scholarly journals Viral Load, Detection Rate and Sensitivity of Nasopharyngeal and Oropharyngeal Swab Sampling for Diagnosis of COVID-19

2021 ◽  
pp. 35-50
Author(s):  
Eyzawiah Hassan ◽  
Nuralia Akma Mohamad Mustafa ◽  
Nor Azirah Salahuddin ◽  
Siti Asmat Md Arepen
Keyword(s):  
Viral Load ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Pcr Assay ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
Load Detection ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
Positive Rate ◽  
Oropharyngeal Swab

The rapid spread of the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a major public health crisis. Accurate screening methods for COVID-19 infection is essential and crucial for case detection, isolation, prevention and control of the current pandemic. At present, nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs are typically used as the method of choice for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We carried out a review on the accuracy of the two different sampling sites, the nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab sampling, focusing on the viral load, detection of positive cases and sensitivity in real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay in diagnosing COVID-19. A total of 25 articles related to the topic were selected out of 5221 articles searched online using Scopus, PubMed and Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Google scholar with the keywords  COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, nasopharyngeal swab, oropharyngeal swab, nasal swab and throat swab. All full text original articles were obtained and reviewed. Nasopharyngeal swab had significantly higher SARS-CoV-2 load than oropharyngeal swab (mean Ct value ranging from 24.3-37.8, higher detection of positive rate (highest rate 62.5%) and sensitivity (highest sensitivity 98.3%, P<0.05) in RT-PCR assay compared to oropharyngeal swab. Based on the scientific literature review, both nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs were reported to have 30% probability of yielding false negative results; thus clinically suspicious patients with negative results should be viewed with concern. In conclusion, although several methods of COVID-19 screening and type of specimen are available, nasopharyngeal swab is the best option for large scale screening as it yields significantly higher viral load, higher detection of positive rate among cases and higher sensitivity in RT-PCR assay compared to oropharyngeal swab in detecting SARS-CoV-2.

Scoring System for the Diagnosis of COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 413-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed Farouk Allam
Keyword(s):  
Scoring System ◽  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Pcr Assay ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
False Negative Results ◽  
Symptoms And Signs

Due to the international spread of COVID-19, the difficulty of collecting nasopharyngeal swab specimen from all suspected patients, the costs of RT-PCR and CT, and the false negative results of RT-PCR assay in 41% of COVID-19 patients, a scoring system is needed to classify the suspected patients in order to determine the need for follow-up, home isolation, quarantine or the conduction of further investigations. A scoring system is proposed as a diagnostic tool for suspected patients. It includes Epidemiological Evidence of Exposure, Clinical Symptoms and Signs, and Investigations (if available). This scoring system is simple, could be calculated in a few minutes, and incorporates the main possible data/findings of any patient.

scholarly journals Detection of SARS-CoV-2 using qRT-PCR in saliva obtained from asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 patients, comparative analysis with matched nasopharyngeal samples

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. e0252964
Author(s):  
Kenji Ota ◽  
Katsunori Yanagihara ◽  
Daisuke Sasaki ◽  
Norihito Kaku ◽  
Naoki Uno ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Viral Load ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome ◽  
Late Phase ◽  
Cruise Ship ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Load Detection ◽  
Qrt Pcr ◽  
Positive Rate ◽  
Rate Improvement

Objectives The accurate detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome–coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is essential for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We compared the quantitative RT-PCR results between nasopharyngeal swabs and saliva specimens. Methods A COVID-19 outbreak occurred on a cruise ship at Nagasaki port, Japan. We obtained 123 nasopharyngeal swabs and saliva each from asymptomatic or mild patients in the late phase of infection. Results The intervals from the diagnosis to the sampling were 25.5 days for nasopharyngeal swabs and 28.9 days for saliva. The positive rate was 19.5% (24/123) for nasopharyngeal swabs and 38.2% (47/123) for saliva (P = 0.48). The quantified viral copies (mean ± SEM copies/5 μl) were 9.3±2.6 in nasopharyngeal swabs and 920±850 in saliva (P = 0.0006). Conclusions The advantages of saliva specimens include positive rate improvement and accurate viral load detection. Saliva may be used as a reliable sample for SARS-CoV-2 detection.

scholarly journals Comparing The Viral Load of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Different Human Specimens

2020 ◽  
pp. 131-145
Author(s):  
Ali Hattem Hussain
Keyword(s):  
Viral Load ◽  
Rectal Swab ◽  
Throat Swab ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Threshold Value ◽  
Load Cycle ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Load Detection ◽  
Respiratory Specimens

This meta-analysis study analyzed the data of 47 recent studies with data related SARS-COV-2 viral load detection in different human specimens. 1099 patients were tested for SARS-COV-2 viral load using up to 19 different respiratory and non-respiratory specimens using RT-PCR by targeting different types of viral genes of which ORF1ab is the most commonly used target gene. 9909 specimens were taken from the patients. The mean of viral load cycle threshold value is 17.8 (±11.7), with a median of 15.95 with minimum value of 0.2 and a maximum value of 36.5. Nasopharyngeal swab has the highest positivity rate (90.5%) for viral load detection followed by Bronchoalveolar lavage, nasal swab, nasopharyngeal aspirate, throat swab and sputum. For the non-respiratory specimen, stool and rectal swab are most appropriate specimens followed by blood. The urine is not appropriate specimen for viral load detection due to very low sensitivity. The sputum was positive up to 23 days in a daily manner since start of symptoms except for the days 19, 21, and 23 that were negative for the virus. Three specimens, the nasopharyngeal swab, throat swab, and rectal swab, showed positive RT-PCR results before the appearance of COVID-19 clinical features.  Possible positive results can be present up to 43 days in throat swab, stool, and rectal swab. After negative conversion of respiratory specimens, the viral shedding can continue more than one month from stool and rectal swab. The 3rd day since onset of symptoms is the most day of testing (223/2935). The highest positivity of SARS-COV-2 viral load was recorded in day 16 since the onset of symptoms.              

Effective optimization of SARS-CoV-2 laboratory testing variables in an era of supply chain constraints

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (15) ◽  
pp. 1483-1487
Author(s):  
Nikhil S Sahajpal ◽  
Ashis K Mondal ◽  
Allan Njau ◽  
Sudha Ananth ◽  
Kimya Jones ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Rna Extraction ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Sample Collection ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Pcr Assay ◽  
Short Supply ◽  
Viral Transport ◽  
3D Printed ◽  
Bridging Studies

RT-PCR-based assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 have played an essential role in the current COVID-19 pandemic. However, the sample collection and test reagents are in short supply, primarily due to supply chain issues. Thus, to eliminate testing constraints, we have optimized three key process variables: RNA extraction and RT-PCR reactions, different sample types and media to facilitate SARS-CoV-2 testing. By performing various validation and bridging studies, we have shown that various sample types such as nasopharyngeal swab, bronchioalveolar lavage and saliva, collected using conventional nasopharyngeal swabs, ESwab or 3D-printed swabs and, preserved in viral transport media, universal transport media, 0.9% sodium chloride or Amies media are compatible with RT-PCR assay for COVID-19. Besides, the reduction of PCR reagents by up to fourfold also produces reliable results.

scholarly journals Is it enough for COVID-19 screening test? Limitation of swab test and general characteristics of mild symptom patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 104 (2) ◽  
pp. 003685042110261
Author(s):  
Sungwoo Choi ◽  
Hyo Jeong Choi ◽  
Ho Jung Kim
Keyword(s):  
Screening Test ◽  
Community Treatment ◽  
Upper Respiratory Tract ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Pcr Assay ◽  
Positive Rate ◽  
Upper Respiratory ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Discharge Criteria

The most common method for SARS-CoV-2 testing is throat or nasal swabbing by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay. In South Korea, drive-through swab test is used for screening system and community treatment centers (CTCs), which admit and treat confirmed COVID-19 patients with mild symptoms, are being used. This retrospective study was conducted on patients admitted to a CTC on March 6, 2020. A total of 313 patients were admitted. The nasal and throat swabs were collected from the upper respiratory tract, and a sputum test was performed to obtain lower respiratory samples. The positive rate of the first set of test, sputum test was higher than that of the swab test ( p = 0.011). In the second set of test, 1 week after the first ones, the rate of positive swab tests was relatively high ( p = 0.026). In the first set of test, 66 of 152 (43.4%) patients showed 24-h consecutive negative swab test results, when the sputum test results were considered together, that number fell to 29 patients (19.1%) ( p < 0.001). Also, in the second set of test, 63 of 164 (38.4%) patients met the discharge criteria only when the swab test was considered; that number fell to 30 (18.3%) when the sputum test results were also considered ( p < 0.001). Using the swab test alone is insufficient for screening test and discharge decision. Patients who may have positive result in the sputum test can be missed.

scholarly journals Performance of Self-Collected Saliva Testing Compared with Nasopharyngeal Swab Testing for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2

Viruses ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 895
Author(s):  
Florence Carrouel ◽  
Martine Valette ◽  
Hervé Perrier ◽  
Maude Bouscambert-Duchamp ◽  
Claude Dussart ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Viral Load ◽  
Quantitative Pcr ◽  
Statistical Analyses ◽  
Fair Agreement ◽  
Quantitative Detection ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Noninvasive Techniques ◽  
Concordance Probability ◽  
Salivary Test

The aim of this study was to determine whether self-collected pure saliva (SCPS) is comparable to nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs in the quantitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR in asymptomatic, mild patients with confirmed COVID-19. Thirty-one patients aged from 18 to 85 years were included between 9 June and 11 December 2020. A SCPS sample and a NP sample were taken for each patient. Quantitative PCR was performed to detect SARS-CoV-2 viral load. Results of SCPS vs NP samples testing were compared. Statistical analyses were performed. Viral load was significantly correlated (r = 0.72). The concordance probability was estimated at 73.3%. In symptomatic adults, SCPS performance was similar to that of NP swabs (Percent Agreement = 74.1%; p = 0.11). Thus, the salivary test based on pure oral saliva samples easily obtained by noninvasive techniques has a fair agreement with the nasopharyngeal one in asymptomatic, mild patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19.

scholarly journals Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-based rapid diagnostic kits in Pakistan: formulation of COVID-19 national testing strategy

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Umar Saeed ◽  
Sara Rizwan Uppal ◽  
Zahra Zahid Piracha ◽  
Azhar Rasheed ◽  
Zubair Aftab ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gold Standard ◽  
Injection Drug Users ◽  
Drug Users ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Negative Results

AbstractRapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 during pandemic enables timely treatment and prevention of COVID-19. Evaluating the accuracy and reliability of rapid diagnostic testing kits is crucial for surveillance and diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections in general population, injection drug users, multi-transfused populations, healthcare workers, prisoners, barbers and other high risk populations. The aim of this study was to evaluate performance and effectiveness of nasopharyngeal swab (NSP) and saliva based rapid antigen detection testing kits in comparison with USFDA approved triple target gold standard real-time polymerase chain reaction. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 33,000 COVID-19 suspected patients. From RT-PCR positive patients, nasopharyngeal swab (NSP) and saliva samples were obtained for evaluation of rapid COVID-19 testing kits (RDT). 100/33,000 (0.3%) of specimens were RT-PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2. Among RT-PCR positive, 62% were males, 34% were females, and 4% were children. The NSP-RDT (Lepu Medical China) analysis revealed 53% reactivity among males, 58% reactivity among females, and 25% reactivity among children. However saliva based RDT (Lepu Medical China) analysis showed 21% reactivity among males and 23% among females, and no reactivity in children. False negative results were significantly more pronounced in saliva based RDT as compared to NSP-RDT. The sensitivity of these NSP-RDT and saliva based RDT were 52% and 21% respectively. The RDTs evaluated in this study showed limited sensitivities in comparison to gold standard RT-PCR, indicating that there is a dire need in Pakistan for development of suitable testing to improve accurate COVID-19 diagnosis in line with national demands.

scholarly journals 549. Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients with COVID-19 treated with Convalescent Plasma in Miami, Florida

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S340-S341
Author(s):  
Shweta Anjan ◽  
Dimitra Skiada ◽  
Miriam Andrea Duque Cuartas ◽  
Douglas Salguero ◽  
David P Serota ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Options ◽  
Disease Outbreaks ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
Infectious Disease Outbreaks ◽  
Reactive Protein ◽  
High Acuity ◽  
Us Fda ◽  
Oxygen Requirements

Abstract Background The Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) global health crisis caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has resulted in unprecedented mortality, impacted society, and strained healthcare systems, yet sufficient data regarding treatment options are lacking. Convalescent plasma, used since 1895 for infectious disease outbreaks, offers promise as a treatment option for COVID-19. Methods This is a retrospective study of patients diagnosed by a nasopharyngeal swab SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), who received convalescent plasma between April to June 2020 at two large hospitals in Miami, Florida, as part of the US FDA Expanded Access Program for COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). Results A total of 23 patients received CCP, 13 (57%) had severe COVID-19 disease, while 8 (35%) had critical or critical with multiorgan dysfunction. Median time of follow up was 26 (range, 7–79) days. Overall, 11 (48%) survived to discharge, 6 (26%) died, while 6 (26%) are currently hospitalized. All deaths reported were due to septic shock from secondary infections. 15 (65%) showed improvement in oxygen requirements 7 days post CCP transfusion. Measured inflammatory markers, c-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin and d-dimer improved 7 days post transfusion in 13 (57%) patients. No adverse events due to the transfusion were reported. 10 (43.4%) patients had a negative SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR at a median of 14.5 (range, 4–31) days after receiving convalescent plasma. Conclusion Administration of convalescent plasma was found to be safe, with favorable outcomes in this small cohort of relatively high acuity patients. Larger studies including control arms are needed to establish the efficacy of convalescent plasma on clinical and virologic outcomes for patients with COVID-19. Table Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

scholarly journals Diagnosis of SARS-Cov-2 Infection by RT-PCR Using Specimens Other Than Naso- and Oropharyngeal Swabs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 363
Author(s):  
Vânia M. Moreira ◽  
Paulo Mascarenhas ◽  
Vanessa Machado ◽  
João Botelho ◽  
José João Mendes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Sample Collection ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Oropharyngeal Swab ◽  
Nucleic Acid Assays

The rapid and accurate testing of SARS-CoV-2 infection is still crucial to mitigate, and eventually halt, the spread of this disease. Currently, nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) are the recommended standard sampling techniques, yet, these have some limitations such as the complexity of collection. Hence, several other types of specimens that are easier to obtain are being tested as alternatives to nasal/throat swabs in nucleic acid assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection. This study aims to critically appraise and compare the clinical performance of RT-PCR tests using oral saliva, deep-throat saliva/posterior oropharyngeal saliva (DTS/POS), sputum, urine, feces, and tears/conjunctival swab (CS) against standard specimens (NPS, OPS, or a combination of both). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrial.gov and NIPH Clinical Trial) were searched up to the 30th of December, 2020. Case-control and cohort studies on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 were included. The methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS 2). We identified 1560 entries, 33 of which (1.1%) met all required criteria and were included for the quantitative data analysis. Saliva presented the higher accuracy, 92.1% (95% CI: 70.0–98.3), with an estimated sensitivity of 83.9% (95% CI: 77.4–88.8) and specificity of 96.4% (95% CI: 89.5–98.8). DTS/POS samples had an overall accuracy of 79.7% (95% CI: 43.3–95.3), with an estimated sensitivity of 90.1% (95% CI: 83.3–96.9) and specificity of 63.1% (95% CI: 36.8–89.3). The remaining index specimens could not be adequately assessed given the lack of studies available. Our meta-analysis shows that saliva samples from the oral region provide a high sensitivity and specificity; therefore, these appear to be the best candidates for alternative specimens to NPS/OPS in SARS-CoV-2 detection, with suitable protocols for swab-free sample collection to be determined and validated in the future. The distinction between oral and extra-oral salivary samples will be crucial, since DTS/POS samples may induce a higher rate of false positives. Urine, feces, tears/CS and sputum seem unreliable for diagnosis. Saliva testing may increase testing capacity, ultimately promoting the implementation of truly deployable COVID-19 tests, which could either work at the point-of-care (e.g. hospitals, clinics) or at outbreak control spots (e.g., schools, airports, and nursing homes).

scholarly journals Distribution of SARS-CoV-2 PCR Cycle Threshold Values Provide Practical Insight Into Overall and Target-Specific Sensitivity Among Symptomatic Patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 154 (4) ◽  
pp. 479-485 ◽  
Author(s):  
Blake W Buchan ◽  
Jessica S Hoff ◽  
Cameron G Gmehlin ◽  
Adriana Perez ◽  
Matthew L Faron ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Viral Load ◽  
Limit Of Detection ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Age Group ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Patient Age ◽  
Cycle Threshold ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
Patient Âgé ◽  
False Negative Results

Abstract Objectives We examined the distribution of reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) cycle threshold (CT) values obtained from symptomatic patients being evaluated for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to determine the proportion of specimens containing a viral load near the assay limit of detection (LoD) to gain practical insight to the risk of false-negative results. We also examined the relationship between CT value and patient age to determine any age-dependent difference in viral load or test sensitivity. Methods We collected CT values obtained from the cobas severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) assay corresponding to 1,213 combined nasopharyngeal-oropharyngeal specimens obtained from symptomatic individuals that were reported as positive or presumptive positive for SARS-CoV-2. CT values were stratified by SARS-CoV target and patient age group. Results In total, 93.3% to 98.4% of specimens demonstrated CT values greater than 3× the assay LoD, at which point false-negative results would not be expected. The mean of CT values between age groups was statistically equivalent with the exception of patients in age group 80 to 89 years, which demonstrated slightly lower CTs. Conclusions Based on the distribution of observed CT values, including the small proportion of specimens with values near the assay LoD, there is a low risk of false-negative RT-PCR results in combined nasopharyngeal-oropharyngeal specimens obtained from symptomatic individuals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document