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...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |