RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The current diagnostic standard for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing with nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs. The invasiveness and need for trained personnel make the NP technique unsuited for repeated community-based mass screening. We developed a technique to collect saliva in a simple and easy way with the sponges that are usually used for tamponade of epistaxis. This study was carried out to validate the clinical performance of oral sponge (OS) sampling for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing. METHODS: Over a period of 22â weeks, we collected prospectively 409 paired NP and OS samples from consecutive subjects presenting to a public community-based free screening centre. Subjects were referred by their attending physician because of recent COVID-19 symptoms (n = 147) or by the contact tracing staff of the French public health insurance because they were considered as close contacts of a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 case (n = 262). RESULTS: In symptomatic subjects, RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 testing with OS showed a 96.5% (95% CI: 89.6-94.8) concordance with NP testing, and a 93.2% (95% CI: 89.1-97.3) sensitivity when using the IdyllaTM platform and a sensitivity of 76.3% (95% CI: 69.4-83.2) on the Synlab Barla laboratory platform. In close contacts the NP-OS concordance (93.8%, 95% CI: 90.9-96.7) and OS sensitivity (71.9%, 95% CI: 66.5-77.3) were slightly lower. CONCLUSION: These results strongly suggest that OS testing is a straightforward, low-cost and high-throughput sampling method that can be used for frequent RT-PCR testing of COVID-19 patients and mass screening of populations.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Management of large numbers of reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reactions (RT-PCR) for diagnosis of coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) requires robust infrastructures, located in dedicated premises with a high standard of biosafety procedures, and well-trained personnel. The handling of a "run-of-river sample" to obtain rapid reporting of results is challenging. METHODS: We studied the clinical performance of the Idylla™ SARS-CoV-2 Test (index test) on a platform capable of fully automated nucleic acid testing including extraction, amplification, and detection in a single-use cartridge to establish the diagnosis of COVID-19. The study was conducted on a prospective cohort of 112 volunteers with recent symptoms and an unknown SARS-CoV-2 status who came to free screening centers of the Nice metropolitan area. All subjects underwent bilateral nasopharyngeal sampling. One sample was processed using the index test, the other using the standard of care RT-PCR. Samples were treated blind. RESULTS: Most of the participants (70%) were sampled within 4 days of symptom onset. Forty-five (40.2%) were positive for COVID-19. No clinical symptoms were distinguished between SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive and negative subjects except anosmia and dysgeusia. Positive and negative agreement between the index and the standard of care test was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The Idylla™ SARS-CoV-2 Test is very sensitive, specific, rapid and easy to use in a near-patient RT-PCR approach to distinguish between symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative patients in selected settings.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Biochemical markers for liver fibrosis (FibroTest) and necroinflammatory features (ActiTest) are an alternative to liver biopsy in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Our aim was to assess the inter-laboratory variability of these tests, and their 6 components (gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase, alanine aminotransferase, alpha2-macroglobulin, haptoglobin, apolipoprotein A1, and total bilirubin) and to identify factors associated with this variability. RESULTS: Serum of 24 patients with chronic hepatitis C or severe alcoholic liver disease were prospectively recorded and analyzed in one reference center and in 8 additional laboratories. When gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase and alanine aminotransferase were expressed in international units, there was no significant difference between laboratories in the results of FibroTest or ActiTest; kappa statistics were greater than 0.50 with only 0.8% of cases (3/384) with a discordance of more than one stage. The main factor significantly associated with variability was the expression of gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase and alanine aminotransferase, as multiples of upper limit of reference values. The use of standardized method with pyridoxal phosphate reduced the variability of alanine aminotransferase expression, and standardized original Szasz method reduced the variability of gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase expression. CONCLUSIONS: The variability of FibroTest and ActiTest was acceptable without clinical consequences for the prediction of the stage of liver fibrosis and grade of activity. Standardized methods and assay calibration should be used and expression of alanine aminotransferase and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase in multiples of the upper limit of reference values should not be employed.