Dataset Information

SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in urine, blood, anal swabs, and oropharyngeal swabs specimens.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) ribonucleic acid (RNA) in urine and blood specimens, and anal and oropharyngeal swabs from patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and correlated positive results with clinical findings.

Methods

Patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections were included in this study. Patients' demographic and clinical data were recorded. Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction was used to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA in urine and blood specimens, and anal and oropharyngeal swabs. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (No. NCT04279782, 19 February, 2020).

Results

SARS-CoV-2 RNA was present in all four specimen types, though not all specimen types were positive simultaneously. The presence of viral RNA was not necessarily predictive of clinical symptoms, for example, the presence of viral RNA in the urine did not necessarily predict urinary tract symptoms.

Conclusions

SARS-CoV-2 can infect multiple systems, including the urinary tract. Testing different specimen types may be useful for monitoring disease changes and progression, and for establishing a prognosis.

SUBMITTER: Peng L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7264521 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The rapid and accurate testing of SARS-CoV-2 infection is still crucial to mitigate, and eventually halt, the spread of this disease. Currently, nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) are the recommended standard sampling techniques, yet, these have some limitations such as the complexity of collection. Hence, several other types of specimens that are easier to obtain are being tested as alternatives to nasal/throat swabs in nucleic acid assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection. This study aims to critically appraise and compare the clinical performance of RT-PCR tests using oral saliva, deep-throat saliva/posterior oropharyngeal saliva (DTS/POS), sputum, urine, feces, and tears/conjunctival swab (CS) against standard specimens (NPS, OPS, or a combination of both). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrial.gov and NIPH Clinical Trial) were searched up to the 30th of December, 2020. Case-control and cohort studies on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 were included. The methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS 2). We identified 1560 entries, 33 of which (1.1%) met all required criteria and were included for the quantitative data analysis. Saliva presented the higher accuracy, 92.1% (95% CI: 70.0-98.3), with an estimated sensitivity of 83.9% (95% CI: 77.4-88.8) and specificity of 96.4% (95% CI: 89.5-98.8). DTS/POS samples had an overall accuracy of 79.7% (95% CI: 43.3-95.3), with an estimated sensitivity of 90.1% (95% CI: 83.3-96.9) and specificity of 63.1% (95% CI: 36.8-89.3). The remaining index specimens could not be adequately assessed given the lack of studies available. Our meta-analysis shows that saliva samples from the oral region provide a high sensitivity and specificity; therefore, these appear to be the best candidates for alternative specimens to NPS/OPS in SARS-CoV-2 detection, with suitable protocols for swab-free sample collection to be determined and validated in the future. The distinction between oral and extra-oral salivary samples will be crucial, since DTS/POS samples may induce a higher rate of false positives. Urine, feces, tears/CS and sputum seem unreliable for diagnosis. Saliva testing may increase testing capacity, ultimately promoting the implementation of truly deployable COVID-19 tests, which could either work at the point-of-care (e.g. hospitals, clinics) or at outbreak control spots (e.g., schools, airports, and nursing homes).