Integrated surveillance of human respiratory viruses in addition to SARS-CoV-2 in a public testing facility in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 prevention measures impact the circulation of other respiratory viruses. Surveillance in the network of general practitioners is hampered by widespread testing for SARS-CoV-2 in public testing facilities. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate integrated community surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses and describe epidemiological trends. STUDY DESIGN: Respiratory surveillance was set up within an existing SARS-CoV-2 public testing facility. Community-dwelling (a)symptomatic persons provided consent for completion of a questionnaire and additional testing on residual material from swabs taken for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR (Allplex Seegene). Daily, a random subset was tested for sixteen respiratory viruses by multiplex realtime PCRs (Seegene). RESULTS: Between October 6th (week 40) 2021 and April 22nd (week 16) 2022, 3,969 subjects were tested. The weekly median age ranged from 23 to 39 years. The prevalence of respiratory symptoms ranged from 98.5% (week 40) to 27.4% (week 1). The prevalence of detection of any respiratory virus (including SARS-CoV-2), ranged from 19.6% in week 49 to 75.3% in week 14. SARS-CoV-2 prevalence ranged from 2.2% (week 40) to 63.3% (week 14). Overall, SARS-CoV-2 was detected most frequently (27.3%), followed by rhinoviruses (14.6%, range 3.5-47.8%) and seasonal coronaviruses (3.7%, range 0-10.4%, mostly 229E and OC43). Influenzavirus was detected in 3.0% of participants from week 6 onwards. CONCLUSIONS: Integrated respiratory viral surveillance within public testing facilities is feasible and informative. Prevalences may be affected by changes in SARS-CoV-2 prevention and testing policies. Population characteristics help to interpret trends over time. Integrated surveillance may inform policymakers and hospitals for adequate response measures during respiratory seasons.

Combined throat/nasal swab sampling for SARS-CoV-2 is equivalent to nasopharyngeal sampling.

PURPOSE: PCR on a nasopharyngeal sample is the reference method for the detection of SARS-nCoV-2. However, combined throat/nasal sampling as a testing method has several advantages. We compared the combined throat/nasal sampling with nasopharyngeal sampling for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers suspected of COVID-19. METHODS: In 107 healthcare workers with symptoms of COVID-19, combined throat/nasal sampling and nasopharyngeal sampling was performed. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 was performed by RT-PCR targeting. RESULTS: A total of 80 healthcare workers (74.8%) tested negative with both sampling methods, and 25 healthcare workers (23.4%) tested positive with both sampling methods. There were two discrepant results with positive PCR in combined throat/nasal swabs and negative PCR in nasopharyngeal swabs (1.9%). The κ index for concordance between the 2 sampling methods was high (0.95). The median cycle threshold (Ct) value of PCR on nasopharyngeal samples was significantly lower than the Ct value of PCR on combined throat/nasal samples (19 (IQR 17-20) versus 21 (IQR 18-29) cycles, p value 0.01). CONCLUSION: Combined throat/nasal swabs yield a similar sensitivity to detect SARS-CoV-2 as nasopharyngeal swabs and are a good alternative sampling method, despite a lower Ct value for the nasopharyngeal samples.