Natural spring water gargle samples as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS‐CoV‐2 detection using a laboratory‐developed test

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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of Medical Virology 2022-03, Vol.94 (3), p.985-993
Main 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
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Chemical extraction
COVID-19
COVID-19 - diagnosis
diagnosis
gargle
Humans
Laboratories
Lysis
Medical personnel
Mouthwashes
Nasopharynx
Natural Springs
Nucleic acids
PCR
Saliva
Sampling methods
SARS-CoV-2 - genetics
SARS‐CoV‐2
Severe acute respiratory syndrome
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
Specimen Handling - methods
Spring water
Virology
Water
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Request full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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 (Ct) value was significantly lower for the concordant paired samples as compared to discordant ones (22.9 vs. 32.1; p 
ISSN:0146-6615
1096-9071
DOI:10.1002/jmv.27407