Department of Clinical Microbiology, Turku University Hospitalgrid.410552.7, Turku, Finland.
Institute of Biomedicine, University of Turkugrid.1374.1, Turku, Finland.
Microbiol Spectr. 2021 Oct 31;9(2):e0073621. doi: 10.1128/Spectrum.00736-21. Epub 2021 Oct 20.
The supply of testing equipment is vital in controlling the spread of SARS-CoV-2. We compared the diagnostic efficacy and tolerability of molded plastic (FinSwab; Valukumpu, Finland) versus flocked nylon (FLOQSwab; Copan, Italy) nasopharyngeal swabs in a clinical setting. Adults ( = 112) with suspected symptomatic COVID-19 infection underwent nasopharyngeal sampling with FinSwab and FLOQSwab from the same nostril at a drive-in coronavirus testing station. In a subset of 36 patients the samples were collected in a randomized order to evaluate the discomfort associated with sampling. SARS-CoV-2 and 16 other respiratory viruses, as well as human β-actin mRNA were analyzed by using reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) assays. Among the 112 patients (mean age, 38 [standard deviation (SD), 14] years) β-actin mRNA was found in all samples. There was no difference in the β-actin mRNA cycle threshold () values between FinSwab (mean, 22.3; SD, 3.61) and FLOQSwab (mean, 22.1; SD, 3.50; = 0.46) swabs. There were 31 virus-positive cases (26 rhinovirus, 4 SARS-CoV-2, and 1 coronavirus-OC43), 24 of which were positive in both swabs; 3 rhinovirus positives were only found in the FinSwab, and similarly 4 rhinovirus positives were only found in the FLOQSwab. Rhinovirus values were similar between swab types. Of the 36 patients, 22 (61%) tolerated the sampling with the FinSwab better than with the FLOQSwab ( = 0.065). The molded plastic nasopharyngeal swab (FinSwab) was comparable to the standard flocked swab in terms of efficacy for respiratory virus detection and tolerability of sampling. We demonstrate that a molded plastic swab is a valid alternative to conventional brush-like swabs in collection of a nasopharyngeal sample for virus diagnostics.
检测设备的供应对于控制 SARS-CoV-2 的传播至关重要。我们在临床环境中比较了模压塑料（芬兰 Valukumpu 的 FinSwab）和植绒尼龙（意大利 Copan 的 FLOQSwab）鼻咽拭子的诊断效果和耐受性。在一个drive-in 冠状病毒检测站，112 名疑似有症状的 COVID-19 感染成年人接受了来自同一鼻孔的 FinSwab 和 FLOQSwab 鼻咽取样。在 36 名患者的亚组中，按照随机顺序采集样本，以评估采样相关的不适。使用逆转录 PCR（RT-PCR）检测分析 SARS-CoV-2 和 16 种其他呼吸道病毒以及人类β-肌动蛋白 mRNA。在 112 名患者（平均年龄，38 [标准差（SD），14] 岁）中，所有样本均检测到β-肌动蛋白 mRNA。FinSwab（平均值 22.3；SD，3.61）和 FLOQSwab（平均值 22.1；SD，3.50； = 0.46）拭子之间的β-肌动蛋白 mRNA 循环阈值（）值无差异。31 例病毒阳性病例（26 例鼻病毒、4 例 SARS-CoV-2 和 1 例冠状病毒 OC43），两种拭子均为阳性的有 24 例；仅在 FinSwab 中发现 3 例鼻病毒阳性，同样仅在 FLOQSwab 中发现 4 例鼻病毒阳性。两种拭子类型的鼻病毒值相似。在 36 名患者中，22 名（61%）患者对 FinSwab 的采样耐受性优于 FLOQSwab（ = 0.065）。在呼吸道病毒检测的效果和采样的耐受性方面，模压塑料鼻咽拭子（FinSwab）与标准植绒拭子相当。我们证明，在采集病毒诊断用鼻咽样本方面，模压塑料拭子是传统刷状拭子的有效替代物。
