine platform for COVID-19 surveillance.

Material and methods: We analyzed 201 patients who met the criteria of suspected COVID-19. NOP sampling was combined (nostrils and oropharynx) and saliva collected using a cotton pad device. Detection of SARS-COV-2 was performed by using the Altona RealStar® SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Kit 1.0. 

Results: There was an overall significant agreement (κ coefficient value of 0.58) between saliva and NOP. Considering results in either sample, 70 patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 were identified, with 52/70 being positive in NOP and 55/70 in saliva. This corresponds to sensitivities of 74.2% (95% CI; 63.7% to 83.1%) for NOP and 78.6% (95% CI; 67.6% to 86.6%) for saliva.

Conclusion: Our data show the feasibility of using at-home self-collected samples (especially saliva), as an adequate alternative for SARS-CoV-2 detection. This new approach of testing can be useful to develop strategies for COVID-19 surveillance and for guiding public health decisions.