Comparison of Self-Collected Oral-Nasal and Mid-turbinate Swabs to Healthcare Worker-Collected Nasopharyngeal Swabs for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2: A Paired Clinical Evaluation
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Accurate detection of respiratory viruses is essential for infection control, patient management, and public health response. Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), collected by healthcare workers (HWC-NPS), remain the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 detection but require trained personnel and can be uncomfortable for patients. Self-collected swabs, such as oral–nasal swabs (SC-ONS) and mid-turbinate swabs, offer scalable alternatives suitable for mass testing. Previous mid-turbinate swab designs included a plastic stopper and were not compatible with automated laboratory testing. This study compared the performance of i) SC-ONS, ii) an automation-friendly, redesigned version of mid-turbinate swab (SC-MTS), and iii) HWC-NPS in detecting SARS-CoV-2. Between April and June 2022, paired NPS, ONS, and MTS samples were collected from 100 participants at a COVID-19 assessment centre in Hamilton, Ontario. Samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. Compared to HWC-NPS, SC-ONS demonstrated 82.1% sensitivity and 100% specificity, while SC-MTS showed 75.0% sensitivity and 100% specificity. Agreement with HWC-NPS was strong for both SC-ONS (κ=0.863) and SC-MTS (κ=0.804). Agreement between SC-ONS and SC-MTS was nearly perfect (κ=0.944). Cellular material yields as well as SARS-CoV-2 viral loads were lower for self-collected swabs than HWC-NPS, while viral load comparisons revealed no significant difference between SC-ONS and SC-MTS. Our study aligns with previous work demonstrating the use of self-collected mid-turbinate swabs for detection of respiratory viruses, while also demonstrating the compatibility of the newly designed swabs with automated laboratory instruments. Our results, while conducted in a relatively small sample, suggest that self-collected ONS and MTS are reliable alternatives to HWC-NPS offering practical, less invasive automation-friendly options for large-scale respiratory virus surveillance and pandemic preparedness.
