Sampling site for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR—An intrapatient four-site comparison from Tampere, Finland
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis relies on the performance of nasopharyngeal swabs. Alternative sample sites have been assessed but the heterogeneity of the studies have made comparing different sites difficult. Objectives
Our aim was to compare the performance of four different sampling sites for SARS-CoV-2 samples with nasopharynx being the benchmark. Study design
COVID-19 positive patients were recruited prospectively, and samples were collected and analysed for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR from all four anatomical sites in 43 patients, who provided written informed consent. Results
All anterior nasal and saliva samples were positive, while two oropharyngeal samples were negative. There was no significant difference in the cycle threshold values of nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal samples while saliva and oropharynx had higher cycle threshold values. Conclusions
Anterior nasal swab performs as good as nasopharynx swab with saliva also finding all the positives but with higher cycle threshold values. Thus, we can conclude that anterior nasal swabs can be used for SARS-CoV-2 detection instead of nasopharyngeal swabs if the situation would require so.
SUBMITTER: Kerimov D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8594827 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The gold standard method in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is the detection of viral RNA in the nasopharyngeal sample by RT-PCR. Recently, saliva samples have been suggested as an alternative sample. In the present study, we aimed to compare RT-PCR results in nasopharyngeal, oro-nasopharyngeal and saliva samples of COVID-19 patients. 98 of 200 patients were positive in RT-PCR analysis performed before the hospitalization. On day 0, at least one sample was positive in 67 % of 98 patients. The positivity rate was 83 % for both oro-nasopharyngeal and nasopharyngeal samples, while it was 63 % for saliva samples (p?<?0.001). On day 5, RT-PCR was performed in 59 patients, 34 % had at least one positive result. The positivity rate was 55 % for both saliva and nasopharyngeal samples, while it was 60 % for oro-nasopharyngeal samples. Our study shows that the sampling saliva does not increase the sensitivity of RT-PCR tests at the early stages of infection. However, on the 5th day, viral RNA detection rates in saliva were similar to nasopharyngeal and oro-nasopharyngeal samples. In conclusion, we suggest that, in patients receiving treatment, RT-PCR in saliva, in addition to the standard samples, is important to determine the isolation period and control transmission.
| S-EPMC7833528 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of sample pooling compared to the individual analysis for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by using different commercial platforms for nucleic acid extraction and amplification.MethodsA total of 3519 nasopharyngeal samples received at nine Spanish clinical microbiology laboratories were processed individually and in pools (342 pools of ten samples and 11 pools of nine samples) according to the existing methodology in place at each centre.ResultsWe found that 253 pools (2519 samples) were negative and 99 pools (990 samples) were positive; with 241 positive samples (6.85%), our pooling strategy would have saved 2167 PCR tests. For 29 pools (made out of 290 samples), we found discordant results when compared to their correspondent individual samples, as follows: in 22 of 29 pools (28 samples), minor discordances were found; for seven pools (7 samples), we found major discordances. Sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values for pooling were 97.10% (95% confidence interval (CI), 94.11-98.82), 100%, 100% and 99.79% (95% CI, 99.56-99.90) respectively; accuracy was 99.80% (95% CI, 99.59-99.92), and the kappa concordant coefficient was 0.984. The dilution of samples in our pooling strategy resulted in a median loss of 2.87 (95% CI, 2.46-3.28) cycle threshold (Ct) for E gene, 3.36 (95% CI, 2.89-3.85) Ct for the RdRP gene and 2.99 (95% CI, 2.56-3.43) Ct for the N gene.ConclusionsWe found a high efficiency of pooling strategies for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA testing across different RNA extraction and amplification platforms, with excellent performance in terms of sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values.
| S-EPMC7481316 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe comparative performance of different clinical sampling methods for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-PCR among populations with suspected infection remains unclear. This meta-analysis aims to systematically compare the diagnostic performance of different clinical specimen collection methods.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, medRxiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, and Research Square from Jan 1, 2000, to Nov 16, 2020. We included original clinical studies that examined the performance of nasopharyngeal swabs and any additional respiratory specimens for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection among individuals presenting in ambulatory care. Studies without data on paired samples, or those that only examined different samples from confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases were not useful for examining diagnostic performance of a test and were excluded. Diagnostic performance, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, was examined using random effects models and double arcsine transformation.FindingsOf the 5577 studies identified in our search, 23 studies including 7973 participants with 16 762 respiratory samples were included. Respiratory specimens examined in these studies included 7973 nasopharyngeal swabs, 1622 nasal swabs, 6110 saliva samples, 338 throat swabs, and 719 pooled nasal and throat swabs. Using nasopharyngeal swabs as the gold standard, pooled nasal and throat swabs gave the highest sensitivity of 97% (95% CI 93-100), whereas lower sensitivities were achieved by saliva (85%, 75-93) and nasal swabs (86%, 77-93) and a much lower sensitivity by throat swabs (68%, 35-94). A comparably high positive predictive value was obtained by pooled nasal and throat (97%, 90-100) and nasal swabs (96%, 87-100) and a slightly lower positive predictive value by saliva (93%, 88-97). Throat swabs have the lowest positive predictive value of 75% (95% CI 45-96). Comparably high specificities (range 97-99%) and negative predictive value (range 95-99%) were observed among different clinical specimens. Comparison between health-care-worker collection and self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs showed comparable diagnostic performance. No significant heterogeneity was observed in the analysis of pooled nasal and throat swabs and throat swabs, whereas moderate to substantial heterogeneity (I2 ≥30%) was observed in studies on saliva and nasal swabs.InterpretationOur review suggests that, compared with the gold standard of nasopharyngeal swabs, pooled nasal and throat swabs offered the best diagnostic performance of the alternative sampling approaches for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in ambulatory care. Saliva and nasal swabs gave comparable and very good diagnostic performance and are clinically acceptable alternative specimen collection methods. Throat swabs gave a much lower sensitivity and positive predictive value and should not be recommended. Self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs was not associated with any significant impairment of diagnostic accuracy. Our results also provide a useful reference framework for the proper interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 testing results using different clinical specimens.FundingHong Kong Research Grants Council.
| S-EPMC8041361 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Bivalve shellfish are readily contaminated by human pathogens present in waters impacted by municipal sewage, and the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in feces of infected patients and in wastewater has drawn attention to the possible presence of the virus in bivalves. The aim of this study was to collect data on SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in bivalve mollusks from harvesting areas of Campania region. A total of 179 samples were collected between September 2019 and April 2021 and were tested using droplet digital RT-PCR (dd RT-PCR) and real-time RT-PCR. Combining results obtained with different assays, SARS-CoV-2 presence was detected in 27/179 (15.1%) of samples. A median viral concentration of 1.1 × 102 and 1.4 × 102 g.c./g was obtained using either Orf1b nsp14 or RdRp/gene E, respectively. Positive results were unevenly distributed among harvesting areas and over time, positive samples being more frequent after January 2021. Partial sequencing of the spike region was achieved for five samples, one of which displaying mutations characteristic of the Alpha variant (lineage B.1.1.7). This study confirms that bivalve mollusks may bioaccumulate SARS-CoV-2 to detectable levels and that they may represent a valuable approach to track SARS-CoV-2 in water bodies and to monitor outbreak trends and viral diversity.
| S-EPMC8776039 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Convalescent sera of RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 confirmed hospitalised patients were tested on the protein array to profile IgG, IgM, and IgA antibody levels against human coronaviruses.
2022-03-08 | E-MTAB-11523 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:Fast, accurate, and reliable diagnostic tests are critical for controlling the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The current gold standard for testing is real-time PCR; however, during the current pandemic, supplies of testing kits and reagents have been limited. We report the validation of a rapid (30 minutes), user-friendly, and accurate microchip real-time PCR assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 from nasopharyngeal swab RNA extracts. Microchips preloaded with COVID-19 primers and probes for the N gene accommodate 1.2-μL reaction volumes, lowering the required reagents by 10-fold compared with tube-based real-time PCR. We validated our assay using contrived reference samples and 21 clinical samples from patients in Canada, determining a limit of detection of 1 copy per reaction. The microchip real-time PCR provides a significantly lower resource alternative to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-approved real-time RT-PCR assays with comparable sensitivity, showing 100% positive and negative predictive agreement of clinical samples.
| S-EPMC7939975 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Quantitative viral load assays have transformed our understanding of viral diseases. They hold similar potential to advance COVID-19 control and prevention, but SARS-CoV-2 viral load tests are not yet widely available. SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic tests, which typically employ real-time RT-PCR, yield semiquantitative results only. Droplet digital RT-PCR (RT-ddPCR) offers an attractive platform for SARS-CoV-2 RNA quantification. Eight primer/probe sets originally developed for real-time RT-PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests were evaluated for use in RT-ddPCR; three were identified as the most efficient, precise, and sensitive for RT-ddPCR-based SARS-CoV-2 RNA quantification. For example, the analytical efficiency for the E-Sarbeco primer/probe set was approximately 83%, whereas assay precision, measured as the coefficient of variation, was approximately 2% at 1000 input copies/reaction. Lower limits of quantification and detection for this primer/probe set were 18.6 and 4.4 input SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/reaction, respectively. SARS-CoV-2 RNA viral loads in a convenience panel of 48 COVID-19-positive diagnostic specimens spanned a 6.2log10 range, confirming substantial viral load variation in vivo. RT-ddPCR-derived SARS-CoV-2 E gene copy numbers were further calibrated against cycle threshold values from a commercial real-time RT-PCR diagnostic platform. This log-linear relationship can be used to mathematically derive SARS-CoV-2 RNA copy numbers from cycle threshold values, allowing the wealth of available diagnostic test data to be harnessed to address foundational questions in SARS-CoV-2 biology.
| S-EPMC8164350 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A subset of patients with Covid-19 presents with negative RT-PCR screening but suspect CT findings. Using four commercially available anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG immuno-assays, we found this subset constituted 9.2% of all consecutively admitted outpatients with Covid-19 in our hospital. Clinical specificity for Covid-19 of some N protein-based immuno-assays was suboptimal, as positive results were observed in control patients with recent common human coronavirus, influenza B and adenovirus infections.
| S-EPMC7482374 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We aimed to evaluate the LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay (DiaSorin), comparing its performance to real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. 182 (110 PCR-positive and 72 PCR-negative) nasopharyngeal swab samples were taken for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. RT-PCR and antigen assay were performed using the same material. The sensitivity and specificity of the antigen assay were calculated for different cut-offs, with RT-PCR serving as the reference method. Stored clinical samples that were positive for other respiratory viruses were tested to evaluate cross-reactivity. One third (33/110, 30%) were falsely classified as negative, while no false positives were found using the 200 TCID50/mL cut-off for the SARS-CoV-2 antigen as proposed by the manufacturer. This corresponded to a sensitivity of 70% (60-78%) and a specificity of 100% (94-100%). Lowering the cut-off for positivity of the antigen assay to 22.79 or 57.68 TCID50/mL increased the sensitivity of the method, reaching a sensitivity of 92% (85-96%) vs. 79% (70-86%) and a specificity of 81% (69-89%) vs. 99% (91-100%), respectively. The antigen assay reliably detected samples with high SARS-CoV-2 viral loads (≥106 copies SARS-CoV-2/mL), while it cannot differentiate between negative and low positive samples. Cross-reactivity toward other respiratory viruses was not detected.
| S-EPMC8228578 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundReverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is an extremely common clinical method for detecting pathogens, particularly for emerging infectious diseases such as the new coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Currently, detection of the RNA from the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is the gold standard for establishing a COVID-19 diagnosis. This study evaluates the characteristic performance of the analytical system in a clinical laboratory.MethodsA commercial SARS-CoV-2 RNA RT-PCR Kit used in a clinical laboratory is assessed based on ISO 15189 verification requirements. A multiple real-time RT-PCR assay for the RdRP, N, and E genes in SARS-CoV-2 is verified.ResultsThe analytical system exhibits good analytical sensitivity (1000 copies/mL) and specificity (100%); however, the values of 86.7% and 100% for analytical accuracy deserved attention, compared with two other types of methods. Overall, the kit is potentially useful for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing and meets the verification requirements.ConclusionCompliance with international standards, such as ISO 15189, is valuable for clinical laboratories and for improving laboratory medicine quality and safety. Normalization is essential for obtaining reliable results from the SARS-CoV-2 RNA RT-PCR assay. This study aims to develop an improved SARS-CoV-2 verification framework compared with traditional molecular diagnostic methods, given the urgency of implementing new assays in clinical laboratories.
| S-EPMC7435359 | biostudies-literature