Posterior Oropharyngeal Saliva for the Detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has put tremendous pressure on the healthcare system worldwide. Diagnostic testing remained one of the limiting factors for early identification and isolation of infected patients. This study aimed to evaluate posterior oropharyngeal saliva (POPS) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection among patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. METHODS: The laboratory information system was searched retrospectively for all respiratory specimens and POPS requested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection between 1 February 2020 and 15 April 2020. The agreement and diagnostic performance of POPS against NPsp were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 13772 specimens were identified during the study period, including 2130 POPS and 8438 nasopharyngeal specimens (NPsp). Two hundred and twenty-nine same-day POPS-NPsp paired were identified with POPS and NPsp positivity of 61.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 55.1-67.6%) and 53.3% (95% CI 46.8-59.6%). The overall, negative and positive percent agreement were 76.0% (95% CI 70.2-80.9%), 65.4% (95% CI 55.5-74.2%), 85.2% (95% CI 77.4-90.8%). Better positive percent agreement was observed in POPS-NPsp obtained within 7 days (96.6%, 95% CI 87.3-99.4%) compared with after 7 days of symptom onset (75.0%, 95% CI 61.4-85.2%). Among the 104 positive pairs, the mean difference in Cp value was 0.26 (range: 12.63 to -14.74), with an overall higher Cp value in NPsp (Pearson coefficient 0.579). No significant temporal variation was noted between the 2 specimen types. CONCLUSIONS: POPS is an acceptable alternative specimen to nasopharyngeal specimen for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Contamination risk of reusing daily disposable contact lenses.

PURPOSE: This study investigated contamination of saline and daily disposable contact lens (DDCL) stored overnight after use in the original blister pack and the practices of a group of DDCL users. METHODS: Twenty DDCL wearers placed their lenses after 1 day's use back into the blister pack saline (BPS) and left them overnight before transferring both lens and BPS to a new CL case. The lens and BPS were cultured the following day, and total number of organisms, Staphylococci, and gram negative organisms enumerated. Each subject submitted five pairs of lenses over a 1 month period. RESULTS: Ninety-five percent of subjects had at least one pair of contaminated lenses, and the BPS yielded similar results to the contaminated lenses, with staphylococcal contamination being predominant. Three subjects admitted to not washing their hands before handling their lenses and six to habitual reuse of their lenses with storage in the BPS. There was a higher risk of contamination in male subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Reuse of lenses poses an important risk for DDCL users because they are unlikely to have received proper training in cleaning and disinfection of lenses and do not use a lens case or disinfecting solutions. Overnight storage in BPS results in contaminated lenses which if reused increases the infection risk especially with Staphylococci. It is important that practitioners carefully educate their patients in correct use of DDCL and, as cost of lenses is a major factor in willingness to reuse, ensure that DDCL is the most suitable choice when prescribing.