TY - JOUR T1 - A comparison of health care worker-collected foam and polyester nasal swabs in convalescent COVID-19 patients JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2020.04.28.20083055 SP - 2020.04.28.20083055 AU - Brian Hart AU - Yuan-Po Tu AU - Rachel Jennings AU - Prateek Verma AU - Leah R Padgett AU - Douglas Rains AU - Deneen Vojta AU - Ethan M Berke Y1 - 2020/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/01/2020.04.28.20083055.abstract N2 - Background The exponential growth of COVID-19 cases and testing has created supply shortages at various points in the testing workflow. As of April 15, 2020 FDA recommendations only allowed for the use of nasopharyngeal, flocked mid turbinate, or foam nasal swabs, all of which are in very low supply. Polyester swabs are more readily available and mass producible. We compare the performance of polyester and foam swabs stored in different transport media.Methods Both polyester and foam nasal swabs were collected from convalescent COVID-19 patients at a single visit. Using the foam nasal swabs as the comparator, sensitivity of the polyester swabs in each media were calculated, three by three tables were constructed to measure concordance, and cycle threshold (Ct) values were compared.Findings 126 visits had polyester and foam swabs stored in viral transport media (VTM), 51 had polyester and foam swabs stored in saline, and 63 had a foam swab in VTM and a polyester swab stored in a dry tube. Using nasal foam swabs as a comparator, polyester nasal swabs had a sensitivity of 86·5% when both samples were stored in VTM, 86·7% when both samples were stored in saline, and 72·4% when the polyester swab was stored dry and the foam swab was stored in VTM. Polyester and foam Ct values from the same visit were correlated, but polyester swabs showed decreased performance for cases with a viral load near the detection threshold and higher Ct values on average.Interpretation Polyester nasal swabs showed a reduction in performance from foam nasal swabs, but may still provide a viable sample collection method given the current supply shortages and public health emergency.Funding Laboratory testing was conducted with financial support from Thermo Fisher Scientific.Competing Interest StatementDr. Leah Padgett and Douglas Rains perform contract work for Thermo Fisher Scientific. Dr. Tu is the principal investigator of a validation study for an Abbott point-of-care testing method.Funding StatementLab testing services for this study were funded by Thermo Fisher Scientific.Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesA deidentified dataset will be provided upon reasonable request to the corresponding author. ER -