Evaluation of Self-Collected Midturbinate Nasal Swabs and Saliva for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA.

Rapid and accurate diagnostic testing is essential to bring the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic to an end. As the demand for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing continues to increase amid supply shortages, many laboratories have investigated the use of sources other than nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs. Saliva and midturbinate (MT) nasal swabs are attractive alternatives, as they allow for self-collection and are well accepted by patients. Saliva also requires limited consumables. We compared the performance of health care provider-collected NP swabs, patient-collected MT swabs, and patient-collected saliva specimens for SARS-CoV-2 detection using a laboratory-developed PCR assay that had received Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA. Of 281 total evaluable samples, 33 (11.7%) NP swabs, 33 (11.7%) MT swabs, and 32 (11.4%) saliva specimens were positive for SARS-CoV-2 following resolution of discordant results. Compared to NP swabs, saliva exhibited a sensitivity of 90.9% (30/33) and specificity of 99.2% (246/248), while patient-collected MT swabs exhibited a sensitivity of 93.9% (31/33) and specificity of 99.2% (246/248). When comparing to the consensus standard, the sensitivity was found to be 100% (31/31) for both NP and MT swabs and 96.8% (30/31) for saliva specimens, while specificity was the same in both NP swabs and saliva specimens (98.8% [247/250]) and 99.2% (248/250) for MT swabs. Pretreatment of saliva with proteinase K and heating for 15 min prior to extraction reduced the invalid rate from 26.7% (52/195) to 0% (0/195). These data show that midturbinate nasal swabs and saliva are suitable sources for self-collection in individuals who require routine monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Performance of three polymerase chain reaction-based assays for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in different upper respiratory tract specimens.

To meet the testing demands and overcome supply chain issues during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, many clinical laboratories validated multiple SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing platforms. Here, we compare three different molecular assays for SARS-CoV-2 that received emergency use authorization (EUA) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In order to determine the agreement among Roche cobas® SARS-CoV-2 Test (Cobas), Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay (ART), and Mayo Clinic Laboratory SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection Assay (Mayo LDT), 100 each of anterior nares (AN), nasopharyngeal (NP), oropharyngeal (OP), and NP+OP swabs were tested on each platform. The consensus result was defined as agreement by 2 or more methods. Furthermore, 30 positive NP swabs from each molecular platform (n = 90 total) were tested on the three platforms to determine the PPA among positive samples. ART platform called more specimens positive than the other two platforms. All three assays performed with greater than 90% agreement for NP specimens throughout the study.

Evaluation of high-risk human papillomavirus testing and anal cytology to detect high-grade anal intraepithelial neoplasia.

INTRODUCTION: Optimal screening for detection of anal precancer has not been established, and most studies involve very high-risk populations. We evaluated high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and anal cytology to detect high-grade anal intraepithelial neoplasia (≥AIN2) in a cohort with mostly moderate risk factors for AIN. METHODS: Patients ≥35 years old undergoing anal biopsy for various lesions received HPV testing by Roche cobas and a subset by Hologic APTIMA HPV assays with concurrent anal ThinPrep cytology. Biopsies were blindly reviewed by 3 authors, and consensus diagnosis was compared with HPV and cytology results. Sensitivity and specificity for ≥AIN2 detection by HPV testing and cytology (≥ASC-US) were calculated. RESULTS: Among 64 patients, 19 (29.7%) showed ≥AIN2 on biopsy. All patients were tested by cobas, and 35 (54.7%) were positive. A subset of 39 patients were also tested by APTIMA, and 18 (46.2%) were positive. Positive cytology (≥ASC-US) was present in 37 (57.8%) patients, with 27 (73.0%) of these positive by cobas. HPV testing alone yielded 75.0% and 84.2% sensitivity for APTIMA and cobas, respectively; specificity was 66.7% and 57.8%. Sensitivity and specificity of cytology alone was 78.9% and 51.1%. Combined HPV testing and cytology had a sensitivity and specificity of 91.7% and 37.0% for APTIMA and 94.7% and 40.0% for cobas. CONCLUSIONS: Combined HPV testing and cytology had the highest sensitivity for ≥AIN2 detection, with a performance comparable to cervical cancer screening tests, suggesting this strategy may represent a viable screening option in a population with moderate risk factors for AIN.

Initial SARS-CoV-2 PCR crossing point does not predict hospitalization and duration of PCR positivity.

This study aimed to determine if the crossing point of the initial positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test correlated with patient demographics, subsequent hospitalization, or duration of positivity. Seventy-three patients with two or more positive PCR tests had a median time of 23 days to two consecutive negative results.

Comparison of the Panther Fusion respiratory panels to routine methods for detection of viruses in upper and lower respiratory tract specimens.

Viral respiratory infections remain a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in pediatric, elderly, and immunocompromised patients. The Panther Fusion respiratory panels consist of 3 separate multiplex assays that test for 1) influenza A, influenza B, and RSV; 2) parainfluenza virus types 1-4; or 3) adenovirus, human metapneumovirus, and rhinovirus. This study evaluated the performance of the Fusion assays for both upper and lower respiratory tract specimens in comparison to routine methods, including viral culture and targeted real-time polymerase chain reaction assays. Following discordant resolution, the Fusion assays demonstrated high overall correlation (98.6% [648/657]) with routine methods. In addition, prospective testing of respiratory specimens (n = 146) submitted for viral culture showed a ~10-fold increase in detection by the Fusion panels compared to viral culture (28.1% versus 2.7% positivity). The Fusion respiratory panels offer a flexible, more targeted approach to respiratory virus testing with a turnaround time comparable to other molecular assays.