Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

13 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Natural spring water gargle and direct RT-PCR for the diagnosis of COVID-19 (COVID-SPRING study).

ABSTRACT:

Background

Nasopharyngeal swab has long been considered the specimen of choice for the diagnosis of respiratory viral infections, including SARS-CoV-2 infection, but it suffers from several drawbacks: its discomfort limits screening acceptability, and it is vulnerable to shortages in both specialized materials and trained healthcare workers in the context of a pandemic.

Methods

We prospectively compared natural spring water gargle to combined oro-nasopharyngeal swab (ONPS) for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in paired clinical specimens (1005 ONPS and 1005 gargles) collected from 987 unique early symptomatic as well as asymptomatic individuals from the community.

Results

Using a direct RT-PCR method with the Allplex™ 2019-nCoV Assay (Seegene), the clinical sensitivity of the gargle was 95.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.2 - 98.3%), similar to the sensitivity of the ONPS (93.8%; 95% CI, 88.2 - 97.3%), despite significantly lower viral RNA concentration in gargles, as reflected by higher cycle threshold values. No single specimen type detected all COVID-19 cases. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was stable in gargles at room temperature for at least 7 days.

Conclusion

The simplicity of this sampling method coupled with the accessibility of spring water are clear advantages in a pandemic situation where testing frequency, turnaround time and shortage of consumables and trained staff are critical elements.

SUBMITTER: Dumaresq J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8487097 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Comparison of self-collected mouth gargle with deep-throat saliva samples for the diagnosis of COVID-19: Mouth gargle for diagnosis of COVID-19.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC8310573 | biostudies-literature

Lower cost alternatives for molecular diagnosis of COVID-19: conventional RT-PCR and SYBR Green-based RT-qPCR.

Project description:In March 2020, WHO declared a pandemic state due to SARS-CoV-2 having spread. TaqMan-based real-time RT-qPCR is currently the gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis. However, it is a high-cost assay, inaccessible for the majority of laboratories around the world, making it difficult to diagnose on a large scale. The objective of this study was to standardize lower cost molecular methods for SARS-CoV-2 identification. E gene primers previously determined for TaqMan assays by Colman et al. (2020) were adapted in SYBR Green assay and RT-PCR conventional. The cross-reactivity test was performed with 17 positive samples for other respiratory viruses, and the sensibility test was performed with 8 dilutions (10 based) of SARS-CoV-2 isolated and 63 SARS-CoV-2-positive samples. The SYBR Green assays and conventional RT-PCR have not shown amplification of the 17 respiratory samples positives for other viruses. The SYBR Green-based assay was able to detect all 8 dilutions of the isolate. The conventional PCR detected until 107 dilution, both assays detected the majority of the 63 samples, 98.42% of positivity in SYBR Green, and 93% in conventional PCR. The average Ct variation between SYBR Green and TaqMan was 1.92 and the highest Ct detected by conventional PCR was 35.98. Both of the proposed assays are less sensitive than the current gold standard; however, our data shows a low sensibility variation, suggesting that these methods could be used by laboratories as a lower cost molecular method for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.

| S-EPMC7411266 | biostudies-literature

Positive control synthesis method for COVID-19 diagnosis by one-step real-time RT-PCR.

Project description:BACKGROUNDS:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is still ongoing. Real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (real-time RT-PCR) is regarded as a gold-standard method for the diagnosis of COVID-19. However, unexpected contamination of synthesized positive control samples included in COVID-19 test kits have increased the inconclusiveness of disease interpretation. Therefore, it is important to establish new methods for the preparation of reliable positive controls that are not affected by contamination for the accurate for diagnosis of COVID-19, but it still remains a challenge. METHODS:A new approach for producing synthetic positive controls using synthetic positive template (SPT) oligonucleotides was designed. SPT oligonucleotides contain probe binding and virus-irrelevant regions were used as templates for real-time PCR to evaluate the expression level of SARS-CoV-2 genes (RdRP, E, and N). The limit of detection (LOD) for individual SARS-CoV-2 genes by Ct values with different concentrations of SPT templates and genomic RNAs from SARS-CoV-2 infected samples was determined. RESULTS:LODs with SPT templates were >10-15 (atto) M for RdRP, 10-12 (femto) to 10-13 (100 atto) M for E gene, and 10-12 to 10-14 (10 atto) M for N gene, respectively. Real-time RT-PCR assay using serially diluted genomic RNAs prepared from SARS-CoV-2 virus infected cultures showed that picogram quantities of RNAs is resulted in the LOD. The sensitivity of RdRP and E genes based on Ct values was less than that of N gene with this platform. CONCLUSION:This method significantly reduces the risk of false-positive reactions resulting from contamination in the synthesis procedures of positive control materials. Therefore, this approach could be integrated into the currrently available COVID-19 test kits and will provide a general method for preparing positive controls in the diagnosis of emerging RNA virus infections.

| S-EPMC7550048 | biostudies-literature

The screening value of RT-LAMP and RT-PCR in the diagnosis of COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Project description:The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the test accuracy of reverse-transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We comprehensively searched PUBMED, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System until September 1, 2021. We included clinical studies assessing the sensitivity and specificity of RT-PCR and RT-LAMP using respiratory samples. Thirty-three studies were included with 9360 suspected cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The RT-PCR or other comprehensive diagnostic method was defined as the reference method. The results showed that the overall pooled sensitivity of RT-PCR and RT-LAMP was 0.96 (95 % CI, 0.93-0.98) and 0.92 (95 % CI, 0.85-0.96), respectively. RT-PCR and RT-LAMP had a 0.06 (95 % CI, 0.04-0.08) and 0.12 (95 % CI, 0.06-0.16) false-negative rates (FNR), respectively. Moreover, subgroup analysis showed mixed sampling and multiple target gene diagnosis methods had better diagnostic value than single-site sampling and a single target gene. The sensitivity and FNR were also significantly affected by the reference method. Comparing RT-LAMP with established suboptimal RT-PCR may exaggerate the performance of RT-LAMP. RT-PCR and RT-LAMP showed high values in the diagnosis of COVID-19, but there was still a FNR of about 6%-12%.

| S-EPMC8629515 | biostudies-literature

COVID-19 Real-Time RT-PCR: Does Positivity on Follow-up RT-PCR Always Imply Infectivity?

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC7328320 | biostudies-literature

A meta-analysis of accuracy and sensitivity of chest CT and RT-PCR in COVID-19 diagnosis.

Project description:Nowadays there is an ongoing acute respiratory outbreak caused by the novel highly contagious coronavirus (COVID-19). The diagnostic protocol is based on quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and chests CT scan, with uncertain accuracy. This meta-analysis study determines the diagnostic value of an initial chest CT scan in patients with COVID-19 infection in comparison with RT-PCR. Three main databases; PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and EMBASE were systematically searched for all published literature from January 1st, 2019, to the 21st May 2020 with the keywords "COVID19 virus", "2019 novel coronavirus", "Wuhan coronavirus", "2019-nCoV", "X-Ray Computed Tomography", "Polymerase Chain Reaction", "Reverse Transcriptase PCR", and "PCR Reverse Transcriptase". All relevant case-series, cross-sectional, and cohort studies were selected. Data extraction and analysis were performed using STATA v.14.0SE (College Station, TX, USA) and RevMan 5. Among 1022 articles, 60 studies were eligible for totalizing 5744 patients. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of chest CT scan compared to RT-PCR were 87% (95% CI 85-90%), 46% (95% CI 29-63%), 69% (95% CI 56-72%), and 89% (95% CI 82-96%), respectively. It is important to rely on the repeated RT-PCR three times to give 99% accuracy, especially in negative samples. Regarding the overall diagnostic sensitivity of 87% for chest CT, the RT-PCR testing is essential and should be repeated to escape misdiagnosis.

| S-EPMC7769992 | biostudies-literature

Use of the variplex™ SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP as a rapid molecular assay to complement RT-PCR for COVID-19 diagnosis.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Molecular assays based on reverse transcription-loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) may be useful for rapid diagnosis of the severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) because of the easy performance and the option to bypass RNA extraction. OBJECTIVES:This study was designed to evaluate the clinical performance of the CE-labeled variplexTM real time SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP assay in comparison to commercial RT-PCRs. STUDY DESIGN:RNA extracted from pharyngeal swabs was tested by variplex™?RT-LAMP and Corman's LightMix™?E gene RT-PCR as reference. Samples of respiratory secretions from Coronavirus infection disease (COVID-19) and negative control patients were analyzed by variplex™?without RNA extraction and tested in parallel with the Allplex™?and VIASURE BD MAX?RT-PCRs. RESULTS:Using isolated RNA variplex™?RT-LAMP showed a sensitivity of 75 % compared to LightMix?E gene RT-PCR but contrary to the latter it produced no false-positive results. For the evaluation of samples from respiratory secretions concordance analysis showed only a moderate agreement between the variplex™?RT-LAMP conducted on unprocessed samples and Allplex™?and VIASURE RT-PCRs (Cohen's ??ranging from 0.52-0.56). Using the approach to define a sample as true-positive when at least two assays gave a positive result the clinical sensitivities were as follows: 76.3 % for variplex™, 84.2 % for Allplex™?and 68.4 % for VIASURE. However, when results of RT-PCR and RT-LAMP were combined diagnostic sensitivity was increased to 92-100 %. CONCLUSION:The variplex RT-LAMP may serve as a rapid test to be combined with a RT-PCR assay to increase the diagnostic accuracy in patients with suspected COVID-19 infection.

| S-EPMC7457909 | biostudies-literature

Comparison of seven commercial RT-PCR diagnostic kits for COVID-19.

Project description:The final months of 2019 witnessed the emergence of a novel coronavirus in the human population. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has since spread across the globe and is posing a major burden on society. Measures taken to reduce its spread critically depend on timely and accurate identification of virus-infected individuals by the most sensitive and specific method available, i.e. real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR). Many commercial kits have recently become available, but their performance has not yet been independently assessed. The aim of this study was to compare basic analytical and clinical performance of selected RT-PCR kits from seven different manufacturers (Altona Diagnostics, BGI, CerTest Biotec, KH Medical, PrimerDesign, R-Biopharm AG, and Seegene). We used serial dilutions of viral RNA to establish PCR efficiency and estimate the 95 % limit of detection (LOD95). Furthermore, we ran a panel of SARS-CoV-2-positive clinical samples (n = 13) for a preliminary evaluation of clinical sensitivity. Finally, we used clinical samples positive for non-coronavirus respiratory viral infections (n = 6) and a panel of RNA from related human coronaviruses to evaluate assay specificity. PCR efficiency was ≥96 % for all assays and the estimated LOD95 varied within a 6-fold range. Using clinical samples, we observed some variations in detection rate between kits. Importantly, none of the assays showed cross-reactivity with other respiratory (corona)viruses, except as expected for the SARS-CoV-1 E-gene. We conclude that all RT-PCR kits assessed in this study may be used for routine diagnostics of COVID-19 in patients by experienced molecular diagnostic laboratories.

| S-EPMC7206434 | biostudies-literature

A retrospective analysis of COVID-19 diagnosis results obtained by rapid antigen tests and RT-PCR: Implications for disease management.

Project description:There is a need for understanding and establishment of the most appropriate testing algorithm for COVID-19 diagnosis in asymptomatic high-risk groups. Here, we present a retrospective analysis of RT-PCR results obtained from 412 cases tested negative for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by rapid antigen testing method. Among 178 (43.2%) asymptomatic individuals, 44.9% of the high risk contacts, 12.2% of police custody individuals, 22.22% of the pregnant women and 33.33% of individuals hospitalised for preoperative or other medical conditions showed RT-PCR positivity. Our results suggest a need for focussed and intensive (multi-modality) testing in groups at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

| S-EPMC8143916 | biostudies-literature

Identification of RT-PCR-Negative Asymptomatic COVID-19 Patients via Serological Testing.

Project description:Asymptomatic individuals with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have been identified via nucleic acid testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2); however, the epidemiologic characteristics and viral shedding pattern of asymptomatic patients remain largely unknown. In this study, serological testing was applied when identifying nine asymptomatic cases of COVID-19 who showed persistent negative RT-PCR test results for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid and no symptoms of COVID-19. Two asymptomatic cases were presumed to be index patients who had cleared the virus when their close contacts developed symptoms of COVID-19. Three of the asymptomatic cases were local individuals who spontaneously recovered before their presumed index patients developed symptoms of COVID-19. This report presents the epidemiologic and clinical characteristics of asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection that were undetected on RT-PCR tests in previous epidemiologic investigations probably due to the transient viral shedding duration.

| S-EPMC7294962 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data