Preferences of health care workers using tongue swabs for tuberculosis diagnosis during COVID-19 (preprint)

Healthcare workers (HCW) who come into contact with tuberculosis (TB) patients are at elevated risk of TB infection and disease. The collection and handling of sputum samples for TB diagnosis poses exposure risks to HCW, particularly in settings where aerosol containment is limited. An alternative sample collection method, tongue swabbing, was designed to help mitigate this risk, and is under evaluation in multiple settings. This study assessed risk perceptions among South African HCW who used tongue swabbing in TB diagnostic research during the COVID-19 pandemic. We characterized their context-specific preferences as well as the facilitators and barriers of tongue swab use in clinical and community settings. Participants (n=18) were HCW with experience using experimental tongue swabbing methods at the South African Tuberculosis Vaccine Initiative (SATVI). We used key informant semi-structured interviews to assess attitudes toward two tongue swab strategies: Provider-collected swabbing (PS) and supervised self-swabbing (SSS). Responses from these interviews were analyzed by rapid qualitative analysis and thematic analysis methods. Facilitators included aversion to sputum (PS and SSS), perceived safety of the method (SSS), and educational resources to train patients (SSS). Barriers included cultural stigmas, as well as personal security and control of their work environment when collecting swabs in community settings. COVID-19 risk perception was a significant barrier to the PS method. Motivators for HCW use of tongue swabbing differed substantially by use case, and whether the HCW has the authority and agency to implement safety precautions in specific settings. These findings point to a need for contextually specific educational resources to enhance safety of and adherence to the SSS collection method.

Sample Adequacy Controls for Infectious Disease Diagnosis by Oral Swabbing (preprint)

ABSTRACT Oral swabs are emerging as a non-invasive sample type for diagnosing infectious diseases including Ebola, tuberculosis (TB), and COVID-19. To assure proper sample collection, sample adequacy controls (SACs) are needed that detect substances indicative of samples collected within the oral cavity. This study evaluated two candidate SACs for this purpose. One detected representative oral microbiota ( Streptococcus species DNA) and the other, human cells (human mitochondrial DNA, mtDNA). Quantitative PCR (qPCR) assays for the two target cell types were applied to buccal swabs (representing samples collected within the oral cavity) and hand swabs (representing improperly collected samples) obtained from 51 healthy U.S. volunteers. Quantification cycle (Cq) cutoffs that maximized Youden’s index were established for each assay. The streptococcal target at a Cq cutoff of ≤34.9 had 99.0% sensitivity and specificity for oral swab samples, whereas human mtDNA perfectly distinguished between hand and mouth swabs with a Cq cutoff of 31.3. The human mtDNA test was then applied to buccal, tongue, and gum swabs that had previously been collected from TB patients and controls in South Africa, along with “air swabs” collected as negative controls (total N = 292 swabs from 71 subjects). Of these swabs, 287/292 (98%) exhibited the expected Cq values. In a paired analysis the three oral sites yielded indistinguishable amounts of human mtDNA, however PurFlock™ swabs collected slightly more human mtDNA than did OmniSwabs™ (p = 0.012). The results indicate that quantification of human mtDNA cannot distinguish swabs collected from different sites within the mouth. However, it can reliably distinguish oral swabs from swabs that were not used orally., which makes it a useful SAC for oral swab-based diagnosis.