Comparison of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for the diagnosis of eight respiratory viruses by real-time reverse transcription-PCR assays.

BACKGROUND: Many acute respiratory illness surveillance systems collect and test nasopharyngeal (NP) and/or oropharyngeal (OP) swab specimens, yet there are few studies assessing the relative measures of performance for NP versus OP specimens. METHODS: We collected paired NP and OP swabs separately...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Curi Kim, Jamal A Ahmed, Rachel B Eidex, Raymond Nyoka, Lilian W Waiboci, Dean Erdman, Adan Tepo, Abdirahman S Mahamud, Wamburu Kabura, Margaret Nguhi, Philip Muthoka, Wagacha Burton, Robert F Breiman, M Kariuki Njenga, Mark A Katz
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2011-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3128075?pdf=render
id doaj-45d974fdc30f4180aace60855712d5c8
record_format Article
spelling doaj-45d974fdc30f4180aace60855712d5c82020-11-25T02:00:16ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032011-01-0166e2161010.1371/journal.pone.0021610Comparison of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for the diagnosis of eight respiratory viruses by real-time reverse transcription-PCR assays.Curi KimJamal A AhmedRachel B EidexRaymond NyokaLilian W WaibociDean ErdmanAdan TepoAbdirahman S MahamudWamburu KaburaMargaret NguhiPhilip MuthokaWagacha BurtonRobert F BreimanM Kariuki NjengaMark A KatzBACKGROUND: Many acute respiratory illness surveillance systems collect and test nasopharyngeal (NP) and/or oropharyngeal (OP) swab specimens, yet there are few studies assessing the relative measures of performance for NP versus OP specimens. METHODS: We collected paired NP and OP swabs separately from pediatric and adult patients with influenza-like illness or severe acute respiratory illness at two respiratory surveillance sites in Kenya. The specimens were tested for eight respiratory viruses by real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). Positivity for a specific virus was defined as detection of viral nucleic acid in either swab. RESULTS: Of 2,331 paired NP/OP specimens, 1,402 (60.1%) were positive for at least one virus, and 393 (16.9%) were positive for more than one virus. Overall, OP swabs were significantly more sensitive than NP swabs for adenovirus (72.4% vs. 57.6%, p<0.01) and 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus (91.2% vs. 70.4%, p<0.01). NP specimens were more sensitive for influenza B virus (83.3% vs. 61.5%, p = 0.02), parainfluenza virus 2 (85.7%, vs. 39.3%, p<0.01), and parainfluenza virus 3 (83.9% vs. 67.4%, p<0.01). The two methods did not differ significantly for human metapneumovirus, influenza A (H3N2) virus, parainfluenza virus 1, or respiratory syncytial virus. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivities were variable among the eight viruses tested; neither specimen was consistently more effective than the other. For respiratory disease surveillance programs using qRT-PCR that aim to maximize sensitivity for a large number of viruses, collecting combined NP and OP specimens would be the most effective approach.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3128075?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Curi Kim
Jamal A Ahmed
Rachel B Eidex
Raymond Nyoka
Lilian W Waiboci
Dean Erdman
Adan Tepo
Abdirahman S Mahamud
Wamburu Kabura
Margaret Nguhi
Philip Muthoka
Wagacha Burton
Robert F Breiman
M Kariuki Njenga
Mark A Katz
spellingShingle Curi Kim
Jamal A Ahmed
Rachel B Eidex
Raymond Nyoka
Lilian W Waiboci
Dean Erdman
Adan Tepo
Abdirahman S Mahamud
Wamburu Kabura
Margaret Nguhi
Philip Muthoka
Wagacha Burton
Robert F Breiman
M Kariuki Njenga
Mark A Katz
Comparison of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for the diagnosis of eight respiratory viruses by real-time reverse transcription-PCR assays.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Curi Kim
Jamal A Ahmed
Rachel B Eidex
Raymond Nyoka
Lilian W Waiboci
Dean Erdman
Adan Tepo
Abdirahman S Mahamud
Wamburu Kabura
Margaret Nguhi
Philip Muthoka
Wagacha Burton
Robert F Breiman
M Kariuki Njenga
Mark A Katz
author_sort Curi Kim
title Comparison of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for the diagnosis of eight respiratory viruses by real-time reverse transcription-PCR assays.
title_short Comparison of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for the diagnosis of eight respiratory viruses by real-time reverse transcription-PCR assays.
title_full Comparison of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for the diagnosis of eight respiratory viruses by real-time reverse transcription-PCR assays.
title_fullStr Comparison of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for the diagnosis of eight respiratory viruses by real-time reverse transcription-PCR assays.
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for the diagnosis of eight respiratory viruses by real-time reverse transcription-PCR assays.
title_sort comparison of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for the diagnosis of eight respiratory viruses by real-time reverse transcription-pcr assays.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2011-01-01
description BACKGROUND: Many acute respiratory illness surveillance systems collect and test nasopharyngeal (NP) and/or oropharyngeal (OP) swab specimens, yet there are few studies assessing the relative measures of performance for NP versus OP specimens. METHODS: We collected paired NP and OP swabs separately from pediatric and adult patients with influenza-like illness or severe acute respiratory illness at two respiratory surveillance sites in Kenya. The specimens were tested for eight respiratory viruses by real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). Positivity for a specific virus was defined as detection of viral nucleic acid in either swab. RESULTS: Of 2,331 paired NP/OP specimens, 1,402 (60.1%) were positive for at least one virus, and 393 (16.9%) were positive for more than one virus. Overall, OP swabs were significantly more sensitive than NP swabs for adenovirus (72.4% vs. 57.6%, p<0.01) and 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus (91.2% vs. 70.4%, p<0.01). NP specimens were more sensitive for influenza B virus (83.3% vs. 61.5%, p = 0.02), parainfluenza virus 2 (85.7%, vs. 39.3%, p<0.01), and parainfluenza virus 3 (83.9% vs. 67.4%, p<0.01). The two methods did not differ significantly for human metapneumovirus, influenza A (H3N2) virus, parainfluenza virus 1, or respiratory syncytial virus. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivities were variable among the eight viruses tested; neither specimen was consistently more effective than the other. For respiratory disease surveillance programs using qRT-PCR that aim to maximize sensitivity for a large number of viruses, collecting combined NP and OP specimens would be the most effective approach.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3128075?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT curikim comparisonofnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsforthediagnosisofeightrespiratoryvirusesbyrealtimereversetranscriptionpcrassays
AT jamalaahmed comparisonofnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsforthediagnosisofeightrespiratoryvirusesbyrealtimereversetranscriptionpcrassays
AT rachelbeidex comparisonofnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsforthediagnosisofeightrespiratoryvirusesbyrealtimereversetranscriptionpcrassays
AT raymondnyoka comparisonofnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsforthediagnosisofeightrespiratoryvirusesbyrealtimereversetranscriptionpcrassays
AT lilianwwaiboci comparisonofnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsforthediagnosisofeightrespiratoryvirusesbyrealtimereversetranscriptionpcrassays
AT deanerdman comparisonofnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsforthediagnosisofeightrespiratoryvirusesbyrealtimereversetranscriptionpcrassays
AT adantepo comparisonofnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsforthediagnosisofeightrespiratoryvirusesbyrealtimereversetranscriptionpcrassays
AT abdirahmansmahamud comparisonofnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsforthediagnosisofeightrespiratoryvirusesbyrealtimereversetranscriptionpcrassays
AT wamburukabura comparisonofnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsforthediagnosisofeightrespiratoryvirusesbyrealtimereversetranscriptionpcrassays
AT margaretnguhi comparisonofnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsforthediagnosisofeightrespiratoryvirusesbyrealtimereversetranscriptionpcrassays
AT philipmuthoka comparisonofnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsforthediagnosisofeightrespiratoryvirusesbyrealtimereversetranscriptionpcrassays
AT wagachaburton comparisonofnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsforthediagnosisofeightrespiratoryvirusesbyrealtimereversetranscriptionpcrassays
AT robertfbreiman comparisonofnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsforthediagnosisofeightrespiratoryvirusesbyrealtimereversetranscriptionpcrassays
AT mkariukinjenga comparisonofnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsforthediagnosisofeightrespiratoryvirusesbyrealtimereversetranscriptionpcrassays
AT markakatz comparisonofnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsforthediagnosisofeightrespiratoryvirusesbyrealtimereversetranscriptionpcrassays
_version_ 1724961734097108992