ABSTRACT
BackgroundEarly 2020, a COVID-19 epidemic became a public health emergency of international concern. To address this pandemic broad testing with an easy, comfortable and reliable testing method is of utmost concern. The nasopharyngeal (NP) swab sampling is the reference method though hampered by international supply shortages. A new oropharyngeal/nasal (OP/N) sampling method was investigated using the more readily available throat swab. MethodsIn this prospective observational study 36 COVID-19 patients were tested with both a NP and combined OP/N swab for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by PCR. In hospitalized suspect patients, who tested negative on both swabs, extensive retesting was performed. The sensitivity of NP versus combined OP/N swab sampling on admission and the correlation between viral RNA loads recovered was investigated. Results35 patients were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 by means of either NP or OP/N sampling. The paired swabs were both positive in 31 patients. The one patient who tested negative on both NP and OP/N swab on admission, was ultimately diagnosed on bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. A strong correlation was found between the viral RNA loads of the paired swabs (r = 0.76; P < 0.05). The sensitivity of NP and OP/N analysis in hospitalized patients (n = 28) was 89.3% and 92.7% respectively. ConclusionsThis study demonstrates equivalence of NP and OP/N sampling for detection of SARS-CoV-2 by means of rRT-PCR. Sensitivity of both NP and OP/N sampling is very high in hospitalized patients.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is widely incorporated into cervical cancer screening strategies. Current screening requires pelvic examination for cervical sampling, which may compromise participation. The acceptance could be raised by introducing testing on vaginal swabs. We explored the interchangeability of vaginal swabs and cervical smears for HPV testing, by means of a prospective study conducted in female sex workers (FSWs). Besides, we report on the occurrence of 32 different HPV genotypes in FSW with low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL). METHODS: Paired physician-collected vaginal swabs and cervical smears from 303 FSW were tested for HPV using the Abbott RealTime High-Risk HPV assay. Cervical cytology was examined on cervical smears. In case of HSIL/LSIL cytological classification (n=52), both samples were genotyped using INNO-LiPa HPV Genotyping Extra II. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of high-risk (HR)-HPV was 51%. In FSW with HSIL/LSIL cervical cytology, the sensitivity and specificity of vaginal samples for the detection of HR-HPV was 100% and 70% and for probable HR-HPV 100% and 91%. The mean number of genotypes identified in vaginal samples (mean=3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]=2.8–4.2) was significantly higher than in cervical smear samples (mean=2.6; 95% CI=2.1–3.0) (p=0.001). The most frequently encountered HR-HPV genotypes were HPV16, 31, 51, and 52. CONCLUSION: As our study shows that vaginal swabs are equivalent to cervical smears for the detection of (probable) HR-HPV, vaginal swabs can be used for HPV testing in cervical cancer screening strategies. Given the acceptance of vaginal sampling, this finding offers an opportunity to boost screening coverage.
