Development of an alternative saliva test for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 using TRIzol: Adapting to countries with lower incomes looking for a large-scale detection program.

The use of saliva for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 has shown to be a good alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), since it permits self-collection, avoids the exposure of healthy persons to infected patients, reduces waiting times, eliminates the need of personal protective equipment and is non-invasive. Yet current saliva testing is still expensive due to the need of specialized tubes containing buffers to stabilize the RNA of SARS-CoV-2 and inactivate the virus. These tubes are expensive and not always accessible in sufficient quantities. We now developed an alternative saliva testing method, using TRIzol for extraction, viral inactivation, and storage of SARS-CoV-2 RNA, combined with RT-qPCR, which was comparable in its performance to NPS. Paired saliva samples and NPS were taken from 15 asymptomatic healthcare workers and one patient with SARS-CoV-2. Further 13 patients with SARS-CoV-2 were only saliva-tested. All the tests were performed according to CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel. Saliva (4 mL) was taken in sterile 50 mL tubes, 1.5 mL TRIzol were added and mixed. Our results show that 5 µL of saliva RNA extracted with TRIzol allow for an adequate detection of the virus in patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 and was equally sensitive to NPS in TRIzol. We conclude that saliva testing using TRIzol is a recommendable method for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 since it has several advantages over currently used saliva tests: it can be done with normal sterile tubes, does not need cold-chain handling, is stable at room temperature, is non-invasive and less costly, making it more accessible for low-income countries. Cheaper saliva testing using TRIzol is especially relevant for low-income countries to optimize diagnosis and help define quarantine durations for families, healthcare workers, schools, and other public workplaces, thus decreasing infections and mortality caused by SARS-CoV-2.

Encuesta en población abierta respecto a términos relacionados con decisiones al final de la vida.

INTRODUCTION: Concepts related to end-of-life decisions, such as euthanasia, palliative care, advance directives and therapeutic obstinacy, are poorly understood by the general population, which, when facing a terminal situation, is not prepared to choose the best option. OBJECTIVE: Pilot study (n = 544) to find out what the open population understands about terms used in end-of-life situations in four cities of the Mexican Republic. METHOD: Survey via Internet with 18 questions about different terms. It was a descriptive, cross-sectional study. Statistical analysis was carried out. RESULTS: People older than 18 years who were not engaged in health-related professional activities were selected. CONCLUSIONS: Most terms related to end-of-life decisions were found not to be interesting to or understood by a part of the population. The least recognized term was therapeutic obstinacy (62.8%), and the most widely known, palliative care (91%); there was confusion between the terms euthanasia and assisted suicide (47.8%). Age and education level had more influence in the results, than other demographic variables.

INTRODUCCIÓN: Conceptos relacionados con las decisiones que se toman al final de la vida, como eutanasia, cuidados paliativos, voluntad anticipada y obstinación terapéutica son poco comprendidos por la población en general, que en el momento de enfrentar una situación terminal no está preparada para elegir la mejor opción. OBJETIVO: Estudio piloto (n = 544) para conocer lo que la población abierta entiende acerca de términos utilizados al final de la vida en cuatro ciudades de la república mexicana. MÉTODO: Encuesta vía internet de 18 preguntas sobre los distintos términos. Se trató de un estudio descriptivo, transversal, con análisis estadístico. RESULTADOS: Se eligieron personas mayores de 18 años que no trabajaran en profesiones relacionadas con la salud. CONCLUSIONES: La mayoría de los términos del final de la vida no interesaron ni fueron entendidos por parte de la población. El término menos reconocido fue la obstinación terapéutica (62.8 %) y el más conocido, cuidados paliativos (91 %); se confunden los términos eutanasia y suicidio asistido (47.8 %). La edad y escolaridad resultaron de mayor influencia en los resultados, que las otras variables demográficas.

Encuesta en población abierta respecto a términos relacionados con decisiones al final de la vida / Open population survey regarding terms related to decisions at the end of life

Resumen Introducción: Conceptos relacionados con las decisiones que se toman al final de la vida, como eutanasia, cuidados paliativos, voluntad anticipada y obstinación terapéutica son poco comprendidos por la población en general, que en el momento de enfrentar una situación terminal no está preparada para elegir la mejor opción. Objetivo: Estudio piloto (n = 544) para conocer lo que la población abierta entiende acerca de términos utilizados al final de la vida en cuatro ciudades de la república mexicana. Método: Encuesta vía internet de 18 preguntas sobre los distintos términos. Se trató de un estudio descriptivo, transversal, con análisis estadístico. Resultados: Se eligieron personas mayores de 18 años que no trabajaran en profesiones relacionadas con la salud. Conclusiones: La mayoría de los términos del final de la vida no interesaron ni fueron entendidos por parte de la población. El término menos reconocido fue la obstinación terapéutica (62.8 %) y el más conocido, cuidados paliativos (91 %); se confunden los términos eutanasia y suicidio asistido (47.8 %). La edad y escolaridad resultaron de mayor influencia en los resultados, que las otras variables demográficas.

Abstract Introduction: Concepts related to end-of-life decisions, such as euthanasia, palliative care, advance directives and therapeutic obstinacy, are poorly understood by the general population, which, when facing a terminal situation, is not prepared to choose the best option. Objective: Pilot study (n = 544) to find out what the open population understands about terms used in end-of-life situations in four cities of the Mexican Republic. Method: Survey via Internet with 18 questions about different terms. It was a descriptive, cross-sectional study. Statistical analysis was carried out. Results: People older than 18 years who were not engaged in health-related professional activities were selected. Conclusions: Most terms related to end-of-life decisions were found not to be interesting to or understood by a part of the population. The least recognized term was therapeutic obstinacy (62.8%), and the most widely known, palliative care (91%); there was confusion between the terms euthanasia and assisted suicide (47.8%). Age and education level had more influence in the results, than other demographic variables.