Head-to-Head Comparison of Nasopharyngeal, Oropharyngeal and Nasal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Testing

Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) are considered the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 testing but are technically challenging to perform and associated with discomfort. Alternative specimens for viral testing, such as oropharyngeal swabs (OPS) and nasal swabs, may be preferable, but strong evidence regarding their diagnostic sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 testing is still missing. We conducted a head-to-head prospective study to compare the sensitivity of NPS, OPS and nasal swabs specimens for SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing. Adults with an initial positive SARS-CoV-2 test were invited to participate. All participants had OPS, NPS and nasal swab performed by an otorhinolaryngologist. We included 51 confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive participants in the study. The sensitivity was highest for OPS at 94.1% (95% CI, 87 to 100%) compared to NPS at 92.5% (95% CI, 85 to 99%) (p = 1.00) and lowest for nasal swabs at 82.4% (95% CI, 72 to 93%) (p = 0.07). Combined OPS/NPS was detected in 100% of cases, while the combined OPS/nasal swab increased the sensitivity significantly to 96.1% (95% CI, 90 to 100%) compared to that of the nasal swab alone (p = 0.03). The mean Ct value for NPS was 24.98 compared to 26.63 for OPS (p = 0.084) and 30.60 for nasal swab (p = 0.002). OPS achieved a sensitivity comparable to NPS and should be considered an equivalent alternative for SARS-CoV-2 testing

Subjective taste scores at inclusion, day 30, 90 and 180.

Subjective taste score at inclusion, 30, 90 and 180 after inclusion, stratified by SARS-CoV-2 status. Numeric Rank Scale where 0 is anosmia and 10 is normal sense of taste.</p

Demographic characteristics and risk factors.

Demographic characteristics and risk factors.</p

Subjective smell and taste reports and numerical rank scale (NRS) score at 0, 30, 90 and 180 days after follow-up.

Subjective smell and taste reports and numerical rank scale (NRS) score at 0, 30, 90 and 180 days after follow-up.</p

Protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing warfarin with no oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation on chronic dialysis: the Danish Warfarin-Dialysis (DANWARD) trial

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation is highly prevalent in patients on chronic dialysis. It is unclear whether anticoagulant therapy for stroke prevention is beneficial in these patients. Vitamin K-antagonists (VKA) remain the predominant anticoagulant choice. Importantly, anticoagulation remains inconsistently used and a possible benefit remains untested in randomised clinical trials comparing oral anticoagulation with no treatment in patients on chronic dialysis. The Danish Warfarin-Dialysis (DANWARD) trial aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of VKAs in patients with atrial fibrillation on chronic dialysis. The hypothesis is that VKA treatment compared with no treatment is associated with stroke risk reduction and overall benefit.METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The DANWARD trial is an investigator-initiated trial at 13 Danish dialysis centres. In an open-label randomised clinical trial study design, a total of 718 patients with atrial fibrillation on chronic dialysis will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either standard dose VKA targeting an international normalised ratio of 2.0-3.0 or no oral anticoagulation. Principal analyses will compare the risk of a primary efficacy endpoint, stroke or transient ischaemic attack and a primary safety endpoint, major bleeding, in patients allocated to VKA treatment and no treatment, respectively. The first patient was randomised in October 2019. Patients will be followed until 1 year after the inclusion of the last patient.ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the Regional Research Ethics Committee (journal number H-18050839) and the Danish Medicines Agency (case number 2018101877). The trial is conducted in accordance with the Helsinki declaration and standards of Good Clinical Practice. Study results will be disseminated to participating sites, at research conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03862859, EUDRA-CT 2018-000484-86 and CTIS ID 2022-502500-75-00.</p