Author: Echavarria, Marcela; Reyes, Noelia S.; Rodriguez, Pamela E.; Ypas, Martin; Ricarte, Carmen; Rodriguez, MarÃa P.; Perez, Matias G.; Seoane, Alejandro; Martinez, Alfredo; Videla, Cristina; Stryjewski, Martin E.; Carballal, Guadalupe
Title: Selfâ€collected saliva for SARSâ€CoVâ€2 detection: A prospective study in the emergency room Cord-id: rkfth16d Document date: 2021_2_23
ID: rkfth16d
Snippet: Current diagnostic standards involve severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARSâ€CoVâ€2) detection in nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), but saliva is an attractive and noninvasive option for diagnosis. The objectives were to determine the performance of saliva in comparison with NPS for detecting SARSâ€CoVâ€2 and to compare the optimized home brew reverseâ€transcription polymerase chain reaction (RTâ€PCR) with a commercial RTâ€PCR. Paired NPS and saliva specimens were prospectively c
Document: Current diagnostic standards involve severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARSâ€CoVâ€2) detection in nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), but saliva is an attractive and noninvasive option for diagnosis. The objectives were to determine the performance of saliva in comparison with NPS for detecting SARSâ€CoVâ€2 and to compare the optimized home brew reverseâ€transcription polymerase chain reaction (RTâ€PCR) with a commercial RTâ€PCR. Paired NPS and saliva specimens were prospectively collected and tested by RTâ€PCR from patients presenting at an emergency room with signs and symptoms compatible with coronavirus diseaseâ€2019. A total of 348 samples from 174 patients were tested by RTâ€PCR assays. Among 174 patients with symptoms, 63 (36%) were SARSâ€CoVâ€2 positive in NPS using the optimized homeâ€brew PCR. Of these 63 patients, 61 (98%) were also positive in saliva. An additional positive SARSâ€CoVâ€2 saliva was detected in a patient with pneumonia. Kappa Cohen's coefficient agreement between NPS and saliva was 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90–0.99). Median Ct values in NPS versus saliva were 18.88 (interquartile range [IQR], 15.60–23.58; range, 11.97–38.10) versus 26.10 (IQR, 22.75–30.06; range, 13.78–39.22), respectively (p < .0001). The optimized homeâ€brew RTâ€PCR demonstrated higher analytical and clinical sensitivity compared with the commercial RTâ€PCR assay. A high sensitivity (98%) and agreement (kappa 0.96) in saliva samples compared to NPS was demonstrated when using an optimized homeâ€brew PCR even when the viral load in saliva was lower than in NPS. This noninvasive sample is easy to collect, requires less consumable and avoids discomfort to patients. Importantly, selfâ€collection of saliva can diminish exposure to healthcare personnel.
Search related documents:
Co phrase search for related documents- accurate diagnosis and adequate diagnosis: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
- accurate diagnosis and low performance: 1, 2, 3
- accurate diagnosis 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
- acid extraction and low sensitivity: 1
- adequate diagnosis and low performance: 1
- adequate diagnosis and low sensitivity: 1
Co phrase search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date