Comparative evaluation of swabbing sites for Omicron variant detection in PCR testing

Tom Fowler,Edward Blandford,David Chapman,Matthias E. Futschik,Raghavendran Kulasegaran-Shylini,Sarah Tunkel,Carolyn Lewis,Alasdair Fellows,Ellie Sheppard,Leanne McCabe,Peter Marks,Paul E. Klapper,Andrew Dodgson,Malur Sudhanva,Mike Kidd,Andy Vail,Susan Hopkins,Tim Peto
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2024.116577
IF: 2.983
2024-10-29
Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease
Abstract:Purpose The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 raised concerns about the best sampling sites for PCR testing, with early indications suggesting throat swab samples were better than nasal swab samples. Our study evaluated the sensitivity of detecting SARS-CoV-2 across different swabbing sites. Methods Participants undergoing testing at NHS Test and Trace sites in England provided self-collected samples using nose only, throat only, and combined nose and throat swabs, which were analysed by realtime PCR. Results Among 815 participants, combined swabs had higher viral concentrations than nose or throat only swabs. Sensitivity was 91% for nose only and 97% for throat only, relative to the combined approach. VC remained stable in nose swabs but declined in throat swabs with time. Conclusions Combined nose and throat swabs are the most effective for SARS-CoV-2 detection, including Omicron, though individual swabs are viable alternatives. VC variations highlight the importance of sampling sites for accurate diagnosis.
infectious diseases,microbiology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?