Reliability of CNEURO hyssops for sample collection in the SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis
Keywords:
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, nasopharyngeal swab, oropharyngeal swabAbstract
Introduction: The detection of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material from nasopharyngeal swab samples by RT-PCR is the most specific and sensitive way to test suspected cases. However, factors such as the sampling process, the type of hyssop used, and the anatomical area from which the sample is collected can distort the result and cause false negatives.
Objective: To evaluate the reliability of CNUERO hyssops for sample collection for the SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis versus IMPROSWAB hyssops.
Material and Methods: To study the reliability of hyssops developed in Cuba for swabbing for the COVID-19 diagnosis by comparing them to other hyssops successfully used for this task, 2 swabbing samples were obtained from each patient (136). One of these two samples was taken using the hyssops made in Cuba, while the other was taken using another hyssop imported from Germany.
The positive detections obtained with the use of both hyssops were compared using the Fisher’ s exact test. The result of the detection of each hyssop was evaluated and compared using the ROC curve.
Results: The use of CNEURO hyssops allowed the detection of 45 out of 59 positive cases, while IMPROSAWAB hyssops detected 52 out of 59 true positive cases. There were no significant differences between positive cases detected with the use of each hyssop. The sensitivity of sample detection using CNEURO hyssops was 76,3 % while the one using IMPROSWAB hyssops was 88,1 %. Hence, there are no significant differences in the detection of cases using these two hyssops.
Conclusion: CNEURO hyssops are safe and reliable to be used to take nasopharyngeal samples from COVID-19 patients.
Downloads
References
1. Coronaviridae Study Group of the International Committee on Taxonomy of V. The species severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus: classifying 2019- nCoV and naming it SARS-CoV-2. Nat Microbiol [Internet]. 2020;5:53-44. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-020-0695-z
2. Kim D, Lee JY, Yang JS, Kim JW, Kim VN, Chang H. The architecture of SARS-CoV-2 transcriptome. Cell [Internet]. 2020;181:914-21. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.04.011
3. Wu F, Zhao S, Yu B. A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China. Nature [Internet]. 2020;579:265-9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2008-3
4. Seema Singh. COVID-19: A Deadly Virus. JMSCR. 2020;2:1-5.
5. World Health Organization. Weekly Operational Update on COVID-19 [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020 [Cited 20/06/2021]. Available from: http://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/wou-4-september-20202-approved.pdf?sfvrsn=91215c78_2
6. Wang D, Hu B, Hu C. Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA [Internet]. 2020;323(11):1061-9. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.1585
7. Zu Z, Jiang M, Xu P, Chen W, Ni Q, Lu G, et al. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a perspective from China. Radiology [Internet]. 2020;296(2):E15-E25. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020200490
8. Ai T, Yang Z, Hou H, Zhan C, Chen C, Lu W, et al. Correlation of chest CT and RT-PCR testing in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China: a report of 1014 cases. Radiology [Internet]. 2020;296(2):E32-E40. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020200642
9. Fang Y, Zhang H, Xie J, Lin M, Ying L, Pang P, et al. Sensitivity of chest CT for COVID-19: comparison to RT-PCR. Radiology [Internet]. 2020;296(2):E115-E117. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020200432
10. Center Disease Control Prevention. Interim Guideline for Collecting,Handling, and Testing Clinical Specimens for COVID-19 [Internet]. Atlanta: Center for Disease Control and Prevention; 2020 [Cited 20/06/2021]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/guideline-clinical-specimens.html
11. Tang YW, Schmitz JE, Persing DH, Stratton CW. Laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19: current issues and challenges. J Clin Microbiol [Internet]. 2020;58:e00512-20. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00512-20
12. Zou L, Ruan F, Huang, Liang L, Huang H, Hong Z, et al. SARS-CoV-2 viral load in upper respiratory specimens of infected patients. N Engl J Med [Internet]. 2020;382:1177-9. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2001737
13. Pan Y, Zhang D, Yang P, Poon LM, Wang Q. Viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical samples. Lancet Infect Dis [Internet]. 2020;20(4):411-2. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30113-4
14. Wang W, Xu Y, Gao R, Lu R, Han R, Wu G, et al. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Different Types of Clinical Specimens. JAMA [Internet]. 2020;323(18):1843-4. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.3786
15. Hirotsua Y, Mochizukia H, Omata M. Double-quencher probes improve detection sensitivity toward Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in a reversetranscription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay. J Virol Methods [Internet]. 2020;284:113926. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.viromet.2020.113926
16. Van Vinh CN, Thanh Lam V, Dung NT, Minh Yen L, Ngoc Quang MN, Manh Hung L, et al. The natural history and transmission potential of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Clin Infect Dis [Internet]. 2020;71(10):2679-87 Available from: http://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa711
17. González Losada C, González Lodeiro LG, Beato Canfux AI, Raúl Fernández J, Camacho H, Vazquez Blomquist D, et al. Reliability of CNEURO hyssops for sample collection in the SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Repositorio Digital Zenodo [Internet]. Canadá: OpenAIRE; 2021. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5728058
18. Ministerio de Salud Pública. Protocolo de actuación nacional para la COVID-19. Versión 1.4 [Internet]. La Habana: MINSAP; 2020 [Cited 20/06/2021]. Available from: https://files.sld.cu¬/2020/05PDFProtocolo
19. World Medical Association. Declaración de Helsinki de la AMM - Principios éticos para las investigaciones médicas en seres humanos [Internet]. Francia: World Medical Association; 2021[Cited 20/06/2021]. Available from: http://www.wma.net/es/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html
20. Hisopo nasofaríngeo en nylon. IMPROSWAB [Internet]. Colombia: Avantika; 2021[Cited 20/06/2021]. Available from: www.avantika.co.co/tienda
21. PAHO. Laboratory Guidelines for Detection and Diagnosis of the Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCov) Infection [Internet]. Washington: PAHO; 2020 [Cited 20/06/2021]. Available from: https://www.paho.org/en/documents/laboratory-guidelines-detection-and-diagnosis-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov-infection
22. González Losada C, González Lodeiro LG, Beato Canfux AI, Raúl Fernández J, Camacho H, Vazquez Blomquist D, et al. Comparison between nasopharyngeal swabs and saliva as realiable specimens for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. Rev haban cienc med [Internet]. 2021 [Cited 31/05/2021];20(3):e3745. Available from: http://www.revhabanera.sld.cu/index.php/rhab/article/view/3745
23. Loeffelholz MJ, Tang YW. Laboratory diagnosis of emerging human coronavirus infections - the state of the art. Emerg Microbes Infect [Internet]. 2020;9(1):747-56. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1080/22221751.2020.1745095
24. Carver C, Jones N. Comparative accuracy of oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swabs for diagnosis of COVID-19. Oxford COVID-19 evidence service team center for evidence based medicine [Internet]. London: The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine; 2020 [Cited 31/05/2021]. Available from: https://www.cebm.net/COVID-19/comparative-accuracy-of-oropharyngeal-and-nasopharyngeal-swabs-for-diagnosis-of-COVID-19/
25. Wang X, Tan L, Wang X, Liu W, Lu Y, Cheng L, et al. Comparison of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection in 353 patients received tests with both specimens simultaneously. Int J Infect Dis [Internet]. 2020;94:107-9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.04.023
Download PDF
