The journal of applied laboratory medicine · 2022
Multiplatform Assessment of Saliva for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection in Symptomatic Healthcare Personnel and Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка 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.
Potter Robert F, Ransom Eric M, Wallace Meghan A, Johnson Caitlin, Kwon Jennie H, Babcock Hilary M, Eby Charles S, Anderson Neil W, Parikh Bijal A, Burnham Carey-Ann D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Saliva has garnered great interest as an alternative specimen type for molecular detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Data are limited on the relative performance of different molecular methods using saliva specimens and the relative sensitivity of saliva to nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs.
METHODS: To address the gap in knowledge, we enrolled symptomatic healthcare personnel (n = 250) from Barnes-Jewish Hospital/Washington University Medical Center and patients presenting to the Emergency Department with clinical symptoms compatible with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19; n = 292). We collected paired saliva specimens and NP swabs. The Lyra SARS-CoV-2 assay (Quidel) was evaluated on paired saliva and NP samples. Subsequently we compared the Simplexa COVID-19 Direct Kit (Diasorin) and a modified SalivaDirect (Yale) assay on a subset of positive and negative saliva specimens.
RESULTS: The positive percent agreement (PPA) between saliva and NP samples using the Lyra SARS-CoV-2 assay was 63.2%. Saliva samples had higher SARS-CoV-2 cycle threshold values compared to NP swabs (P < 0.0001). We found a 76.47% (26/34) PPA for Simplexa COVID-19 Direct Kit on saliva and a 67.6% (23/34) PPA for SalivaDirect compared to NP swab results.
CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate molecular assays have variability in performance for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva.
METHODS: To address the gap in knowledge, we enrolled symptomatic healthcare personnel (n = 250) from Barnes-Jewish Hospital/Washington University Medical Center and patients presenting to the Emergency Department with clinical symptoms compatible with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19; n = 292). We collected paired saliva specimens and NP swabs. The Lyra SARS-CoV-2 assay (Quidel) was evaluated on paired saliva and NP samples. Subsequently we compared the Simplexa COVID-19 Direct Kit (Diasorin) and a modified SalivaDirect (Yale) assay on a subset of positive and negative saliva specimens.
RESULTS: The positive percent agreement (PPA) between saliva and NP samples using the Lyra SARS-CoV-2 assay was 63.2%. Saliva samples had higher SARS-CoV-2 cycle threshold values compared to NP swabs (P < 0.0001). We found a 76.47% (26/34) PPA for Simplexa COVID-19 Direct Kit on saliva and a 67.6% (23/34) PPA for SalivaDirect compared to NP swab results.
CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate molecular assays have variability in performance for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva.