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

IF 2.1 4区医学 Q3 INFECTIOUS DISEASES

Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease Pub Date : 2024-10-28 DOI:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2024.116577

Tom Fowler , Edward Blandford , David Chapman , Matthias E. Futschik , Raghavendran Kulasegaran-Shylini , Sarah Tunkel , Carolyn Lewis , Alasdair Fellows , Ellie Sheppard , Leanne McCabe , Peter Marks , Paul E. Klapper , Andrew Dodgson , Malur Sudhanva , Mike Kidd , Andy Vail , Susan Hopkins , Tim Peto

{"title":"Comparative evaluation of swabbing sites for Omicron variant detection in PCR testing","authors":"Tom Fowler , Edward Blandford , David Chapman , Matthias E. Futschik , Raghavendran Kulasegaran-Shylini , Sarah Tunkel , Carolyn Lewis , Alasdair Fellows , Ellie Sheppard , Leanne McCabe , Peter Marks , Paul E. Klapper , Andrew Dodgson , Malur Sudhanva , Mike Kidd , Andy Vail , Susan Hopkins , Tim Peto","doi":"10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2024.116577","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11329,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease","volume":"111 1","pages":"Article 116577"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732889324004024","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文本刊更多论文

对 PCR 检测中用于检测 Omicron 变异的拭抹部位进行比较评估

目的 SARS-CoV-2 的 Omicron 变体引起了人们对 PCR 检测最佳采样部位的关注，早期迹象表明咽拭子样本比鼻拭子样本更好。我们的研究评估了不同咽拭子部位检测 SARS-CoV-2 的灵敏度。方法在英格兰国家医疗服务系统检测和追踪点接受检测的参与者提供自取样本，包括仅鼻拭子样本、仅咽拭子样本以及鼻咽联合拭子样本，并对这些样本进行实时 PCR 分析。通过 PCR 检测 SARS-CoV-2 的灵敏度，仅鼻拭子为 91%，仅咽喉拭子为 97%。结论鼻拭子和咽拭子联合检测仍是检测 SARS-CoV-2 的最有效方法。结论：鼻拭子和喉拭子联合检测仍是检测 SARS-CoV-2 的最有效方法。如果使用单一拭子，喉拭子的灵敏度要高于鼻拭子，但在感染后期，喉拭子中的 VC 下降得更快。VC 随时间的变化以及不同采样点之间的人内差异突出了病毒动态的复杂性，强调了在进行全面检测时同时考虑鼻腔和咽喉样本的重要性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease 医学-传染病学

CiteScore

5.30

自引率

3.40%

发文量

149

审稿时长

56 days

期刊介绍： Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease keeps you informed of the latest developments in clinical microbiology and the diagnosis and treatment of infectious diseases. Packed with rigorously peer-reviewed articles and studies in bacteriology, immunology, immunoserology, infectious diseases, mycology, parasitology, and virology, the journal examines new procedures, unusual cases, controversial issues, and important new literature. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease distinguished independent editorial board, consisting of experts from many medical specialties, ensures you extensive and authoritative coverage.