Evaluation of observed and unobserved self-collection of saline gargle samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in outpatients

Kinshella, Mai-Lei Woo; Tilley, Peter; Al‐Rawahi, Ghada N.; Srigley, Jocelyn A.; Kayda, Iryna; Canes, Mitchell; McLennan, Meghan; Bone, Jeffrey; Dittrick, Michelle; Gadkar, Vijay; Hoang, Linda; Goldfarb, David M.

doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2021.115566

Cited by 10 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This typically included those who were close to the case during the school day, such as deskmates and close friends ( 11 ). Asymptomatic testing was done using serial, validated saline mouth rinse gargles at three time points: upon contact identification, 7 to 8 days after last exposure, and 10 to 14 days after last exposure ( 12 ). All other classroom contacts were asked to self-monitor for symptoms.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in K-12 Schools, British Columbia, Canada April to June 2021

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is concern that schools may be a setting where asymptomatic infections might result in significant “silent” transmission of SARS-CoV-2, particularly after the emergence of more transmissible variants of concern. After the programmatic implementation of a strategy of asymptomatic testing of close COVID-19 contacts as part of contact tracing in the school setting, the majority of the secondary cases were still found to have occurred in home or social contacts.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in K-12 Schools, British Columbia, Canada April to June 2021

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 3 Nasal swab, saliva, or water mouth rinse/gargle have been the most studied alternative specimens for SARS‐CoV‐2 detection by RT‐PCR. 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 In the province of Québec, natural spring water gargle has been extensively used for SARS‐CoV‐2 detection following the G‐SPIT study that showed acceptable performance compared to oronasopharyngeal swab, particularly for symptomatic patients. 6 , 14 , 15…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 Nasal swab, saliva, or water mouth rinse/gargle have been the most studied alternative specimens for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-PCR. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] In the province of Québec, natural spring water gargle has been extensively used for SARS-CoV-2 detection following the G-SPIT study that showed acceptable performance compared to oronasopharyngeal swab, particularly for symptomatic patients. 6,14,15 To improve turnaround time, point-of-care (POC) tests have been developed, allowing for rapid testing at or near the specimen collection site.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of water gargle samples for SARS‐CoV‐2 detection using Abbott ID NOW COVID‐19 assay

Labbé

2022

Journal of Medical Virology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Abbott ID NOW™ COVID-19 assay has been shown as a reliable and sensitive alternative to reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing from nasopharyngeal or nasal samples in symptomatic patients. Water gargle is an acceptable noninvasive alternative specimen for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection by RT-PCR. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of water gargle samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 using the ID NOW. Residual gargle samples were randomly selected among positive standard of care (SOC)-nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) samples. For testing on ID NOW, the manufacturer's instructions were followed, except for the specimen addition step: 500 µl of the gargle specimen was added to the blue sample receiver with a pipette and gently mixed. Among the 202 positive samples by SOC-NAAT, 185 were positive by ID NOW (positive percent agreement [PPA]) = 91.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 86.9−95.0). For the 17 discordant samples, cycle threshold (C t ) values were all ≥31.0. The PPA was significantly lower among asymptomatic patients (84.4%; 95% CI: 73.2−92.3) versus symptomatic patients (95.2%; 95% CI: 89.8−98.2). The performance of the ID NOW for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection on gargle samples is excellent when C t values are <31.0 and for patients that have COVID-19 compatible symptoms.

show abstract

“…After screening the titles and abstracts of the remaining articles, 45 full texts were screened (figure 1). On the basis of our selection criteria, 27 of those studies were excluded and 18 studies [28,29,35,36,[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59] met our inclusion criteria (table 1). One study examined two study populations, of suspected infection and of confirmed cases, which were analysed separately [59].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of saline and water gargling for SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase PCR testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Tsang

Cowling

et al. 2022

Eur Respir Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The performance of gargling for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR testing has not been previously reviewed. This review systematically assessed the performance of saline and water gargling for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing in the settings of diagnosing and monitoring viral shedding.We included original studies comparing the performance of gargling and (oropharyngeal–)nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing. Studies conducted in either suspected individuals or confirmed cases were included and analysed separately. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were examined using random-effects models.Gargles achieved a high overall sensitivity (91%), specificity (97%), PPV (95%) and NPV (91%) for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing. Studies using saline gargle and water gargle have an overall sensitivity of 97% and 86%, respectively. The sensitivity values were largely maintained for saline and water gargling on stratified analysis, for both diagnosis (96% and 92%) and viral shedding monitoring (98% and 78%). A higher sensitivity was also reported by studies using sterile saline (100%), a smaller amount of gargling solution (92% versus 87%) and a longer gargling duration (95% versus 86%).Our results supported the use of gargling as a sampling approach for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing, which achieved a high sensitivity for both diagnosis and viral shedding monitoring purposes. Further investigation on the comparative performance of different gargling mediums is needed to draw a definitive conclusion.

show abstract

Evaluation of observed and unobserved self-collection of saline gargle samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in outpatients

Cited by 10 publications

References 13 publications

Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in K-12 Schools, British Columbia, Canada April to June 2021

Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in K-12 Schools, British Columbia, Canada April to June 2021

Evaluation of water gargle samples for SARS‐CoV‐2 detection using Abbott ID NOW COVID‐19 assay

Performance of saline and water gargling for SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase PCR testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About