Performance of Oropharyngeal Swab Testing Compared With Nasopharyngeal Swab Testing for Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease 2019—United States, January 2020–February 2020 (2024)

Article Navigation

Volume 72 Issue 3 1 February 2021

Article Contents

  • Abstract

  • METHODS

  • RESULTS

  • DISCUSSION

  • Notes

  • References

  • < Previous
  • Next >

Journal Article

,

Monita R Patel

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

, COVID-19 Response Team, Atlanta, Georgia,

USA

Correspondence: M. R. Patel, 1600 Clifton Rd NE MS-E04, Atlanta, Georgia 30329 (cwa3@cdc.gov).

Search for other works by this author on:

Oxford Academic

,

Darin Carroll

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

, COVID-19 Response Team, Atlanta, Georgia,

USA

Search for other works by this author on:

Oxford Academic

,

Emily Ussery

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

, COVID-19 Response Team, Atlanta, Georgia,

USA

Search for other works by this author on:

Oxford Academic

,

Hilary Whitham

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

, COVID-19 Response Team, Atlanta, Georgia,

USA

Search for other works by this author on:

Oxford Academic

,

Christopher A Elkins

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

, COVID-19 Response Team, Atlanta, Georgia,

USA

Search for other works by this author on:

Oxford Academic

,

Judith Noble-Wang

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

, COVID-19 Response Team, Atlanta, Georgia,

USA

Search for other works by this author on:

Oxford Academic

,

James Kamile Rasheed

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

, COVID-19 Response Team, Atlanta, Georgia,

USA

Search for other works by this author on:

Oxford Academic

,

Xiaoyan Lu

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

, COVID-19 Response Team, Atlanta, Georgia,

USA

Search for other works by this author on:

Oxford Academic

,

Stephen Lindstrom

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

, COVID-19 Response Team, Atlanta, Georgia,

USA

Search for other works by this author on:

Oxford Academic

,

Virginia Bowen

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

, COVID-19 Response Team, Atlanta, Georgia,

USA

Search for other works by this author on:

Oxford Academic

... Show more

,

Jessica Waller

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

, COVID-19 Response Team, Atlanta, Georgia,

USA

Search for other works by this author on:

Oxford Academic

,

Gregory Armstrong

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

, COVID-19 Response Team, Atlanta, Georgia,

USA

Search for other works by this author on:

Oxford Academic

,

Susan Gerber

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

, COVID-19 Response Team, Atlanta, Georgia,

USA

Search for other works by this author on:

Oxford Academic

John T Brooks

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

, COVID-19 Response Team, Atlanta, Georgia,

USA

Search for other works by this author on:

Oxford Academic

Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 72, Issue 3, 1 February 2021, Pages 482–485, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa759

Published:

16 June 2020

Article history

Received:

08 May 2020

Editorial decision:

09 June 2020

Accepted:

12 June 2020

Published:

16 June 2020

Corrected and typeset:

27 August 2020

  • PDF
  • Split View
  • Views
    • Article contents
    • Figures & tables
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Supplementary Data
  • Cite

    Cite

    Monita R Patel, Darin Carroll, Emily Ussery, Hilary Whitham, Christopher A Elkins, Judith Noble-Wang, James Kamile Rasheed, Xiaoyan Lu, Stephen Lindstrom, Virginia Bowen, Jessica Waller, Gregory Armstrong, Susan Gerber, John T Brooks, Performance of Oropharyngeal Swab Testing Compared With Nasopharyngeal Swab Testing for Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease 2019—United States, January 2020–February 2020, Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 72, Issue 3, 1 February 2021, Pages 482–485, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa759

    Close

Search

Close

Search

Advanced Search

Search Menu

Abstract

Among 146 nasopharyngeal (NP) and oropharyngeal (OP) swab pairs collected ≤7 days after illness onset, Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction assay for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR) diagnostic results were 95.2% concordant. However, NP swab cycle threshold values were lower (indicating more virus) in 66.7% of concordant-positive pairs, suggesting NP swabs may more accurately detect the amount of SARS-CoV-2.

coronavirus, nasopharyngeal, oropharyngeal, testing, SARS-CoV-2

Testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), remains critical for identifying persons with COVID-19 and for implementing clinical and public health interventions to reduce morbidity and mortality and prevent virus transmission. Current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines identify nasopharyngeal (NP) and oropharyngeal (OP) swabs as acceptable upper respiratory specimens to test for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA [1]. Relative to NP swabs, OP swabs may be less challenging to collect, require less healthcare provider training, and, logistically, may be the only option based on available supplies. Some indirect evidence from testing for other respiratory illnesses and coronaviruses suggests OP swabs may be less sensitive than NP swabs [2, 3]. However, to date, limited published data exist about the testing performance of OP swabs compared with NP swabs for SARS-CoV-2 RNA [4].

METHODS

We analyzed data on OP and NP swabs tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by the CDC through 3 March 2020. Specimens were tested using the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (nCoV) Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase (RT)-Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Diagnostic Panel designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA through 3 genetic markers: N1, N2, and N3 nucleocapsid gene regions [5]. A positive CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel test was defined by a cycle threshold (Ct) value of <40 for all 3 gene regions. A negative CDC nCoV RT-PCR Diagnostic Test was defined as failure to detect SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA by 40 cycles for all 3 gene regions. Ct values are inversely correlated with the amount of viral RNA present such that lower Ct values indicate higher amounts of viral RNA in the sample. Although N3 results were analyzed, we do not report them here because their addition to N1 and N2 results produced similar findings and because N3 is no longer included in the CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel.

We matched NP and OP swabs collected on the same date from the same person to create NP–OP swab pairs. In our main analysis, we analyzed pairs collected ≤7 days after the reported illness onset date. If more than 1 pair was collected from a person within this time frame, we included the earliest (first) pair in our primary analysis. As a sensitivity analyses, we also examined first pairs collected >7 days after the illness onset date and second follow-up pairs collected >7 days after illness onset (regardless of timing of first pairs).

We examined concordance/discordance in diagnostic results and Ct value distributions between NP and OP swabs within pairs. We also calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for OP swabs compared with NP swabs. NP swabs were selected as the comparator because during the testing time frame, NP swabs were the preferred upper respiratory specimen per CDC guidelines; however, OP swabs were an acceptable alternative specimen for diagnostic testing (independent of NP swab testing/result) [1]. Accordingly, we also calculated absolute sensitivities for OP and NP swabs relative to a positive result on either an OP swab or NP swab. Differences in the proportion testing positive were assessed using the McNemar test, and differences in Ct values were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Data were processed and analyzed using SAS 9.4 (Cary, NC).

RESULTS

From 775 OP swabs and 814 NP swabs collected, we matched 736 pairs; of these, 270 (36.7%) had an illness onset date available. These 270 pairs represented 205 unique persons among whom 146 (71.2%) had first pairs collected ≤7 days after illness onset and were included in our main analysis. Specimens were collected from 27 January 2020 through 29 February 2020 at a median of 2 days (interquartile range [IQR], 1–4) after illness onset. The 146 persons who contributed pairs had a median age of 40 years (IQR, 24–56); 55.5% were male.

Pair testing results are shown in Figure 1. Among 7 (4.8%) pairs with discordant diagnostic test results, 4 pairs were NP swab-positive and OP swab-negative and 3 pairs had the opposite results. The remaining 139 (95.2%) pairs produced concordant results; 18 (12.3%) pairs were concordantly positive and 121 (82.9%) pairs were concordantly negative. Among the 146 pairs, 14.4% of OP swabs and 15.1% of NP swabs tested positive (P = .71).

Performance of Oropharyngeal Swab Testing Compared With Nasopharyngeal Swab Testing for Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease 2019—United States, January 2020–February 2020 (3)

Figure 1.

 Slope graph of NP–OP swab pair severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing Ct values by concordance/discordance of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention DC 2019-Novel Coronavirus Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase-Polymerase Chain Reaction Diagnostic Panel diagnostic results (n = 146). The dot on the left of each panel represents the NP swab, and the dot on the right of each panel represents the OP swab. The line drawn between 2 dots indicates an NP–OP swab pair. The negative diagnostic result (gray) Ct value is set to the threshold value of 40. The positive diagnostic result (yellow) is defined as a Ct value <40. N1 and N2 represent separate genetic targets tested for the presence of SARS-COV-2 viral RNA. Abbreviations: Ct, cycle threshold; NP, nasopharyngeal; OP, oropharyngeal.

Open in new tabDownload slide

Among the 18 concordant-positive pairs, the distribution of Ct values was lower (indicating a larger amount of SARS-2-CoV-2 viral RNA) for NP swabs compared with OP swabs. The magnitude and direction of this difference are reflected in the slope of the lines between Ct values for paired NP and OP swabs in Figure 1. The Ct value for NP swabs was lower than for OP swabs in 12 (66.7%) of the 18 concordant-positive pairs for N1 and N2. Median Ct values for NP swabs compared with OP swabs were lower: 24.3 (IQR, 22.7–26.5) vs 29.9 (IQR, 22.1–34.4) for N1 (P = .03) and 25.0 (IQR, 23.2–27.2) vs 31.4 (IQR, 22.2–35.7) for N2 (P = .02).

Using NP swabs as the comparator, OP swabs had specificity of 97.6% (CI, 93.9%–99.5%), sensitivity of 81.8% (CI, 59.7%–94.8%), negative predictive value of 96.8% (92.6%–98.7%), and positive predictive value of 85.7% (CI, 65.9%–94.9%). Absolute sensitivity was 84.0% (CI, 63.9%–95.5%) for OP swabs and 88.0% (CI, 68.8%–97.5%) for NP swabs.

In sensitivity analyses, among 59 first pairs collected >7 days after illness onset (median, 12 days; IQR, 9–19), 14 (23.7%) NP swabs tested positive, while 10 (17.0%) OP swabs tested positive (P = .045). Using NP swabs as the comparator, OP swabs had lower sensitivity (71.4%; CI, 41.9%–91.6%). Absolute sensitivity was 71.4% (CI, 41.9%–91.6%) for OP swabs and 100.0% (CI, 76.8%–100.0%) for NP swabs. Among all first pairs collected (n = 205), we identified 65 follow-up pairs, representing 33 unique persons. Among these 65 pairs, 21 were second pairs collected >7 days after illness onset (median, 15 days; IQR, 10–21). Overall, 4 (19.1%) NP swabs tested positive, while 2 (9.5%) OP swabs tested positive. Given low numbers, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were not calculated among these 21 pairs.

DISCUSSION

Overall, among persons with specimens collected early in the illness course, SARS-CoV-2 RNA diagnostic results were highly concordant between OP and NP swabs. Despite this, among concordant-positive specimens, Ct values were significantly lower among NP swabs. These findings are partially aligned with a study from Germany of persons tested ≤5 days after illness onset that similarly did not find meaningful differences in SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection between NP swabs and OP swabs but, contrastingly, did not find differences in viral loads between NP and OP swabs [6].

In our analysis, using NP swabs as the comparator, specificity and NPV of OP swabs were high and sensitivity and PPV of OP swabs were moderate but had wide CIs that included low values. Absolute sensitivity was only slightly lower for OP swabs compared with NP swabs. Differences in Ct values between NP and OP swabs among concordant-positive pairs did not ultimately impact most diagnostic results in our main analysis where Ct values were relatively low and well under the cutoff value of 40 cycles.

In contrast, in sensitivity analyses of NP–OP swab pairs collected >7 days after illness onset, OP swab sensitivity was comparatively low. Current Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines specifically recommend collection of NP, mid-turbinate, or nasal swabs rather than OP swabs alone for all symptomatic persons. Our findings suggest this recommendation may be particularly relevant for persons who are later in the illness course and who may have a smaller amount of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA [7].

Our findings are subject to at least 4 limitations. First, specimen collection procedures, including type and material of swab used, and specimen handling may impact test performance. Because these data were not available to us, subanalyses, for instance, by type of swab used, were not possible. Second, missing and erroneous personal identification numbers or specimen collection dates limited our ability to match all potential NP and OP swab pairs and account for all specimen pairs for a unique person. If missing data or errors were not at random, this may have biased our results. Third, the number of specimen pairs and the number of positive results were small and precluded our ability to estimate sensitivity and PPV with better precision. Fourth, specimens were tested using the CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, which is currently approved under an emergency use authorization, and our findings, particularly those related to Ct values, may not be generalizable to other nucleic acid tests. Consequently, our findings may not be fully generalizable to current specimen collection and testing circumstances and should thus be interpreted accordingly.

Together, our findings support CDC guidelines that identify NP and OP swabs as acceptable specimens for SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing but suggest that NP swabs may comparatively be a more sensitive specimen type for testing persons who are later in the illness course. Regardless of the type of specimen collected, in persons with a single negative SARS-CoV-2 RNA test, signs and symptoms of COVID-19, epidemiological links, and other risk factors may need to be considered to inform subsequent clinical management and public health interventions to prevent further transmission [5].

Notes

Acknowledgments. The authors thank Wendi Kuhnert-Tallman, Barbara Anderson, Charles Rose, and Laurie Barker.

Disclaimer. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Potential conflicts of interest. The authors: No reported conflicts of interest. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest.

References

1.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

.

Interim guidelines for collecting, handling, and testing clinical specimens from persons for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

.

Atlanta, GA

:

US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC

,

2020

. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/guidelines-clinical-specimens.html. Accessed 8 May 2020.

Google Scholar

OpenURL Placeholder Text

2.

Lieberman

D

,

Lieberman

D

,

Shimoni

A

,

Keren-Naus

A

,

Steinberg

R

,

Shemer-Avni

Y

.

Identification of respiratory viruses in adults: nasopharyngeal versus oropharyngeal sampling

.

J Clin Microbiol

2009

;

47

:

3439

43

.

3.

Kim

C

,

Ahmed

JA

,

Eidex

RB

, et al.

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

.

PLoS One

2011

;

6

:

e21610

.

4.

Zou

L

,

Ruan

F

,

Huang

M

, et al.

SARS-CoV-2 viral load in upper respiratory specimens of infected patients

.

N Engl J Med

2020

;

382

:

1177

9

.

5.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

.

CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel instructions for use (effective February 4, 2020)

.

Atlanta, GA

:

US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC

,

2020

. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/rt-pcr-panel-for-detection-instructions.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2020.

Google Scholar

OpenURL Placeholder Text

6.

Wölfel

R

,

Corman

VM

,

Guggemos

W

, et al.

Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019

.

Nature

2020

;

581

:

465

9

.

7.

Hanson

KE

,

Caliendo

AM

,

Arias

CA

, et al.

Guidelines on the diagnosis of COVID-19

.

Infectious Disease Society of America

. Available at: https://www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/covid-19-guideline-diagnostics/. Accessed 6 June 2020.

Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2020.

This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.

Topic:

  • coronavirus
  • reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction
  • diagnosis
  • nasopharynx
  • viruses
  • oropharyngeal disorders
  • sars-cov-2
  • covid-19

Issue Section:

BRIEF REPORTS

Download all slides

Advertisement

Citations

Views

19,344

Altmetric

More metrics information

Metrics

Total Views 19,344

16,847 Pageviews

2,497 PDF Downloads

Since 6/1/2020

Month: Total Views:
June 2020 449
July 2020 333
August 2020 452
September 2020 1,736
October 2020 1,293
November 2020 1,173
December 2020 1,393
January 2021 1,003
February 2021 1,428
March 2021 992
April 2021 885
May 2021 723
June 2021 589
July 2021 574
August 2021 716
September 2021 581
October 2021 393
November 2021 348
December 2021 518
January 2022 769
February 2022 319
March 2022 215
April 2022 163
May 2022 143
June 2022 196
July 2022 181
August 2022 173
September 2022 142
October 2022 145
November 2022 102
December 2022 82
January 2023 70
February 2023 52
March 2023 61
April 2023 55
May 2023 57
June 2023 53
July 2023 36
August 2023 88
September 2023 52
October 2023 29
November 2023 36
December 2023 48
January 2024 51
February 2024 62
March 2024 33
April 2024 67
May 2024 44
June 2024 29
July 2024 50
August 2024 34
September 2024 54
October 2024 27
November 2024 47

Citations

Powered by Dimensions

29 Web of Science

Altmetrics

×

Email alerts

Article activity alert

Advance article alerts

New issue alert

Receive exclusive offers and updates from Oxford Academic

More on this topic

Posterior Oropharyngeal Saliva for the Detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)

Optimizing Benefits of Testing Key Workers for Infection with SARS-CoV-2: A Mathematical Modeling Analysis

Comparative Replication and Immune Activation Profiles of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV in Human Lungs: An Ex Vivo Study With Implications for the Pathogenesis of COVID-19

The Laboratory Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease 2019— Frequently Asked Questions

Citing articles via

Google Scholar

  • Latest

  • Most Read

  • Most Cited

Benefit of early oseltamivir therapy for adults hospitalized with influenza A: an observational study
Real world virologic outcomes in patients with elevated body mass index receiving long acting cabotegravir/rilpivirine
Microbiological trends, in-hospital outcomes, and mortality in infective endocarditis: a Swiss-nationwide cohort study
Is Antibiotic De-Escalation Safe and Beneficial to Patients with Sepsis?
Meeting People Where They Are: The Roles of Peer Navigation and Telemedicine for HCV Elimination

More from Oxford Academic

Clinical Medicine

Infectious Diseases

Medicine and Health

Books

Journals

Advertisement

Performance of Oropharyngeal Swab Testing Compared With Nasopharyngeal Swab Testing for Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease 2019—United States, January 2020–February 2020 (2024)
Top Articles
Latest Posts
Recommended Articles
Article information

Author: Duane Harber

Last Updated:

Views: 6003

Rating: 4 / 5 (51 voted)

Reviews: 82% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Duane Harber

Birthday: 1999-10-17

Address: Apt. 404 9899 Magnolia Roads, Port Royceville, ID 78186

Phone: +186911129794335

Job: Human Hospitality Planner

Hobby: Listening to music, Orienteering, Knapping, Dance, Mountain biking, Fishing, Pottery

Introduction: My name is Duane Harber, I am a modern, clever, handsome, fair, agreeable, inexpensive, beautiful person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.