Dataset Information

Multiplatform assessment of saliva for SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection in symptomatic healthcare personnel and patients presenting to the emergency department.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Saliva has garnered great interest as an alternative specimen type for molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2. Data are limited on the relative performance of different molecular methods using saliva specimens and the relative sensitivity of saliva to 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 COVID-19 (n = 292). We collected paired saliva specimens and NP swabs. The Lyra SARS-CoV-2 assay (Quidel, San Diego, CA) was evaluated on paired saliva and NP samples. Subsequently we compared the Simplexa COVID-19 Direct Kit (Diasorin, Cypress, CA) and a modified SalivaDirect (Yale) assay on a subset of positive and negative saliva specimens.

Results

The positive percent agreement 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) positive percent agreement for Simplexa COVID-19 Direct Kit on saliva and a 67.6% (23/34) positive percent agreement 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.

SUBMITTER: Potter RF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8499908 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Healthcare personnel are at high risk for exposure to influenza by direct and indirect contact, droplets and aerosols, and by aerosol generating procedures. Information on air and surface influenza contamination is needed to assist in developing guidance for proper prevention and control strategies. To understand the vulnerabilities of healthcare personnel, we measured influenza in the breathing zone of healthcare personnel, in air and on surfaces within a healthcare setting, and on filtering facepiece respirators worn by healthcare personnel when conducting patient care.Thirty participants were recruited from an adult emergency department during the 2015 influenza season. Participants wore personal bioaerosol samplers for six hours of their work shift, submitted used filtering facepiece respirators and medical masks and completed questionnaires to assess frequency and types of interactions with potentially infected patients. Room air samples were collected using bioaerosol samplers, and surface swabs were collected from high-contact surfaces within the adult emergency department. Personal and room bioaerosol samples, surface swabs, and filtering facepiece respirators were analyzed for influenza A by polymerase chain reaction.Influenza was identified in 42% (53/125) of personal bioaerosol samples, 43% (28/ 96) of room bioaerosol samples, 76% (23/30) of pooled surface samples, and 25% (3/12) of the filtering facepiece respirators analyzed. Influenza copy numbers were greater in personal bioaerosol samples (17 to 631 copies) compared to room bioaerosol samples (16 to 323 copies). Regression analysis suggested that the amount of influenza in personal samples was approximately 2.3 times the amount in room samples (Wald ?2 = 16.21, p<0.001).Healthcare personnel may encounter increased concentrations of influenza virus when in close proximity to patients. Occupations that require contact with patients are at an increased risk for influenza exposure, which may occur throughout the influenza season. Filtering facepiece respirators may become contaminated with influenza when used during patient care.

Project description:BackgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia that causes numerous visits to emergency departments (ED). The aim of the FinFib2 study was to evaluate whether treatment of patients with AF in ED is consistent with the contemporary European Society of Cardiology (ESC) management guidelines. Here we report the results of antiarrhythmic drug therapy (AAD) in ED.MethodsAll patients within the two-week study period whose primary reason for the ED visit was symptomatic AF were included into this prospective multicentre study. Comprehensive data on factors contributing to the treatment of AF were collected, including a data of previous use of ADDs, and changes made for them during a visit in ED.ResultsThe study population consisted of 1013 consecutive patients (mean age 70 ± 13 years, 47.6% female). The mean European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) symptom score was 2.2 ± 0.8. Rhythm control strategy was opt for 498 (63.8%) and 140 (64.5%) patients with previously and newly diagnosed AF, respectively. In patients with previously diagnosed AF the most frequently used AAD was a beta blocker (80.9%). Prior use of class I (11.4%) and III (9.1%) AADs as well as start or adjustment of their dosage (7.4%) were uncommon. Most of the patients with newly diagnosed AF were prescribed a beta blocker (71.0%) or a calcium channel antagonist (24.0%), and only two of them received class I or class III AADs.ConclusionsOur data demonstrated that in patients presenting to the ED with recurrent symptomatic AF and aimed for rhythm control strategy, the use of class I and class III AADs was rare despite ESC guideline recommendations. It is possible that early adaptation of a more aggressive rhythm control strategy might improve a quality of life for symptomatic patients and alleviate the ED burden associated with AF. Beta blockers were used by majority of patients as rate control therapy both in rate and rhythm control groups.Trial registrationNCT01990105 . Registered 15 November 2013.