The Accuracy of Healthcare Worker versus Self Collected (2-in-1) Oropharyngeal and Bilateral Mid-Turbinate (OPMT) Swabs and Saliva Samples for SARS-CoV-2

Introduction

The current “gold standard” for testing for SARS-CoV-2 requires health care workers to collect a nasopharyngeal (NP) sample from a patient. NP sampling is very uncomfortable for the patient and requires deployment of trained personnel and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) which are in limited supply.

A prior study has shown that a combination of oropharyngeal and anterior nares swabs is equivalent in sensitivity to an NP swab in 190 ambulatory symptomatic patients.¹ Another study on 236 ambulatory, literate, mostly adult subjects the performance of self-collected nasal and throat swabs was at least equivalent to that of health worker collected swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses.²

The international community is actively searching for an even less invasive means of sample collection: saliva. In a recent study by Yale University on 29 subjects,³ it was suggested that a large volume sample of saliva collected from COVID-19 inpatients can be more sensitive than NP swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and saliva samples had significantly higher COVID-19 viral titres than NP swabs (p=0.001). Furthermore, the same study showed that sensitivity of COVID-19 in saliva was more consistent throughout extended hospitalization compared to NP swabs.

In addition, there are a number of studies done on saliva testing for COVID-19 which have shown promising results, reporting 91.7%, and 100% positivity in saliva samples of COVID-19 patients.^4,5 Iwasaki et al found an overall concordance rate of 97.4% for COVID-19 detection with a strong concordance between NP swabs and saliva sampling (κ=0.874) among 66 COVID-19 negative and 10 COVID-19 positive subjects.⁶ Furthermore, a study done by To et al. showed that viral RNA could still be detected in saliva samples in a third of their twenty-three patients 20 days or longer after symptoms onset despite the development of COVID-19 antibodies.⁷ A meta-analysis conducted on 26 saliva studies also showed a positive detection rate of 91%, comparable to the detection rate of 98% from nasopharyngeal swabs.⁸ All these studies had small sample sizes (all <30 COVID-positive subjects) and only one study also sampled COVID-negative subjects.

It is still currently unknown whether self-collected combined OPMT sample, or a self-collected saliva sample is equivalent to a swab done by a health care worker (HCW). Self-collection of samples would reduce very significantly on the reliance of trained personnel to collect samples and ramp up testing capacity. It would also reduce greatly the biosafety risk that is posed to HCWs and help with PPE conservation efforts.

Materials and methods

Results

A total of 401 COVID-19 positive and 100 COVID-19 negative subjects who were recruited.

All subjects went through the test procedures - 400 participants were able to provide all 3 samples, while one participant was unable to provide a saliva sample despite a prolonged attempt. All participants tolerated the test procedures well and did not experience any adverse events.

Twenty-seven (6.7%) patients were tested negative across all 3 samples. This may be explained by the fact that they are recovering patients and viral shedding may have ceased at point of testing. Forty-two (10.5%) subjects reported ≥ 1 symptom of acute respiratory infection (ARI) (e.g. fever, cough, rhinorrhoea, sore throat, malaise) on the day of study recruitment while 371 (92.5%) subjects reported being within 7 days from onset of COVID-19 illness.

The detection rates of the HCW swab, self-swab, saliva, and combined self-swab plus saliva samples were 82.8%, 75.1%, 74.3% and 86.5% respectively (Table 1). Compared to HCW-swabs, the detection rate was lower for self-swab by 8.7% (95% confidence interval, CI=2.4% to 15.0%, p=0.006) and for saliva samples by 9.5% (95%CI=3.1% to 15.8%, p=0.003). When the results of both the self-swab and saliva testing were combined, the detection rate was higher by 2.7% (95%CI=-2.6% to 8.0%, p = 0.321) but this was not statistically significant.

The sensitivities of the self-saliva, saliva and combined self-swab plus saliva testing, when compared to the HCW swab were 83.6%, 80.6% and 92.3% respectively (Table 2).

Using the Ct values of HCW swabs as reference, 3 categories of Ct values (i.e. <25, 25-30 and >30) were studied. It was observed that the sensitivity of self-swab (Table 3) and saliva testing (Table 4) performed better at the lower Ct values, suggesting that the sensitivity of self-collection methods approaches to that of HCW swab, when the viral load was higher

There was a good correlation of PCR Ct values between self-swab and HCW swab (r=0.825, p<0.001) but moderate correlation between saliva samples and HCW swab (r=0.528, p<0.001).

One hundred healthy volunteers were recruited, and all of them were able to provide the 3 required samples. All the samples obtained from the healthy volunteers were tested negative for SARS-CoV2. This implies that the negative correctness was 100% (95% CI 96.4% to 100%) with an error rate of 3.6% for having a false negative.

Discussion

This study shows that the viral detection rates of a self-sample alone or saliva sample alone is lower than HCW swab. However, the detection rate of a combined self-swab and saliva collection is equivalent to that of a health care worker swab. Another significant finding is that the self-swab and saliva samples have a higher sensitivity with higher viral load which occurs during early illness. The sensitivity of both self-swab and saliva testing drops significantly when the Ct values of the HCW swab is more than 30. A study from Singapore (unpublished data) reported that virus cultures were negative from samples with Ct values >= 30 (i.e. when viral load is low), and the SARS-CoV-2 virus often cannot be isolated or cultured after day 11 of illness.⁹ Our findings corroborate with existing epidemiologic data which indicates that while viral RNA detection may persist in some patients, such persistent RNA detection likely represents non-viable virus and hence, such patients are non-infectious. Thus, the results of this study support the use of self-testing methods as a replacement for HCW swab in the early phase of COVID-19 illness when viral loads are high.

This study included a high proportion of asymptomatic patients who were picked up because of Singapore’s proactive mass screening policy. The combination of self-swab and saliva sampling performed well in these asymptomatic subjects, proving that this strategy has the ability for rapid up-scaling to mass screen patients who are asymptomatic. The study results from the healthy volunteers indicate a low false positive rate with self-collection methods. Thus, self-collection methods may be a useful tool for COVID-19 surveillance in a low prevalence population.

The study team members observed that, despite clear instructions, many subjects still needed guidance with the self-collection methods. For the self-swab, the most commonly encountered problem was subjects needing some guidance in breaking the swab stick. The saliva collection presented a greater challenge to the subjects. The flow of saliva from the funnel into the collection container was not smooth, and the additional step of adding the stabilising fluid required prompting. These necessitated the presence of a trained staff to troubleshoot and ensure that the correct steps are carried out. We believe that these observations are useful in the re-design of collection containers to enhance results and end users’ acceptability. Both the self-swab and saliva collection require dexterity and this would limit its applicability in segments of the population who are not able to do so.

We caution against widespread, unsupervised implementation of self-collection methods. The reliability and effectiveness of self-collection methods may be dependent on social and economic drivers. The test performance may vary, due to factors driving the circumstances. For example, individuals who face a potential loss of income or unemployment if tested positive or travellers having a test done at immigration clearance may deliberately do a suboptimal self-test to influence the test outcome.

Hence, it is important to have designated personnel to supervise the self-collection process. These personnel need not be a HCW and the supervision process will have a lower exposure risk (supervisor can be >1m away from subject), compared to the HCW-swabbing process where a HCW is <1m away and face-to-face with the subject.

The main strength of our study is our large sample size and the inclusion of healthy asymptomatic subjects. A key study limitation however, is that the demographics of the COVID-19-positive population was skewed, consisting solely of male migrant workers, the worst affected group of the pandemic in Singapore, at the time this study was conducted.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that while self-collection methods have a detection rate of approximately 75%, it is inferior to the rate obtained by the health care worker administered swab (83.8%). The sensitivity of the self-collection methods is, however, higher and correlates better when Ct values of the HCW swabs are less than 30. The combined results of the saliva and self-swab test achieve a rate detection rate equivalent to that of a health care worker administered swab. The negative correctness of the self-collection methods is 100%. Together with a low false positive rates, we postulate that self-collection methods have their roles in diagnosis in early disease and surveillance screening in low prevalence populations.