Feasibility, performances and predictive value of congenital CMV neonatal screening on saliva swabs

IF 4 3区 医学 Q2 VIROLOGY
Vincent Portet Sulla , Barkwendé Kabore , Rana Rafek , Amal Chaghouri , Gwenaëlle Decombe , Julia Lubrano Di Ciccone , Lina Mouna , Emmanuelle Letamendia-Richard , Christelle Vauloup-Fellous
{"title":"Feasibility, performances and predictive value of congenital CMV neonatal screening on saliva swabs","authors":"Vincent Portet Sulla ,&nbsp;Barkwendé Kabore ,&nbsp;Rana Rafek ,&nbsp;Amal Chaghouri ,&nbsp;Gwenaëlle Decombe ,&nbsp;Julia Lubrano Di Ciccone ,&nbsp;Lina Mouna ,&nbsp;Emmanuelle Letamendia-Richard ,&nbsp;Christelle Vauloup-Fellous","doi":"10.1016/j.jcv.2024.105713","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Early diagnosis of congenital CMV infection (cCMVI) allows for early intervention and follow-up to detect delayed hearing loss. While CMV PCR in urine is the gold standard for cCMVI diagnosis, saliva testing is often performed.</p></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Our aim was to determine (i) if swab saliva sampling needed standardization, (ii) if a threshold value in “virus copies per million cells (Mc)” in saliva samples could improve clinical specificity, and (iii) to establish a correlation between viral load in saliva and symptomatology/outcome of cCMVI.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>In our institution, universal newborn screening is performed on saliva swabs at delivery or until day 3 of life. If positive, CMV PCR in urine is done within 2 weeks to confirm or exclude cCMVI.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Cell quantification showed that saliva swab sampling was well performed as 95.4 % samples had more than 100 cells/10 µL. There was a good correlation between saliva viral load in copies/mL and in copies/Mc (Pearson's <em>r</em> = 0.96, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.0001). However, threshold values, established to determine a viral load level at which we could confidently identify infected newborns, did not improve positive predictive value (21.8 % for copies/mL and 21 % for copies/Mc vs 25.4 % without threshold) but instead reduced sensitivity (88 % and 85% vs 100 % without threshold). Samples collected on day 2 or 3 had better positive predictive value (38.7 %) compared to those collected on day 1 (23.8 %). Symptomatology at birth was not significantly associated with viral load in saliva at diagnosis. However, sequelae occurrence was associated with viral load in saliva (copies/Mc).</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>Our results confirm that saliva swab is a suitable sample for universal neonatal screening. However, identifying newborns that will develop sequelae remains an issue in the management of cCMVI.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":15517,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Virology","volume":"174 ","pages":"Article 105713"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Virology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386653224000751","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VIROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Early diagnosis of congenital CMV infection (cCMVI) allows for early intervention and follow-up to detect delayed hearing loss. While CMV PCR in urine is the gold standard for cCMVI diagnosis, saliva testing is often performed.

Objectives

Our aim was to determine (i) if swab saliva sampling needed standardization, (ii) if a threshold value in “virus copies per million cells (Mc)” in saliva samples could improve clinical specificity, and (iii) to establish a correlation between viral load in saliva and symptomatology/outcome of cCMVI.

Materials and methods

In our institution, universal newborn screening is performed on saliva swabs at delivery or until day 3 of life. If positive, CMV PCR in urine is done within 2 weeks to confirm or exclude cCMVI.

Results

Cell quantification showed that saliva swab sampling was well performed as 95.4 % samples had more than 100 cells/10 µL. There was a good correlation between saliva viral load in copies/mL and in copies/Mc (Pearson's r = 0.96, p < 0.0001). However, threshold values, established to determine a viral load level at which we could confidently identify infected newborns, did not improve positive predictive value (21.8 % for copies/mL and 21 % for copies/Mc vs 25.4 % without threshold) but instead reduced sensitivity (88 % and 85% vs 100 % without threshold). Samples collected on day 2 or 3 had better positive predictive value (38.7 %) compared to those collected on day 1 (23.8 %). Symptomatology at birth was not significantly associated with viral load in saliva at diagnosis. However, sequelae occurrence was associated with viral load in saliva (copies/Mc).

Discussion

Our results confirm that saliva swab is a suitable sample for universal neonatal screening. However, identifying newborns that will develop sequelae remains an issue in the management of cCMVI.

利用唾液拭子对新生儿进行先天性巨细胞病毒筛查的可行性、性能和预测价值
背景先天性巨细胞病毒感染(cCMVI)的早期诊断有助于早期干预和随访,以发现迟发性听力损失。虽然尿液中的 CMV PCR 是诊断先天性巨细胞病毒感染的金标准,但唾液检测也经常使用。我们的目的是确定:(i) 唾液拭子取样是否需要标准化;(ii) 唾液样本中 "每百万细胞病毒拷贝数 (Mc) "的阈值是否能提高临床特异性;(iii) 建立唾液中病毒载量与先天性巨细胞病毒感染症状/结果之间的相关性。结果细胞定量分析显示,唾液拭子采样效果良好,95.4% 的样本细胞数超过 100 个/10 µL。以拷贝数/毫升为单位的唾液病毒载量与以拷贝数/微克为单位的唾液病毒载量之间存在良好的相关性(Pearson's r = 0.96, p < 0.0001)。然而,为确定病毒载量水平而设定的阈值并没有提高阳性预测值(拷贝数/毫升为 21.8 %,拷贝数/微克为 21 %,无阈值为 25.4 %),反而降低了灵敏度(拷贝数/毫升为 88 %,拷贝数/微克为 85 %,无阈值为 100 %)。与第 1 天采集的样本(23.8%)相比,第 2 天或第 3 天采集的样本具有更好的阳性预测值(38.7%)。出生时的症状与诊断时唾液中的病毒载量无明显关联。我们的结果证实,唾液拭子是新生儿普遍筛查的合适样本。我们的研究结果证实,唾液拭子是进行新生儿普遍筛查的合适样本,但如何识别会出现后遗症的新生儿仍是治疗卡马西平综合征的一个问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Virology
Journal of Clinical Virology 医学-病毒学
CiteScore
22.70
自引率
1.10%
发文量
149
审稿时长
24 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Virology, an esteemed international publication, serves as the official journal for both the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology and The European Society for Clinical Virology. Dedicated to advancing the understanding of human virology in clinical settings, the Journal of Clinical Virology focuses on disseminating research papers and reviews pertaining to the clinical aspects of virology. Its scope encompasses articles discussing diagnostic methodologies and virus-induced clinical conditions, with an emphasis on practicality and relevance to clinical practice. The journal publishes on topics that include: • new diagnostic technologies • nucleic acid amplification and serologic testing • targeted and metagenomic next-generation sequencing • emerging pandemic viral threats • respiratory viruses • transplant viruses • chronic viral infections • cancer-associated viruses • gastrointestinal viruses • central nervous system viruses • one health (excludes animal health)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信