689 - Nasal versus Nasopharyngeal Sample Collection for Diagnostic Nucleic Acid Amplification Testing for Influenza A, Influenza B, and Respiratory Syncytial Viruses

Background: Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) for influenza A virus (IAV), influenza B virus (IBV), and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a standard component of diagnosis of infections with these pathogens. At our institution, current standard of practice is to collect nasopharyngeal (NP) samples for such NAAT. In an effort to provide clinicians and patients a simpler, more comfortable sample collection option, we evaluated the use of nasal samples for NAAT, compared to NP samples.

Methods: Both nasal and NP specimens were collected from each of 58 patients seen in our emergency department (January – March 2020). NP samples were collected using minitip FLOQswabs; nasal samples were collected using regular or minitip FLOQswabs. Nasal and NP samples were processed using the same protocol and tested for influenza viruses and RSV using the Cepheid GeneXpert (Xpress Flu/RSV) platform.

Results: In total, 20 NP samples tested negative for virus and 38 tested positive (16 IAV-positive, 14 IBV-positive, 8 RSV-positive). There were 3 cases (5% of total cases) in which qualitative (positive/negative) results from the corresponding nasal samples were not in agreement with results derived from NP samples. These were considered false-negative results; one such discrepancy was resolved upon re-testing the same samples. Overall positive percent agreement between nasal- and NP-derived results was 92% (35/38), and negative percent agreement was 100% (20/20). Among samples testing positive for virus by both NP and nasal sampling methods, we found that the average cycle threshold (Ct) value for IAV detection was 5.1 cycles (n = 16, SEM = 0.83) higher for nasal samples than for NP samples. The average Ct for IBV detection was 3.3 cycles (n = 12, SEM = 1.87) higher for nasal than for NP samples. The average Ct for RSV detection was 1.9 cycles (n = 7, SEM = 1.57) higher for nasal than for NP samples.

Conclusion: These results suggest that recovery of viral RNA from nasal samples is lower than that from nasopharyngeal samples, particularly for influenza viruses. This decreased detection of viral RNA from nasal samples may explain the false-negative results seen in our discrepant cases. These data suggest that a decrease in recovery of viral RNA by nasal sampling may translate to decreased diagnostic accuracy.