XyloFUNS: Xylocaine to freeze during unpleasant nasopharyngeal swabs in children-a randomized controlled trial.

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of intranasal vaporized lidocaine in reducing pain for children undergoing a nasopharyngeal (NP) swab in the Emergency Department (ED). Study Design: A randomized blinded clinical trial was conducted in a paediatric ED. Both participants and the researcher evaluating the primary outcome were blinded. Children aged 6 to 17 years old requiring a NP swab were eligible. Participants were randomly allocated to receive intranasal lidocaine or a sham treatment prior to their NP swab. The primary outcome measure was pain during the swab as assessed by the visual analog scale. Secondary outcome measures were pain using the verbal numeric rating scale, fear using the children fear scale, and adverse effects of the intervention. Results: Eighty-eight participants were enrolled-45 in the lidocaine group and 43 controls. The mean visual analog scale scores for pain were 46 mm in the lidocaine group and 53 mm in the control group (mean difference 7 mm; 95% CI: -5 to 19 mm). No serious adverse events were observed. Conclusions: Intranasal lidocaine administered prior to NP swabs in the ED failed to show an improvement in pain scores for school-aged children and youth.

Nasopharyngeal swabs vs. saliva sampling for SARS-CoV-2 detection: A cross-sectional survey of acceptability for caregivers and children after experiencing both methods.

BACKGROUND: Saliva sampling is a promising alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing, but acceptability data is lacking. We characterize the acceptability of saliva sampling and nasopharyngeal swabs for primary decision makers and their children after experiencing both testing modalities. METHODS: We administered a cross-sectional survey to participants aged 6-to-17 years and their primary decision makers at an Ottawa community COVID-19 testing centre in March 2021. Included were participants meeting local guidelines for testing. Excluded were those identified prior to participation as having inability to complete the consent, sampling, or survey process. Acceptability in multiple hypothetical scenarios was rated using a 5-point Likert scale. Pain was measured using the Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R). Preference for testing was assessed with direct binary questions. RESULTS: 48 participants and 48 primary decision makers completed the survey. Nasopharyngeal swab acceptability differed between scenarios, ranging 79% [95%CI: 66, 88] to 100% [95%CI: 95, 100]; saliva sampling acceptability was similar across scenarios, ranging 92% [95%CI: 82, 97] to 98% [95%CI: 89, 99]. 58% of youth described significant pain with nasopharyngeal swabbing, versus none with saliva sampling. 90% of children prefer saliva sampling. 66% of primary decision makers would prefer nasopharyngeal swabbing if it were 10% more sensitive. CONCLUSION: Though youth prefer saliva sampling over nasopharyngeal swabs, primary decision makers present for testing remain highly accepting of both. Acceptance of nasopharyngeal swabs, however, varies with the testing indication and is influenced by perceived test accuracy. Understanding factors that influence sampling acceptance will inform more successful testing strategies.