Comparing Nasopharyngeal and BAL SARS-CoV-2 Assays in Respiratory Failure.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gao CA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7781122 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Comparing Nasopharyngeal and BAL SARS-CoV-2 Assays in Respiratory Failure.
Gao Catherine A CA Cuttica Michael J MJ Malsin Elizabeth S ES Argento A Christine AC Wunderink Richard G RG Smith Sean B SB
American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 20210101 1
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6236685 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe ideal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARs-CoV-2) testing method would be accurate and also be patient-performed to reduce exposure to healthcare workers. The aim of this study was to compare patient-performed testing based on a morning saliva sample with the current standard testing method, healthcare worker-collected sampling via a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS).MethodsThis was a prospective single center study which recruited 217 asymptomatic adult male participants in a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) quarantine center who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 8-10 days prior to isolation. Paired NPS and saliva specimens were collected and processed within 5 hours of sample collection. Real time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) targeting Envelope (E) and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) genes was performed and the results were compared.ResultsOverall, 160 of the 217 (74%) participants tested positive for COVID-19 based on saliva, NPS, or both testing methods. The detection rate for SARS-CoV-2 was higher in saliva compared to NPS testing (93.1%, 149/160 vs 52.5%, 84/160, P < .001). The concordance between the 2 tests was 45.6% (virus was detected in both saliva and NPS in 73/160), whereas 47.5% were discordant (87/160 tested positive for 1 whereas negative for the other). The cycle threshold (Ct) values for E and RdRp genes were significantly lower in saliva specimens compared to NP swab specimens.ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate that saliva is a better alternative specimen for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Taking into consideration, the simplicity of specimen collection, shortage of PPE and the transmissibility of the virus, saliva could enable self-collection for an accurate SARS-CoV-2 surveillance testing.
| S-EPMC7454325 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In December 2019, a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) was first isolated from Wuhan city, China and within three months, the global community was challenged with a devastating pandemic. The rapid spread of the virus challenged diagnostic laboratories to rapidly develop molecular diagnostic methods. As SARS CoV-2 assays became available for testing on existing molecular platforms, laboratories devoted unprecedented energy and resources into evaluating the analytical performance of the new tests and in some cases developed their own diagnostic assays under FDA-EUA guidance. This study compares the validation of three different molecular assays at the Johns Hopkins Molecular Virology laboratory: the RealStar® SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, ePlex® SARS-CoV-2, and the CDC COVID-19 RT-PCR tests. Overall, our studies indicate a comparable analytical performance of the three assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.
| S-EPMC7194987 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The rapid scale-up of research on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spawned a large number of potential vaccines and immunotherapies, accompanied by a commensurately large number of in vitro assays and in vivo models to measure their effectiveness. These assays broadly have the same end-goal - to predict the clinical efficacy of prophylactic and therapeutic interventions in humans. However, the apparent potency of different interventions can vary considerably between assays and animal models, leading to very different predictions of clinical efficacy. Complete harmonization of experimental methods may be intractable at the current pace of research. However, here we analyse a selection of existing assays for measuring antibody-mediated virus neutralization and animal models of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and provide a framework for comparing results between studies and reconciling observed differences in the effects of interventions. Finally, we propose how we might optimize these assays for better comparison of results from in vitro and animal studies to accelerate progress.
| S-EPMC7605490 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST1037 | biostudies-other
Project description:Microbiome analysis of oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal samples of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients
2021-02-06 | GSE166281 | GEO
Project description:Nasopharyngeal RNASeq comparing SARS-CoV-2+ patients and SARS-CoV-2 negative control subjects
| PRJNA730941 | ENA
Project description:Nasopharyngeal RNASeq comparing SARS-CoV-2+ patients and SARS-CoV-2 negative control subjects
| PRJNA730940 | ENA
Project description:BackgroundThe ongoing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has major impacts on health systems, the economy and society. Assessing infection attack rates in the population is critical for estimating disease severity and herd immunity which is needed to calibrate public health interventions. We have previously shown that it is possible to achieve this in real time to impact public health decision making.AimOur objective was to develop and evaluate serological assays applicable in large-scale sero-epidemiological studies.MethodsWe developed an ELISA to detect IgG and IgM antibodies to the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We evaluated its sensitivity and specificity in combination with confirmatory microneutralisation (MN) and 90% plaque reduction neutralisation tests (PRNT90) in 51 sera from 24 patients with virologically confirmed COVID-19 and in age-stratified sera from 200 healthy controls.ResultsIgG and IgM RBD ELISA, MN and PRNT90 were reliably positive after 29 days from illness onset with no detectable cross-reactivity in age-stratified controls. We found that PRNT90 tests were more sensitive in detecting antibody than MN tests carried out with the conventional 100 tissue culture infectious dose challenge. Heparinised plasma appeared to reduce the infectivity of the virus challenge dose and may confound interpretation of neutralisation test.ConclusionUsing IgG ELISA based on the RBD of the spike protein to screen sera for SARS-CoV-2 antibody, followed by confirmation using PRNT90, is a valid approach for large-scale sero-epidemiology studies.
| S-EPMC7189648 | biostudies-literature
Project description:With the COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 now in its second year, there remains an urgent need for diagnostic testing that can identify infected individuals, particularly those who harbor infectious virus. Various RT-PCR strategies have been proposed to identify specific viral RNA species that may predict the presence of infectious virus, including detection of transcriptional intermediates (e.g., subgenomic RNA [sgRNA]) and replicative intermediates (e.g., negative-strand RNA species). Using a novel primer/probe set for detection of subgenomic (sg)E transcripts, we successfully identified 100% of specimens containing culturable SARS-CoV-2 from a set of 126 clinical samples (total sgE CT values ranging from 12.3 to 37.5). This assay showed superior performance compared to a previously published sgRNA assay and to a negative-strand RNA assay, both of which failed to detect target RNA in a subset of samples from which we isolated live virus. In addition, total levels of viral RNA (genome, negative-strand, and sgE) detected with the WHO/Charité primer-probe set correlated closely with levels of infectious virus. Specifically, infectious virus was not detected in samples with a CT above 31.0. Clinical samples with higher levels of viral RNA also displayed cytopathic effect (CPE) more quickly than those with lower levels of viral RNA. Finally, we found that the infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 samples is significantly dependent on the cell type used for viral isolation, as Vero E6 cells expressing TMRPSS2 extended the analytical sensitivity of isolation by more than 3 CT compared to parental Vero E6 cells and resulted in faster isolation. Our work shows that using a total viral RNA Ct cutoff of > 31 or specifically testing for sgRNA can serve as an effective rule-out test for the presence of culturable virus.
| S-EPMC8819313 | biostudies-literature