The supply of testing equipment is vital in controlling the spread of SARS-CoV-2. We compared the diagnostic efficacy and tolerability of molded plastic (FinSwab; Valukumpu, Finland) versus flocked nylon (FLOQSwab; Copan, Italy) nasopharyngeal swabs in a clinical setting. Adults (n = 112) with suspected symptomatic COVID-19 infection underwent nasopharyngeal sampling with FinSwab and FLOQSwab from the same nostril at a drive-in coronavirus testing station. In a subset of 36 patients the samples were collected in a randomized order to evaluate the discomfort associated with sampling. SARS-CoV-2 and 16 other respiratory viruses, as well as human β-actin mRNA were analyzed by using reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) assays. Among the 112 patients (mean age, 38 [standard deviation (SD), 14] years) β-actin mRNA was found in all samples. There was no difference in the β-actin mRNA cycle threshold (CT) values between FinSwab (mean, 22.3; SD, 3.61) and FLOQSwab (mean, 22.1; SD, 3.50; P = 0.46) swabs. There were 31 virus-positive cases (26 rhinovirus, 4 SARS-CoV-2, and 1 coronavirus-OC43), 24 of which were positive in both swabs; 3 rhinovirus positives were only found in the FinSwab, and similarly 4 rhinovirus positives were only found in the FLOQSwab. Rhinovirus CT values were similar between swab types. Of the 36 patients, 22 (61%) tolerated the sampling with the FinSwab better than with the FLOQSwab (P = 0.065). The molded plastic nasopharyngeal swab (FinSwab) was comparable to the standard flocked swab in terms of efficacy for respiratory virus detection and tolerability of sampling.
IMPORTANCE We demonstrate that a molded plastic swab is a valid alternative to conventional brush-like swabs in collection of a nasopharyngeal sample for virus diagnostics.