Military medicine · 2024
Evaluation of Self-collected Saliva Samples Without Viral Transport Media for SARS-CoV-2 Testing via RT-PCR and Comparison of Amplicon Sequences Against Commonly Used Primers in Diagnostic Assays.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ramos Benjamin D, Hudson N Ryan, Gonzales Diane E, Brown Ashleigh N, White Matthew G, Browde Ryan J, McNeary-Garvin Antoinette M, Knight Celynn E, Pham Kevin C, Sweatt Robert J, Phan Liem Minh, Ly Eileen, Garcia Andrew R
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Mass screening for SARS-CoV-2 using nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) is costly, uncomfortable for patients, and increases the chance of virus exposure to health care workers. Therefore, this study focused on determining if self-collected unpreserved saliva can be an effective alternative to NPS collection in COVID-19 surveillance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, patients being tested for SARS-CoV-2 using NPS were asked to provide a saliva sample to compare their results. NPS samples were evaluated for SARS-CoV-2 using BioFire® FilmArray® Torch® or Cepheid® GeneXpert® systems while saliva samples were evaluated using an in-house developed reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) which targeted the Envelope (E) and Nucleocapsid (N) genes.
RESULTS: Detection of SARS-CoV-2 using self-collected saliva was found to be only slightly less accurate (<5%) than testing using NPS. In addition, initial saliva RT-PCR identified 27 positive subjects, 18 of which provided amplicons sufficient for confirmatory sequencing. The sequencing data showed a genetic shift in the virus within our population sometime between 22 June and July 8, 2021 from Alpha to Delta variant.
CONCLUSIONS: The saliva sample collection method identifies the E gene in SARS COVID-2 samples which provides an alternative specimen source to the NPS. This identifies the S gene and ORF1ab. Saliva collection is more convenient to the patient, yields comparable results to NPS collection, and potentially increases Covid-19 surveillance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, patients being tested for SARS-CoV-2 using NPS were asked to provide a saliva sample to compare their results. NPS samples were evaluated for SARS-CoV-2 using BioFire® FilmArray® Torch® or Cepheid® GeneXpert® systems while saliva samples were evaluated using an in-house developed reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) which targeted the Envelope (E) and Nucleocapsid (N) genes.
RESULTS: Detection of SARS-CoV-2 using self-collected saliva was found to be only slightly less accurate (<5%) than testing using NPS. In addition, initial saliva RT-PCR identified 27 positive subjects, 18 of which provided amplicons sufficient for confirmatory sequencing. The sequencing data showed a genetic shift in the virus within our population sometime between 22 June and July 8, 2021 from Alpha to Delta variant.
CONCLUSIONS: The saliva sample collection method identifies the E gene in SARS COVID-2 samples which provides an alternative specimen source to the NPS. This identifies the S gene and ORF1ab. Saliva collection is more convenient to the patient, yields comparable results to NPS collection, and potentially increases Covid-19 surveillance.