A novel anterior nasal swab to detect respiratory viruses: a prospective study of diagnostic accuracy.

Detection of respiratory viruses requires testing of the upper respiratory tract to obtain specimens for analysis. However, nasal and throat swabs can cause discomfort and procedural anxiety in children. Respiratory sampling methods which are accurate and less invasive are needed. We aim to determine the positive and negative percentage agreement of a novel anterior nasal swab (ANS) compared with the combined throat and anterior nasal swab (CTN), the reference standard, for detection of respiratory viruses. Children 5 - 18 years of age presenting to a tertiary paediatric hospital with respiratory symptoms were tested with both swabs in randomised order. Respiratory samples were tested on a multiplex RT-PCR panel. Viral detections, RT-PCR cycle-threshold values and child/parent/clinician experience of the swab were recorded. There were 157 viral detections from 249 participant CTN swabs. In comparison with the CTN, the overall positive and negative percentage agreement of ANS for detection of respiratory viruses was 96.2% (95% CI, 91.8-98.3%) and 99.8% (95% CI, 99.6-99.9%), respectively. The ANS was "extremely comfortable", or only a "little uncomfortable" for 90% of children compared with 48% for CTN. 202 children (84%) rated the ANS as the preferred swab, and 208 (87%) indicated they would prefer ANS for future testing. The ANS required additional laboratory handling processes compared to the CTN. The ANS has high positive percentage agreement and is comparable to the current standard of care. The high acceptability from the less invasive ANS provides a more comfortable method for respiratory virus testing in children.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05043623.

Medical appropriateness and economics of nucleic acid amplification testing for infectious diseases.

It has become commonplace to assume that nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) represent the gold standard for all infectious disease diagnostic testing. This proposition has become increasingly entrenched recently, as these tests can now be done, in comparison to even just a few years ago, relatively inexpensively and with rapid analytic turnaround times. Many can even be performed at the point of care by individuals without technical backgrounds. But there may be a dark underside to this proposition. Could these tests be too sensitive? Are they always "fit for purpose"? Should they trump clinical judgement? Do they have untoward impacts on antimicrobial therapy? Could the profit motive - by manufacturers and by laboratories - be fueling the explosive expansion of NAATs? In this article, we will explore these questions in regard to several specific NAAT examples - Group A Streptococcus, Influenza, SARS-CoV-2, respiratory panels, and sexually transmitted disease panels.

Antibiotic Prescribing and Respiratory Viral Testing for Acute Upper Respiratory Infections Among Adult Patients at an Ambulatory Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient antibiotic prescribing for acute upper respiratory infections (URIs) is a high-priority target for antimicrobial stewardship that has not been described for cancer patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients at an ambulatory cancer center with URI diagnoses from 1 October 2015 to 30 September 2016. We obtained antimicrobial prescribing, respiratory viral testing, and other clinical data at first encounter for the URI through day 14. We used generalized estimating equations to test associations of baseline factors with antibiotic prescribing. RESULTS: Of 341 charts reviewed, 251 (74%) patients were eligible for analysis. Nearly one-third (32%) of patients were prescribed antibiotics for URIs. Respiratory viruses were detected among 85 (75%) of 113 patients tested. Antibiotic prescribing (P = .001) and viral testing (P < .001) varied by clinical service. Sputum production or chest congestion was associated with higher risk of antibiotic prescribing (relative risk [RR], 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-3.8; P < .001). Viral testing on day 0 was associated with lower risk of antibiotic prescribing (RR, 0.4; 95% CI 0.2-0.8; P = .01), though collinearity between viral testing and clinical service limited our ability to separate these effects on prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one-third of hematology-oncology outpatients were prescribed antibiotics for URIs, despite viral etiologies identified among 75% of those tested. Antibiotic prescribing was significantly lower among patients who received an initial respiratory viral test. The role of viral testing in antibiotic prescribing for URIs in outpatient oncology settings merits further study.