Clinical Performance of Self-Collected Purified Water Gargle for Detection of Influenza a Virus Infection by Real-Time RT-PCR
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/idr.s450991
2024-05-15
Infection and Drug Resistance
Abstract:Guiling Li, 1– 3, &ast Tianyang Tan, 3– 5, &ast Luting Chen, 3– 5 Jiaqi Bao, 3– 5 Dongsheng Han, 3– 5 Fei Yu 3– 5 1 Department of Clinical Laboratory, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital of Medicine Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310003, People's Republic of China; 2 Key Laboratory of Precision Medicine in Diagnosis and Monitoring Research of Zhejiang Province, Hang-zhou, 310003, People's Republic of China; 3 Institute of Laboratory Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310003, People's Republic of China; 4 Department of Laboratory Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310003, People's Republic of China; 5 Zhejiang Key Laboratory of Clinical in vitro Diagnostic Techniques, Hangzhou, 310003, People's Republic of China &astThese authors contributed equally to this work Correspondence: Dongsheng Han; Fei Yu, Department of Laboratory Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310003, People's Republic of China, Email ; Purpose: Self-collected specimens are increasingly being used as alternatives to swab-based methods for the detection of respiratory viruses. While saliva is well accepted, gargle specimens are a potential alternative with characteristics that are more favorable for laboratory handling. This study assessed the performance of gargle specimens in the detection of influenza A viruses (IAVs). Patients and Methods: We performed a prospective head-to-head comparison between combined nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs (NPS&OPS) and purified water gargle (PWG) among adult outpatients with febrile respiratory symptoms to detect IAVs using real-time RT-PCR during two influenza seasons. Results: During study periods 1 (July 13 to 26, 2022, H3N2 predominated) and 2 (February 25 to March 10, 2023, H1N1 pdm09 predominated), a total of 459 patients were recruited. The overall agreement between the NPS&OPS and PWG was 85.0% (390/459, κ = 0.697), with 88.0% in period 1 and 82.6% in period 2. The detection rate of IAVs in PWG (51.6%, 237/459) was lower than that in NPS&OPS (62.3%, 286/459) (p < 0.0001). The overall sensitivity and specificity were 96.6% (93.7– 98.3%) and 100% (97.1– 100%) in NPS&OPS and were 80.1% (75.0– 84.4%) and 100% (97.1– 100%) in PWG, respectively. Among the 227 pairs of concordant positive specimens, cycle threshold (Ct) values were significantly lower in NPS&OPS than in PWG (median Ct values: 24.2, 28.2, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Although self-collected PWG specimens offer acceptable performance for IAVs molecular testing, NPS&OPS remain a reliable option. Given the convenience of collection, nonviscous gargles are recommended for viral detection during emergencies or under specific conditions. Keywords: gargle, nasopharyngeal swab, oropharyngeal swab, detection, influenza A virus, rRT-PCR Collecting respiratory tract specimens in time to detect respiratory viruses can provide valuable information, helping to manage patients properly and prevent transmission. However, the recommended method for specimen collection is debatable. The selection of a sampling method must balance epidemiological sensitivity against the feasibility, costs, time required for specimen collection, and other aspects. 1 For example, the "gold standard" sample types for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection defaulted for early in the pandemic to nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) or oropharyngeal swab (OPS), as these are established diagnostic practices used in identifying other respiratory viruses and are often recommended by clinical guidelines. 2–4 However, these specimens can be costly, labor-intensive, invasive, and put health personnel at risk by close contact during sample collection, 4 leading to the consideration of additional self-collected and less-invasive specimen types. Saliva has been proposed as an acceptable specimen type due to some advantages such as easy to self-collect, more acceptable to patients, less resource intensive and low transmission risk. 4–7 We evaluated the use of saliva for detecting SARS-CoV-2 and common respiratory pathogens, 8,9 and our findings revealed that saliva could be easily provided by patients and was well accepted. However, saliva still has shortcomings in practical applications; for instance, some patients who experience dry mouth cannot spit out a sufficient volume of saliva and the obtained saliva with different viscosities needs to be liquefied and centrifuged during pretreatment, which is both time consuming and increases the detection -Abstract Truncated-
pharmacology & pharmacy,infectious diseases