scholarly journals Is nasopharyngeal swab comparable with nasopharyngeal aspirate to detect SARS-CoV-2 in children?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ester Capecchi ◽  
Giada Maria Di Pietro ◽  
Ester Luconi
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Tract ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Lower Respiratory Tract ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Aspirate ◽  
Direct Identification ◽  
Paediatric Department

AbstractThe tests currently used for the direct identification of SARS-CoV-2 include specimens taken from the upper and the lower respiratory tract.In our paediatric department all children undergo both nasopharyngeal swab and nasopharyngeal aspirate, performed from both nostrils, on admission and after 24 hours.We decided to compare these two methods of detection of SARS-CoV-2. Considering nasopharyngeal aspirate as the gold standard, we calculated sensitivities and specificities of nasopharyngeal swab.Based on our results, we suggest to prefer the collection of aspirates whenever possible.

scholarly journals Nasopharyngeal aspirate value in paediatric chronic lower respiratory tract illness

2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (6) ◽  
pp. 1701783 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesca Lunardi ◽  
Stefania Edith Vuljan ◽  
Egle Perissinotto ◽  
Federica Pezzuto ◽  
Sandro Malacrida ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Tract ◽  
Lower Respiratory Tract ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Aspirate ◽  
Respiratory Tract Illness

scholarly journals Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in children: accuracy of nasopharyngeal swab compared to nasopharyngeal aspirate.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giada Maria Di Pietro ◽  
Ester Capecchi ◽  
Ester Luconi ◽  
Giovanna Lunghi ◽  
Samantha Bosis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Viruses ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Aspirate ◽  
Direct Identification ◽  
Paired Samples ◽  
Paediatric Unit ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Low Sensitivity ◽  
Better Than

The tests currently used for the direct identification of SARS-CoV-2 include specimens taken from upper and lower respiratory tract; recommendations from Word Health Organization prioritise nasopharyngeal swab (NS). In literature there are not available paediatric studies about the identification of SARS-CoV-2 through nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA), but the use of NPA is deemed to be better than NS to identify respiratory viruses in children. The aim of our study is to evaluate diagnostic performances of NS compared to NPA for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in children. We collected 300 paired samples (NS and NPA) from children hospitalized and followed up in our paediatric unit. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity of NS referred to NPA of the whole sample and then, considering both the age (≥ and < 6 years old) and the period of collection (March vs follow up) as covariates in different analysis. The NS has a low sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2 in children when referred to NPA; whereas its specificity results high. In children under 6 years of age, our results suggest to prefer the collection of NS, whenever possible. Though statistically not significant, the sensitivity of NS becomes higher if it is performed before NPA.

Evaluation of the Genmark ePlex® and QIAstat-Dx® respiratory pathogen panels in detecting bacterial targets in lower respiratory tract specimens

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne A. V. van Asten ◽  
Stefan A. Boers ◽  
Jolanda D. F. de Groot ◽  
R. Schuurman ◽  
Eric C. J. Claas
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Tract ◽  
Legionella Pneumophila ◽  
Lower Respiratory Tract ◽  
Bacterial Pneumonia ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Bacterial Load ◽  
Respiratory Pathogen ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Respiratory Pathogens ◽  
Positive Results

Abstract Background The ePlex® and QIAstat-Dx® respiratory pathogen panels detect multiple respiratory pathogens, mainly viruses but also Legionella pneumophila, Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Bordetella pertussis. The assays have been marketed for use in nasopharyngeal swab specimens. For diagnosing bacterial pneumonia, lower respiratory tract (LRT) specimens are indicated. Aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of these syndromic panels for these three bacterial targets in samples from the LRT. Fifty-six specimens were collected from our repositories, five negative samples and fifty-one samples which had been previously tested positive with the routine diagnostic real-time PCR assays for Legionella spp. (N = 20), Bordetella spp. (N = 16) or M. pneumoniae (N = 15). Results The QIAstat-Dx Respiratory Panel V2 (RP) assay detected all of the L. pneumophila and B. pertussis positive samples but only 11/15 (73.3 %) of the M. pneumoniae targets. The ePlex Respiratory Pathogen Panel (RPP) assay detected 10/14 (71.4 %) of the L. pneumophila targets, 8/12 (66.7 %) of the B. pertussis positive samples and 13/15 (86.7 %) of the M. pneumoniae targets. Conclusions No false-positive results were reported for all three bacterial pathogens by both assays. The clinical performance of both assays depended highly on the bacterial load in the sample and the type of specimen under investigation.

scholarly journals Multicenter Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 Test

2020 ◽  
Vol 58 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Loeffelholz ◽  
David Alland ◽  
Susan M. Butler-Wu ◽  
Utsav Pandey ◽  
Carlo Frederico Perno ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Tract ◽  
Lower Respiratory Tract ◽  
Limit Of Detection ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Therapeutic Interventions ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Analytical Sensitivity

ABSTRACT Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) are the primary means of identifying acute infections caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Accurate and fast test results may permit more efficient use of protective and isolation resources and allow rapid therapeutic interventions. We evaluated the analytical and clinical performance characteristics of the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Xpert) test, a rapid, automated molecular test for SARS-CoV-2. Analytical sensitivity and specificity/interference were assessed with infectious SARS-CoV-2; other infectious coronavirus species, including SARS-CoV; and 85 nasopharyngeal swab specimens positive for other respiratory viruses, including endemic human coronaviruses (hCoVs). Clinical performance was assessed using 483 remnant upper- and lower-respiratory-tract specimens previously analyzed by standard-of-care (SOC) NAATs. The limit of detection of the Xpert test was 0.01 PFU/ml. Other hCoVs, including Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, were not detected by the Xpert test. SARS-CoV, a closely related species in the subgenus Sarbecovirus, was detected by a broad-range target (E) but was distinguished from SARS-CoV-2 (SARS-CoV-2-specific N2 target). Compared to SOC NAATs, the positive agreement of the Xpert test was 219/220 (99.5%), and the negative agreement was 250/261 (95.8%). A third tie-breaker NAAT resolved all but three of the discordant results in favor the Xpert test. The Xpert test provided sensitive and accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a variety of upper- and lower-respiratory-tract specimens. The high sensitivity and short time to results of approximately 45 min may impact patient management.

scholarly journals The additional value of lower respiratory tract sampling in the diagnosis of COVID-19. A single centre real life observational study.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luca Morandi ◽  
Francesca Torsani ◽  
Giacomo Forini ◽  
Marianna Padovani ◽  
Aldo Carnevale ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
North America ◽  
Respiratory Tract ◽  
Ct Scan ◽  
Lower Respiratory Tract ◽  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
Standard Procedure ◽  
Laboratory Data ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Radiological Society

Abstract Background: Since December 2019 SARS-CoV-2 has been identified as the causal agent for severe cases of pneumonia in China and it spread all over the world, putting great pressure on Health Systems. Despite regarded as the standard procedure, sensitivity of nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) is suboptimal. In clinical/radiological suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection despite negative NPS test, other tests may be required to rule out the infection. Objectives: To evaluate correlations between lower respiratory tract (LRT) testing for SARS-CoV-2 in suspect patients with 2 negative NPSs and clinical symptoms, laboratory values and the CT scan review score by the Radiological Society of North America. Method: Retrospective analysis of radiological, clinical and laboratory data from patients who underwent LRT sampling (blind nasotracheal aspiration or bronchial washing) for suspected COVID-19 after 2 negative NPS. Chest CTs were reviewed by two blinded radiologist using the Radiological Society of North America score for analysis purpose.Results: SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 7 out of 59 patients (11.9%). No clinical or laboratory value were found to correlate with positive test. CT scan showed good sensitivity (71.4%) and accuracy (81.3%), with a very high NPV (95.7%). Features scored as 'typical' showed good correlation with SARS-CoV2 detection on LRT. No complications nor staff’s infections were reported. Conclusions: In suspect cases with at least 2 negative swabs CT scan revision can be helpful in ruling out SARS-CoV-2 infection. In selected cases lower respiratory tract sampling can help in confirming COVID-19 in cases with consistent CT features.

scholarly journals Coronavirus: A Laboratory Perspective

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Ransom Baribefii Jacob ◽  
Chukwu Christopher Ifunaya ◽  
Emeji Roseline
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Tract ◽  
Lower Respiratory Tract ◽  
Professional Training ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Antibody Detection ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Upper Respiratory Tract ◽  
Past Infection ◽  
Laboratory Techniques ◽  
Upper Respiratory

COVID-19 is a virus of the species of the Family coronaviridae known as as SARS-COV-2. This virus is easily contracted and/transmitted from an infected person to another healthy individual and has continued to spread rapidly. The aim of this review is to identify laboratory methods used in the diagnosis of COVID-19 infection. COVID-19 test are aimed at detecting active infection, or past infection, or an immunization so as to treat and curb the further spread of the virus. The initial viral detection is typically carried out with the upper respiratory tract (URT) sample. Repeated testing is particularly helpful and essential if a patient has a clinical appearance of viral pneumonia, radiographic results consistent with pneumonia and/or a history of potential exposure. The Centre of Disease Control and Prevention, CDC recommends the collection of specimens from the lower respiratory tract, upper respiratory tract, and the blood. The lower respiratory tract sample includes; the sputum, broncheoalveolar lavage, bronchial wash, tracheal aspirate, and pleural fluid.  The upper respiratory tract specimens include; the nasopharyngeal swab, and oropharyngeal swab (NP/OP swabs). Some laboratory techniques developed and in use for the detection of Covid-19 are; nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs), antibody detection, and viral antigen detection. The role of the laboratory assay in diagnosis of COVID-19 infection or disease cannot be                            under-estimated, timing and site of specimen collected must be followed by adequate                 professional training to ensure result accuracy. This review provides information on available laboratory techniques for the diagnosis of the viral infection and their potential merits and           limitations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document