| Title: |
Natural spring water gargle samples as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS‐CoV‐2 detection using a laboratory‐developed test |
| Authors: |
Gobeille Paré, Sarah; Bestman‐Smith, Julie; Fafard, Judith; Doualla‐Bell, Florence; Jacob‐Wagner, Mariève; Lavallée, Christian; Charest, Hugues; Beauchemin, Stéphanie; Coutlée, François; Dumaresq, Jeannot; Busque, Lambert; St‐Hilaire, Manon; Lépine, Guylaine; Boucher, Valérie; Desforges, Marc; Goupil‐Sormany, Isabelle; Labbé, Annie‐Claude |
| Contributors: |
Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux |
| Source: |
Journal of Medical Virology ; volume 94, issue 3, page 985-993 ; ISSN 0146-6615 1096-9071 |
| Publisher Information: |
Wiley |
| Publication Year: |
2021 |
| Collection: |
Wiley Online Library (Open Access Articles via Crossref) |
| Description: |
The objective of this study was to validate the use of spring water gargle (SWG) as an alternative to oral and nasopharyngeal swab (ONPS) for SARS‐CoV‐2 detection with a laboratory‐developed test. Healthcare workers and adults from the general population, presenting to one of two COVID‐19 screening clinics in Montréal and Québec City, were prospectively recruited to provide a gargle sample in addition to the standard ONPS. The paired specimens were analyzed using thermal lysis followed by a laboratory‐developed nucleic acid amplification test (LD‐NAAT) to detect SARS‐CoV‐2, and comparative performance analysis was performed. An individual was considered infected if a positive result was obtained on either sample. A total of 1297 adult participants were recruited. Invalid results ( n = 18) were excluded from the analysis. SARS‐CoV‐2 was detected in 144/1279 (11.3%) participants: 126 from both samples, 15 only from ONPS, and 3 only from SWG. Overall, the sensitivity was 97.9% (95% CI: 93.7–99.3) for ONPS and 89.6% (95% CI: 83.4–93.6; p = 0.005) for SWG. The mean ONPS cycle threshold (C t ) value was significantly lower for the concordant paired samples as compared to discordant ones (22.9 vs. 32.1; p < 0.001). In conclusion, using an LD‐NAAT with thermal lysis, SWG is a less sensitive sampling method than the ONPS. However, the higher acceptability of SWG might enable a higher rate of detection from a population‐based perspective. Nonetheless, in patients with a high clinical suspicion of COVID‐19, a repeated analysis with ONPS should be considered. The sensitivity of SWG using NAAT preceded by chemical extraction should be evaluated. |
| Document Type: |
article in journal/newspaper |
| Language: |
English |
| DOI: |
10.1002/jmv.27407 |
| Availability: |
https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.27407; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/jmv.27407; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full-xml/10.1002/jmv.27407 |
| Rights: |
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor |
| Accession Number: |
edsbas.A17E67CC |
| Database: |
BASE |