Author: Melo Costa, M.; Benoit, N.; Dormoi, J.; Amalvict, R.; Gomez, N.; Tissot-Dupont, H.; Million, M.; Pradines, B.; Granjeaud, S.; ALMERAS, L.
Title: Saliva, a relevant alternative sample for SARS-CoV2 detection Cord-id: zhi088zl Document date: 2020_11_30
ID: zhi088zl
Snippet: Background: Currently, COVID-19 diagnosis relies on quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) from nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens, but NPSs present several limitations. The simplicity, low invasive and possibility of self-collection of saliva imposed this specimen as a relevant alternative for SARS-CoV-2 detection. However, the discrepancy of saliva test results compared to NPSs made of its use controversial. Here, we proposed to assess Salivettes, as a standard
Document: Background: Currently, COVID-19 diagnosis relies on quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) from nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens, but NPSs present several limitations. The simplicity, low invasive and possibility of self-collection of saliva imposed this specimen as a relevant alternative for SARS-CoV-2 detection. However, the discrepancy of saliva test results compared to NPSs made of its use controversial. Here, we proposed to assess Salivettes, as a standardized saliva collection device, and to compare SARS-CoV-2 positivity on paired NPS and saliva specimens. Methods: A total of 303 individuals randomly selected among those investigated for SARS-CoV-2 were enrolled, including 30 (9.9%) patients previously positively tested using NPS (follow-up group), 90 (29.7%) mildly symptomatic and 183 (60.4%) asymptomatic. Results: The RT-qPCR revealed a positive rate of 11.6% (n=35) and 17.2% (n=52) for NPSs and saliva samples, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of saliva samples were 82.9% and 91.4%, respectively, using NPS as reference. The highest proportion of discordant results concerned the follow-up group (33.3%). Although in the symptomatic and asymptomatic groups the agreement exceeded 90.0%, 17 individuals were detected positive only in saliva samples, with consistent medical arguments. Conclusion: Saliva collected with Salivette demonstrated more sensitive for detecting symptomatic and pre-symptomatic infections.
Search related documents:
Co phrase search for related documents- accurate identification and acute inflammation: 1
- accurate identification and acute respiratory: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
- accurate identification and low sensitivity: 1, 2, 3, 4
- accurate self collection and low sensitivity: 1
- acute inflammation and additional file: 1
- acute respiratory and additional file: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
- acute respiratory and low sensitivity: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
- acute respiratory and low upper respiratory tract: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Co phrase search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date