Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in different types of clinical specimens among suspected COVID-19 patients in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Q2 Medicine
VirusDisease Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-09 DOI:10.1007/s13337-024-00892-9
Tadesse Lejisa, Rozina Ambachew, Demiraw Bikila, Chala Bashea, Abera Abdeta, Dawit Chala, Natnael Dejene, Habteyes Hailu Tola, Gadissa Bedada Hundie
{"title":"Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in different types of clinical specimens among suspected COVID-19 patients in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.","authors":"Tadesse Lejisa, Rozina Ambachew, Demiraw Bikila, Chala Bashea, Abera Abdeta, Dawit Chala, Natnael Dejene, Habteyes Hailu Tola, Gadissa Bedada Hundie","doi":"10.1007/s13337-024-00892-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although nasopharyngeal swabs (NPSs) are superior to saliva specimens, saliva can be used as an alternative specimen for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing. Moreover, studies have reported contradicting findings on whether SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in urine or not. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic utility of NPSs, saliva and urine specimens in suspected COVID-19 patients. We conducted a cross-sectional study among a total of 604 specimens collected from 219 individuals suspected for COVID-19 from February to July 2022. We recruited participants from two COVID-19 isolation and treatment centers in Addis Ababa. We analyzed the specimens by real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) with a Cobas 8800 automated system. The presence of SARS-CoV-2 in NPS, saliva, and urine samples was measured by cycle threshold (Ct) values. Descriptive statistics such as frequency, percent, and mean with standard deviation were used to summarize participants characteristics. We conducted chi-square test to compare RT‒PCR results of NPS, saliva and urine specimens. All data was analyzed by SPSS version 27, and the level of significance was set at a <i>p</i> value ≤ 0.05. Of the 219 participants, 126 (57.5%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 either from NPS, saliva, urine or all specimens. The rate of SARS-CoV-2 detection was significantly higher in NPS (53.9%) than in saliva (35.2%; <i>p</i> = 0.001) and urine (9.0%; <i>p</i> = 0.001) specimens. The percentage of positive agreement between NPS and saliva was 92.2%, while negative agreement was 66.9%. The overall agreement between NPS and saliva was 75.8% (K = 0.53, <i>p</i> < 0.001). In addition, there was a significant correlation in Ct values of both ORF1ab and E genes between the paired NPS and saliva specimens. There was significant positive correlation between NPS and saliva specimens Ct values of both ORF1ab and E genes and days from onset of symptoms to specimen collection. SARS-CoV-2 was significantly detected in NPS than in saliva and urine specimens. Although NPS is better for SARS-CoV-2 detection, saliva specimen can be used as an alternative clinical specimen in resource-limited settings where access to swabs is limited. Both saliva and urine could be sources of viral transmission.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13337-024-00892-9.</p>","PeriodicalId":23708,"journal":{"name":"VirusDisease","volume":"35 4","pages":"567-576"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11635055/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"VirusDisease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13337-024-00892-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although nasopharyngeal swabs (NPSs) are superior to saliva specimens, saliva can be used as an alternative specimen for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing. Moreover, studies have reported contradicting findings on whether SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in urine or not. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic utility of NPSs, saliva and urine specimens in suspected COVID-19 patients. We conducted a cross-sectional study among a total of 604 specimens collected from 219 individuals suspected for COVID-19 from February to July 2022. We recruited participants from two COVID-19 isolation and treatment centers in Addis Ababa. We analyzed the specimens by real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) with a Cobas 8800 automated system. The presence of SARS-CoV-2 in NPS, saliva, and urine samples was measured by cycle threshold (Ct) values. Descriptive statistics such as frequency, percent, and mean with standard deviation were used to summarize participants characteristics. We conducted chi-square test to compare RT‒PCR results of NPS, saliva and urine specimens. All data was analyzed by SPSS version 27, and the level of significance was set at a p value ≤ 0.05. Of the 219 participants, 126 (57.5%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 either from NPS, saliva, urine or all specimens. The rate of SARS-CoV-2 detection was significantly higher in NPS (53.9%) than in saliva (35.2%; p = 0.001) and urine (9.0%; p = 0.001) specimens. The percentage of positive agreement between NPS and saliva was 92.2%, while negative agreement was 66.9%. The overall agreement between NPS and saliva was 75.8% (K = 0.53, p < 0.001). In addition, there was a significant correlation in Ct values of both ORF1ab and E genes between the paired NPS and saliva specimens. There was significant positive correlation between NPS and saliva specimens Ct values of both ORF1ab and E genes and days from onset of symptoms to specimen collection. SARS-CoV-2 was significantly detected in NPS than in saliva and urine specimens. Although NPS is better for SARS-CoV-2 detection, saliva specimen can be used as an alternative clinical specimen in resource-limited settings where access to swabs is limited. Both saliva and urine could be sources of viral transmission.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13337-024-00892-9.

埃塞俄比亚亚的斯亚贝巴疑似COVID-19患者不同类型临床标本中SARS-CoV-2 RNA检测比较
虽然鼻咽拭子(nps)优于唾液标本,但唾液可作为严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2 (SARS-CoV-2)检测的替代标本。此外,关于尿液中是否可以检测到SARS-CoV-2,研究报告了相互矛盾的结果。因此,我们旨在评估nps、唾液和尿液标本对疑似COVID-19患者的诊断价值。我们对2022年2月至7月从219名COVID-19疑似病例中采集的604份标本进行了横断面研究。我们从亚的斯亚贝巴的两个COVID-19隔离和治疗中心招募了参与者。采用实时逆转录聚合酶链反应(RT-PCR), Cobas 8800自动检测系统对标本进行分析。通过循环阈值(Ct)值测量NPS、唾液和尿液样本中SARS-CoV-2的存在。描述性统计,如频率,百分比,平均值与标准差被用来总结参与者的特征。我们采用卡方检验比较NPS、唾液和尿液标本的RT-PCR结果。所有数据采用SPSS 27版分析,p值≤0.05。在219名参与者中,126人(57.5%)从NPS、唾液、尿液或所有标本中检测出SARS-CoV-2阳性。NPS中SARS-CoV-2检出率(53.9%)显著高于唾液(35.2%);P = 0.001)和尿(9.0%;P = 0.001)标本。NPS与唾液阳性率为92.2%,阴性阳性率为66.9%。NPS与唾液的总体一致性为75.8% (K = 0.53, p)。补充信息:在线版本包含补充资料,可在10.1007/s13337-024-00892-9获得。
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
VirusDisease
VirusDisease Medicine-Infectious Diseases
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: VirusDisease, formerly known as ''Indian Journal of Virology'', publishes original research on all aspects of viruses infecting animal, human, plant, fish and other living organisms.
×
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