Comparison of the safety, effectiveness, and usability of swab robot vs. manual nasopharyngeal specimen collection

Background

Healthcare workers face a risk of infection during aerosol-generating procedures, such as nasal swabbing. Robot-assisted nasopharyngeal sampling aims to minimize this risk and reduce stress for healthcare providers. However, its effectiveness and safety require validation.

Methods

We conducted a controlled trial with 80 subjects at two teaching hospitals and compared robot-collected vs manually-collected nasopharyngeal swabs. The primary outcomes included specimen quality and success rate of nasopharyngeal swab collection. We also recorded the pain index, duration of the collection, and psychological stress using a post-collection questionnaire.

Results

During the study period, from September 23 to October 27, 2020, 40 subjects were enrolled in both the robotic and manual groups. The cycle threshold (Ct) value for nasopharyngeal specimens was statistically higher in the robotic group compared to the manual group (30.9 vs 28.0, p < 0.01). Both groups had Ct values under 35, indicating good quality specimens. In the robotic group, 3 out of 40 subjects required a second attempt at specimen collection, resulting in a success rate of 92.5 %. Further, although the pain levels were lower in the robotic group, the difference was not statistically significant (2.8 vs 3.6, p = 0.07). The manual group had a shorter sampling time, which was 29 s (201 vs 29, p < 0.05). However, when factoring in the time needed to put on personal protective equipment, the average time for the manual group increased to 251 s (201 vs 251, p < 0.05). Participants' questionnaire results show comparable psychological stress in both groups. Medical staff expressed that using a robot would reduce their psychological stress.

Conclusions

We propose a safe and effective robotic technology for collecting nasopharyngeal specimens without face-to-face contact, which may reduce the stress of physicians and nurses. This technology can also be optimized for efficiency, making it useful in situations where droplet-transmitted infectious diseases are a concern.

Retrospective and prospective studies evaluating the performance of the SARS-Cov-2 "AQ+ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test" from InTec on symptomatic and non-symptomatic patients

For the last two years, the SARS-CoV-2 virus spread all around the world and led to the COVID-19 pandemic. The need of methods to control the pandemic and to propose rapid and efficient diagnostic tools has emerged. In this perspective, SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen detection tests (RADT) have been developed. We performed a retrospective study on 638 collected nasopharyngeal samples used for reference RT-qPCR diagnosis to compare the AQ + COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test" from InTec (AQ + InTec test) performance with other commercially available RADT (Abbott Panbio, Roche SDBiosensor and Siemens Clinitest). We analysed the sensitivity and specificity of the different tests and showed a better overall performance of the AQ + InTec test, which was confirmed on the SARS-Cov-2 Omicron variant. We then conducted a prospective study on 844patients, to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the AQ + InTec test on nasal and nasopharyngeal samples in a point of care setting. We showed that sensitivity and specificity reach acceptable criteria (respectively 94.4% and 99.6% on nasal samples) regarding the official recommendations of the MDCG 2021-21 in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Overall, the results of these two studies confirm that the AQ + InTec test is a valuable tool for testing in a pandemic context with a high proportion of asymptomatic patients who are potential carriers for the SARS-CoV-2 virus and is performant on the most current circulating variant Omicron.

Exhaled SARS-CoV-2 RNA viral load kinetics measured by facemask sampling associates with household transmission

OBJECTIVES

No studies have examined longitudinal patterns of naturally exhaled SARS-CoV-2 RNA viral load (VL) during acute infection. We report this using facemask sampling (FMS) and assessed the relationship between emitted RNA VL and household transmission.

METHODS

Between December 2020 and February 2021, we recruited participants within 24 hours of a positive RT-qPCR on upper respiratory tract sampling (URTS) (day 0). Participants gave FMS (for 1 hour) and URTS (self-taken) on seven occasions up to day 21. Samples were analysed by RT-qPCR (from sampling matrix strips within the mask) and symptom diaries were recorded. Household transmission was assessed through reporting of positive URTS RT-qPCR in household contacts.

RESULTS

Analysis of 203 FMS and 190 URTS from 34 participants showed that RNA VL peaked within the first 5 days following sampling. Concomitant URTS, FMS RNA VL, and symptom scores, however, were poorly correlated, but a higher severity of reported symptoms was associated with FMS positivity up to day 5. Of 28 participants who had household contacts, 12 (43%) reported transmission. Frequency of household transmission was associated with the highest (peak) FMS RNA VL obtained (negative genome copies/strip: 0% household transmission; 1 to 1000 copies/strip: 20%; 1001 to 10 000 copies/strip: 57%; >10 000 copies/strip: 75%; p = 0.048; age adjusted OR of household transmission per log increase in copies/strip: 4.97; 95% CI, 1.20-20.55; p = 0.02) but not observed with peak URTS RNA VL.

DISCUSSION

Exhaled RNA VL measured by FMS is highest in early infection, can be positive in symptomatic patients with concomitantly negative URTS, and is strongly associated with household transmission.