RESUMEN
In the pandemic, rapid and accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 is crucial in controlling the outbreak. Recent studies have shown a high detection rate using saliva/oral fluids as specimens for laboratory detection of the virus. We intended to evaluate the test performance of the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 cartridge assay in comparison to a conventional qRT-PCR testing, using saliva as biological specimen. Forty saliva samples from symptomatic participants were collected. Conventional qRT-PCR was performed for amplification of E and RdRp genes and the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay amplified E and N2 genes. In the conventional assay, the median cycle threshold value of the E gene was 34.9, and of the RdRp gene was 38.3. In the Xpert Xpress assay, the median cycle threshold value of the E gene was 29.7, and of the N2 gene was 31.6. These results can allow a broaden use of molecular tests for management of COVID-19 pandemic, especially in resources-limited settings.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Prueba de COVID-19 , Técnicas de Laboratorio Clínico , Humanos , Nasofaringe , Pandemias , Reacción en Cadena de la Polimerasa , Saliva , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Manejo de EspecímenesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (qRT-PCR) of respiratory specimens is the gold standard test for detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, collecting nasopharyngeal swabs causes discomfort to patients and may represent considerable risk for healthcare workers. The use of saliva as a diagnostic sample has several advantages. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to validate the use of saliva as a biological sample for diagnosis of COVID-19. METHODS: This study was conducted at Infectious Diseases Research Laboratory (LAPI), in Salvador, Brazil. Participants presenting with signs/symptoms suggesting SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and/or oropharyngeal swab (OPS), and saliva collection. Saliva samples were diluted in PBS, followed by RNA isolation and RT-Real Time PCR for SARS-CoV-2. Results of conventional vs saliva samples testing were compared. Statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software (SPSS) version 18.0. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-five participants were recruited and samples pairs of NPS/OPS and saliva were collected. The sensitivity and specificity of RT-PCR using saliva samples were 94.4% (95% CI 86.4-97.8) and 97.62% (95% CI 91.7-99.3), respectively. There was an overall high agreement (96.1%) between the two tests. CONCLUSIONS: Use of self-collected saliva samples is an easy, convenient, and low-cost alternative to conventional NP swab-based molecular tests. These results may allow a broader use of molecular tests for management of COVID19 pandemic, especially in resources-limited settings.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones por Coronavirus , Pandemias , Neumonía Viral , Betacoronavirus , Brasil , COVID-19 , Técnicas de Laboratorio Clínico , Infecciones por Coronavirus/epidemiología , Humanos , Neumonía Viral/epidemiología , SARS-CoV-2 , SalivaRESUMEN
ABSTRACT Introduction: COVID-19 can trigger different clinical presentations in distinct population groups, some of which are considered at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Little is known about the susceptibility of certain populations to the infection. Objectives: We aimed to determine the prevalence of COVID-19 among People Living With HIV/AIDS (PLWH) attending a tertiary public hospital in Salvador, Brazil, patients with active pulmonary tuberculosis and Hospital's Healthcare Workers (HCW), and to compare their SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels. Methods: In this observational study we included 2294 participants from June 9, 2020 to August 10, 2021. IgG SARS-CoV-2 antibodies from all participants (275 PLWH, 42 with active tuberculosis and 1977 healthcare workers) were measured. Prevalence of COVID-19 and antibodies indexes were compared across groups. Results: We detected a higher prevalence of COVID-19 in patients with active tuberculosis (42.9%) than in PLWH (22.5%) or HCW (11.7%). Previously vaccinated participants with a COVID-19 history had median higher IgG antibody indexes (8.2; IQR: 5.5-10) than those vaccinated who did not have COVID-19 until the time of this study (4.1; IQR: 1.6-6.2, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Prevalence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was higher among tuberculosis patients than that found in HCW and PLWH, but antibodies levels were similar across groups.
RESUMEN
ABSTRACT In the pandemic, rapid and accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 is crucial in controlling the outbreak. Recent studies have shown a high detection rate using saliva/oral fluids as specimens for laboratory detection of the virus. We intended to evaluate the test performance of the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 cartridge assay in comparison to a conventional qRT-PCR testing, using saliva as biological specimen. Forty saliva samples from symptomatic participants were collected. Conventional qRT-PCR was performed for amplification of E and RdRp genes and the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay amplified E and N2 genes. In the conventional assay, the median cycle threshold value of the E gene was 34.9, and of the RdRp gene was 38.3. In the Xpert Xpress assay, the median cycle threshold value of the E gene was 29.7, and of the N2 gene was 31.6. These results can allow a broaden use of molecular tests for management of COVID-19 pandemic, especially in resources-limited settings.