Rhinomed Limited reported an important update on its RhinoswabÔ clinical program. In December 2020 the company established that the Rhinoswab was comparable to existing standard of care nasal swabs in detecting the SARS-CoV-2 virus in RT-PCR testing. This study was undertaken at the VIDRL. Since December the company has further refined the swab technology by improving the nylon flock used on the swab. Two studies have now been completed to assess the performance of the Rhinoswab against the current commercially available standard of care nasal swab (Copan eSwabÔ). Both studies have now confirmed that the Rhinoswab outperforms the standard of care nasal swab (Copan eSwabÔ) in two critical key performance factors: capture (yield) and elution efficiency. Rhinomed's new Rhinoswab has recently been approved for sale in the Australian market and is listed on the ARTG and in the US with the FDA. The Rhinoswab standardises the collection process and makes nasal sampling easy and comfortable for users. With production underway in Melbourne, Australia the company is seeking to scale up in order to meet demand. The objective of the Nasal Swab Yield Study was to compare the mean absorption/sample capture performance of the Rhinoswab against the commercially available standard of care nasal swab (Copan eSwabÔ) at various insertion time points. Methodology: A randomised trial was conducted where 394 samples were collected from participants over a six week period. Participants were swabbed twice a day with a minimum of five hours between each sample collection. Participants were randomly assigned a nasal swab. Each swab was weighed prior to use and then weighed again post use using a calibrated Sartorius analytical scale. Participants were instructed to insert the standard of care nasal swab (Copan eSwabÔ) according to the manufacturer's Instructions for Use (15 seconds, each nostril). Participants were asked to insert the Rhinoswab according to the Rhinoswab Instructions for Use. Participants were randomly assigned one of three different time periods for insertion 15 seconds, 60 seconds and 120 seconds. All Rhinoswabs captured a mean sample larger than the standard of care (Copan eSwabÔ) across all insertion time periods - 15 seconds, 60 seconds and 120 seconds. This study provides statistically powered evidence that the Rhinoswab, in addition to its comfort, ease of use and standardised sample collection procedure, captures a statistically larger sample from the nose than standard of care nasal swab (Copan eSwabÔ). EVALUATION OF RHINOSWAB ELUTION EFFICIENCY: Independent laboratory, Gnomix was engaged to compare the elution efficiency of the RhinoswabÔ compared to the standard of care nasal swab (Copan eSwabÔ). Methodology: An aliquot of gamma-irradiated (inactivated) SARS-CoV-2 virus (strain VIC/01/202) was received from the Victorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory (VIDRL) with a nominal CT value of 18 (assay dependent). The SARS-CoV-2 virus was diluted 1/200 in a stock solution of donated saliva to represent a high virus burden sample and 1/2000 in to represent a low virus burden sample. Two protocols were followed: To reflect the standard of care, the high and low virus burden samples were applied as 4 x 5l spots (20l) onto 10 RhinoswabsÔ and 5 standard of care nasal swab (Copan eSwabÔ); and to evaluate the inherently greater potential capture area of the RhinoswabÔ in comparison to the standard of care nasal swab (Copan eSwabÔ) 4 x 8l spots (32l) were applied onto 10 RhinoswabsÔ. In both instances each swab was then placed into a 5ml tube containing 1ml of Saline, vortexed vigorously for 30 seconds and left to elute for 1 hour at room temperature. Standard curve samples were prepared by spiking 32l, 20l, 15l, 10l and 5l of the respective high and low virus burden samples into a 5ml tube containing 1ml of Saline, vortexed vigorously for 30 seconds and left to sit for 1 hour at room temperature. Following elution, 140l of eluate was extracted using the QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kit (QIAGEN) according to the manufacturer's instructions. The QuantiNova IC RNA was included in all samples as an extraction control. Reverse transcription and qPCR were performed using the QuantiNova Pathogen +IC Kit (QIAGEN) in combination with the SARS-CoV-2 N1+N2 assay kit (QIAGEN) according to the manufacturer's instructions. A 6l volume of input viral RNA was used in the QuantiNova Pathogen Assay and thermal cycling was performed on a Rotorgene Q qPCR instrument using the conditions in the QuantiNova Pathogen +IC Kit handbook. The QuantiNova IC RNA, extraction negative control and PCR negative control were included on each run.