ABSTRACT
Objective. Nose and nasopharyngeal swab is the preferred and worldwide accepted method to detect the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) within the nose and nasopharynx. This method may be linked with possible difficulties, such as patient discomfort or complications. This paper shows a pilot study of SARS-CoV-2 detection with nasal and nasopharyngeal lavage fluids. Methods. Nasal lavage fluid was collected from patients who were submitted to SARS-CoV-2 screening test, due to a preceding positive rapid antigen test. A control group was enrolled among healthcare professionals whose nasopharyngeal swab tested negative. Nasal lavages were performed using isotonic saline solution injected through a nasal fossa. Both lavage fluid and traditional nasopharyngeal swab were analyzed by real time PCR and antigenic test. Results. A total of 49 positive subjects were enrolled in the study. Results of the analysis on lavages and nasopharyngeal swabs were concordant for 48 cases, regardless of the antigenic and molecular test performed. Real time PCR resulted weakly positive at swab in one case and negative at lavage fluid. Among the control group (44 subjects) nasopharyngeal swab and lavage fluid analyses returned a negative result. Sensitivity of the molecular test based on nasal lavage fluid, compared to traditional nasal swab, was 97.7%, specificity was 100%, and accuracy was 98.9%, with high agreement (Cohen k, 0.978). Conclusion. Nasal and nasopharyngeal lavages resulted to be highly reliable and well tolerated. A larger series is needed in order to confirm these results. This approach may potentially represent a valid alternative to the traditional swab method in selected cases.
Subject(s)
Severe Acute Respiratory SyndromeABSTRACT
This study prospectively assessed the long-term prevalence of self-reported and psychophysically measured olfactory dysfunction in subjects with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Self-reported smell or taste impairment was prospectively evaluated by SNOT-22 at diagnosis, 4-week, 8-week, and 6-month. At 6 months from the diagnosis, psychophysical evaluation of olfactory function was also performed using the 34-item culturally adapted University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (CA-UPSIT). 145 completed both the 6-month subjective and psychophysical olfactory evaluation. According to CA-UPSIT, 87 subjects (60.0%) exhibited some smell dysfunction, with 54 (37.2) being mildly microsmic, 16 (11.0%) moderately microsmic, 7 (4.8%) severely microsmic, and 10 patients (6.9%) being anosmic. At the time CA-UPSIT was administered, a weak correlation was observed between the self-reported alteration of sense of smell or taste and olfactory test scores (Spearmans r=-0.26). Among 112 patients who self-reported normal sense of smell at last follow-up, CA-UPSIT revealed normal smell in 46 (41.1%), mild microsmia in 46 (41.1%), moderate microsmia in 11 (9.8%), severe microsmia in 3 (2.3%), and anosmia in 6 (5.4%) patients; however, of those patients self-reporting normal smell but who were found to have hypofunction on testing, 62 out of 66 had self-reported reduction in sense of smell or taste at an earlier time point. Despite most patients report a subjectively normal sense of smell, we observed a high percentage of persistent smell dysfunction at 6 months from the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, with 11.7% of patients being anosmic or severely microsmic. These data highlight a significant long-term rate of smell alteration in patients with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.