Sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 Detection With Nasopharyngeal Swabs

28Citations
Citations of this article
72Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: SARS-CoV-2-infected subjects have been proven contagious in the symptomatic, pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic phase. The identification of these patients is crucial in order to prevent virus circulation. No reliable data on the sensitivity of nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) are available because of the lack of a shared reference standard to identify SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. The aim of our study was to collect data on patients with a known diagnosis of COVID-19 who underwent serial testing to assess NPS sensitivity. Methods: The study was a multi-center, observational, retrospective clinical study with consecutive enrollment. We enrolled patients who met all of the following inclusion criteria: clinical recovery, documented SARS-CoV-2 infection (≥1 positive rRT-PCR result) and ≥1 positive NPS among the first two follow-up swabs. A positive NPS not preceded by a negative nasopharyngeal swab collected 24–48 h earlier was considered a true positive. A negative NPS followed by a positive NPS collected 24–48 h later was regarded as a false negative. The primary outcome was to define sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 detection with NPS. Results: Three hundred and ninety three NPS were evaluated in 233 patients; the sensitivity was 77% (95% CI, 73 to 81%). Sensitivity of the first follow-up NPS (n = 233) was 79% (95% CI, 73 to 84%) with no significant variations over time. We found no statistically significant differences in the sensitivity of the first follow-up NPS according to time since symptom onset, age, sex, number of comorbidities, and onset symptoms. Conclusions: NPS utility in the diagnostic algorithm of COVID-19 should be reconsidered.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Clerici, B., Muscatello, A., Bai, F., Pavanello, D., Orlandi, M., Marchetti, G. C., … Podda, G. M. (2021). Sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 Detection With Nasopharyngeal Swabs. Frontiers in Public Health, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.593491

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free