Abstract
Background Rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDT) demonstrate varying sensitivities, often necessitating reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to confirm results. The two methods generally require separate specimens. Using the same anterior nasal swab for both RIDT and molecular confirmation would reduce cost and waste and increase patient comfort.
Objective The aim of this study was to determine if RIDT residual nasal swab (rNS) specimens are adequate for RT-PCR and whole genome sequencing (WGS).
Study design We performed RT-PCR and WGS on paired rNS and nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal (NP/OP) swab specimens that were collected from primary care patients across all ages. We randomly selected 199 and 40 paired specimens for RT-PCR and WGS, respectively, from the 962 paired surveillance specimens collected during the 2014-2015 influenza season.
Results Sensitivity and specificity for rNS specimens were 81.3% and 96.7%, respectively, as compared to NP/OP specimens. The mean cycle threshold (Ct) value for the NP/OP specimen was significantly lower when the paired specimens were both positive than when the NP/OP swab was positive and the nasal swab was negative (25.5 vs 29.5; p<0.001). WGS was successful in 67.5% of the rNS specimens and 55.0% of the NP/OP specimens.
Conclusion It is feasible to use a single anterior nasal swab for RIDT followed by RT-PCR or WGS. This approach may be appropriate in situations where training and supplies are limited. Additional studies are needed to determine if residual nasal swabs from other rapid diagnostic tests produce similar results.
Competing Interest Statement
Quidel Corporation employs John Tamerius and Sushruth Reddy. Jonathan Temte has received in-kind material support and financial support from Quidel Corporation. ?
Funding Statement
Quidel provided funding to support testing of 200 rNS specimens at WSLH. This study made use of surveillance data and specimens emerging from the Influenza Incidence Surveillance Project. No other funding was provided through any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Anonymized samples were tested and ethical approval was not required. Data and specimens were collected in a public health surveillance program which has been deemed exempt by the University of Wisconsin Health Sciences Institutional Review Board.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Not Applicable
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Data Availability
Data were submitted to Harvard Dataverse and publication is in progress. The files are being validated through their system and will become available at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/RLXPUM
