SBV Journal of Basic, Clinical and Applied Health Science

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  6 (2023)
Volume  5 (2022)
Volume  4 (2021)
Volume  3 (2020)
Volume  2 (2019)
Volume  1 (2018)
Related articles

VOLUME 6 , ISSUE 2 ( April-June, 2023 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Comparison of Extraction Free Dry Swab with Standard Extraction-based RT-PCR Method for Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2

Chaitali Nikam, Smita Santosh Chavhan, Caesar Sengupta, Praveenkumar Ganesan, Balkrishna Adsul, Chandrakant Narkhede, Prasad Tukaram Dhikale

Keywords : COVID-19, Dry swab, Extraction free, Pandemic, Reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

Citation Information : Nikam C, Chavhan SS, Sengupta C, Ganesan P, Adsul B, Narkhede C, Dhikale PT. Comparison of Extraction Free Dry Swab with Standard Extraction-based RT-PCR Method for Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. 2023; 6 (2):29-32.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10082-03191

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 13-04-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

Background: Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) which had become a global pandemic leading to a great loss of lives and severe social and economic disruption. Accurate identification of the infected individuals is needed to control and reduce the spread of infection. Recently, an advisory has been issued by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) for using extraction free dry swab (EFDS) protocol to detect SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) with the aid of real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Materials and methods: During the study, we have done a comparison of two methods on 500 clinical samples. Results obtained with EFDS were compared using the extraction-dependent viral transport medium (VTM) as a comparative method for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. Results: The overall performance of the EFDS method while compared with the comparative method showed 59 discordant results with a sensitivity of 85.65% and specificity of 98.47% with an accuracy of 92.48%. Conclusion: This study shows that the EFDS shows comparable results with extraction-dependent VTM as a comparative method for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, dry swab method reduces and simplifies the workflow, reduces turnaround time, and is cost-effective.

HTML PDF Share
  1. National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine. The national health commission of the People's Republic of China: corona virus disease 2019 diagnosis and treatment plan (5th trial edition revised version) [cited 2023 Mar 29]. Available from: http://english.www.gov.cn/.
  2. Sharma K, Aggarwala P, Gandhi D, Mathias A, Singh P, Sharma S, et al. Comparative analysis of various clinical specimens in detection of SARS-CoV-2 using rRT-PCR in new and follow up cases of COVID-19 infection: Quest for the best choice. PLoS One. 2021 Apr 5;16(4):e0249408. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249408.
  3. Qian Y, Zeng T, Wangh H. Safety management of nasopharyngeal specimen collection from suspected cases of coronavirus disease 2019 Int J Nurs Sci 2020;7:153–156. DOI: 10.3761/j.issn.0254e1769.2020.03.
  4. Indian Council of Medical Research. Advisory on use of Dry Swab RNA Extraction Free RTPCR Method. [cited 2023 Mar 29]. Available from: https://www.icmr.gov.in/pdf/covid/techdoc/archive/Advisory_Dry_Swab_RNAExtraction_26112020.pdf.
  5. Vermeiren C, Marchand-Senécal X, Sheldrake E, Bulir D, Smieja M, Chong S, et al. Comparison of Copan ESwab and FLOQSwab for COVID-19 diagnosis: working around a supply shortage. J Clin Microbiol 2020;58(6):e0.0669–e00620. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/ JCM.00669-20.
  6. Corman VM, Landt O, Kaiser M, Molenkamp R, Meijer A, Chu DK, et al. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Eurosurveillance. 2020;25(3):2000045.
  7. Uhteg K, Jarrett J, Richards M, Howard C, Morehead E, Geahr M, et al. Comparing the analytical performance of three SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic assays. Journal of Clinical Virology. 2020 Jun 1;127:104384.CoviPath™ COVID-19 RT-PCR Kit USER GUIDE Multiplex real-time RT-PCR test intended for the qualitative detection of nucleic acid from SARS-CoV-2.
  8. Nairz M, Bellmann-Weiler R, Ladstätter M, Schüllner F, Zimmermann M, Koller AM et al. Overcoming limitations in the availability of swabs systems used for SARS-CoV-2 laboratory diagnostics. Sci Rep 2021;11(1):2261. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-81782-8.
  9. Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) CLIA Regulations and Federal Register Documents homepage. [cited 2023 Mar 29]. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/CLIA/CLIA_Regulations_and_Federal_Register_Documents.
  10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) SOP# DSR-052-01. Preparation of Viral Transport Medium homepage. [cited 2023 Mar 29]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/Viral-Transport-Medium.pdf.
  11. Indian Council of Medical Research. STANDARD PROTOCOL FOR BATCH TESTING OF OF VIRAL TRANSPORT MEDIUM (VTM) AND SWABS [cited 2023 Mar 29]. Available from: https://www.rgcb.res.in/documents/corona_alert/SOP-Batch%20Testing%20VTM.pdf.
  12. Sakanashi D, Asai N, Nakamura A, Miyazaki N, Kawamoto Y, Ohno T, et al. Comparative evaluation of nasopharyngeal swab and saliva specimens for the molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Japanese patients with COVID-19. Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy. 2021 Jan 1;27(1):126–129. DOI: 10.1016/j.jiac.2020.09.027.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.