ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Self-collection of nasal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) would considerably increase the testing capability and decrease the risk of transmission among healthcare workers (HCW) and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of self-collected nasal swabs compared with professionally collected nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by RT-PCR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study where the suspected cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were instructed about the self-collection of nasal swabs from their mid-turbinate. The results were compared to a nasopharyngeal swab collected by a trained healthcare worker in the same patient at the same sitting. RESULTS: We enrolled 100 participants, of which, 69 (69%) were male and 31 (31%) were female. The median age of the study participant was 36 years. Of the participants, 58 (58%) were symptomatic, and the commonest clinical presentation was cough, which was present in 42 (42%) participants. Out of 100 samples, 31 (31%) professionally collected nasopharyngeal swabs and 28 (28%) self-collected nasal swabs were positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. Out of 31 professionally collected positive samples, three samples were negative in self-collection. Out of 28 self-collected positive samples, no sample was negative in the professional collection. The sensitivity and specificity of self-collected nasal swabs compared to professionally collected nasopharyngeal swabs were 90.32% and 100.00%, respectively. The sensitivity of self-collected nasal was 100% when the cycle threshold (Ct) value of the professionally collected NP swab was less than 30. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that self-collected nasal swabs' sensitivities were similar to professionally collected NP swabs with a high viral load (low Ct value). Hence, this method could be used when the patient is symptomatic and come to the health providers in the early stage of COVID-19 illness.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) at the frontline are confronting a substantial risk of infection during the COVID-19 pandemic. This emerging virus created specific hazards to researchers and laboratory staff in a clinical setting, underlined by rapid and extensive worldwide transmission. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among COVID-19 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) laboratory health workers in Bangladesh. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted between October 2 to December 2, 2020. A total of 508 participants, including doctors, scientific officers, medical technologists, and cleaners working in several COVID-19 RT-PCR laboratories, were included in this study. Data were collected from each participant using a semi-structured questionnaire prepared in the format of an anonymous Google form. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS, version 25.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). RESULTS: Out of the 508 participants, 295 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. Among the positive cases, 202 were men, and 93 were women, with a median age of 30 years. The most positive cases were medical technologists (53.22%) followed by doctors (28.8%). Out of the 271 symptomatic positive cases, the most typical symptoms were fever (78.5%), fatigue (70%), loss of smell and taste (65%), and cough (64%). Hypertension, obesity, and diabetes were found in 8.8%, 8.8%, and 7.1% positive cases. A + blood group was present in 37% of the positive cases, followed by the B+ blood group (27%) and O+ blood group (25%). Inadequate supply of personal protective equipment (PPE), absence of negative pressure ventilation, laboratory contamination, and no training on molecular test methods were found in 13.8%, 67.8%, 44.7%, and 40.6% of positive cases, respectively. CONCLUSION: Evaluating the infection status of laboratory HCWs is crucial for drawing attention from the public, providing practical suggestions for government agencies, and increasing protective measures for laboratory HCWs.
ABSTRACT
Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has manifested into an unprecedented public health crisis. The rapid spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has facilitated reagent developers to customize and receive authorization for nucleic acid testing kits in a short period, which would have resulted in some shortcomings in the quality parameters of the kits. Consequently, in-house clinical validations of innovative real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) kits are required. This research aims to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of various RT-qPCR kits available in Bangladesh. Methodology A total of 150 samples were obtained from patients with suspected COVID-19 infection when the delta variant was predominant, followed by RNA extraction performed using a nucleic acid isolation kit. Subsequently, three commercially available PCR kits named Sansure (China), STAT-NATâ· (Sentinel Diagnostics, Italy), and Roche Biochem (Switzerland) were applied to detect SARS-CoV-2. Results The results showed that the STAT-NATâ· kit is more sensitive than the other two, as indicated by the cycle threshold (Ct) values of respective genes. STAT-NATâ· RT-qPCR can detect the ORF1ab gene sensitively (p < 0.001) compared to Sansure. STAT-NATâ· was also capable of detecting E and RdRp genes more sensitively (p < 0.001) compared to Roche. Regarding specificity, STAT-NATâ· (95% confidence interval [Cl] = 92.29-99.73%). RT-qPCR showed more accuracy than Sansure (95% Cl = 90.77-99.32%) and Roche (95% Cl = 81.17-94.38%). The area under the curve for E, ORF1ab, and RdRp genes of the STAT NATâ· PCR kit was 0.952, 0.959, and 0.981, respectively. Conclusions This study concluded that STAT-NATâ· is a better diagnostic RT-qPCR kit compared to Sansure and Roche for detecting SARS-CoV-2.
