Ada Aita, Daniela Basso, Anna Maria Cattelan, Paola Fioretto, Filippo Navaglia, Francesco Barbaro, Alice Stoppa, Enrico Coccorullo, Assunta Farella, Aurora Socal, Roberto Vettor, Mario Plebani
{"title":"唾液中SARS-CoV-2的鉴定和IgA抗体:一样两检诊断方法","authors":"Ada Aita, Daniela Basso, Anna Maria Cattelan, Paola Fioretto, Filippo Navaglia, Francesco Barbaro, Alice Stoppa, Enrico Coccorullo, Assunta Farella, Aurora Socal, Roberto Vettor, Mario Plebani","doi":"10.1016/j.cca.2020.09.018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aims to verify whether standardized saliva collection is suitable for SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection and IgA measurement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>43 COVID-19 inpatients and 326 screening subjects underwent naso-pharyngeal (NP)-swab and saliva collection (Salivette). Inpatients also underwent repeated blood collections to evaluate inflammation and organs involvement. In all patients and subjects, SARS-CoV-2 (gene E) rRT-PCR was undertaken in saliva and NP-swabs. Salivary IgA and serum IgA, IgG, IgM were measured on inpatients' samples.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>NP-swabs and saliva were both SARS-CoV-2 positive in 7 (16%) or both negative in 35 (82%) out of 43 patients successfully included in the study. NP-swabs and saliva results did not perfectly match in one patient (saliva positive, NP-swab negative). Positive molecular results were significantly associated with disease duration (p = 0.0049). 326/326 screening subjects were SARS-CoV-2 negative on both NP-swabs and saliva. Among the 27 saliva samples tested for IgA, 18 were IgA positive. Salivary IgA positivity was associated with pneumonia (p = 0.002) and CRP values (p = 0.0183), not with other clinical and molecular data, or with serum immunoglubulins.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A standardized saliva collection can be adopted to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection in alternative to NP-swabs. Preliminary data on salivary IgA support the use of saliva also for patient monitoring.</p>","PeriodicalId":504940,"journal":{"name":"Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry","volume":" ","pages":"717-722"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.cca.2020.09.018","citationCount":"56","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"SARS-CoV-2 identification and IgA antibodies in saliva: One sample two tests approach for diagnosis.\",\"authors\":\"Ada Aita, Daniela Basso, Anna Maria Cattelan, Paola Fioretto, Filippo Navaglia, Francesco Barbaro, Alice Stoppa, Enrico Coccorullo, Assunta Farella, Aurora Socal, Roberto Vettor, Mario Plebani\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cca.2020.09.018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aims to verify whether standardized saliva collection is suitable for SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection and IgA measurement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>43 COVID-19 inpatients and 326 screening subjects underwent naso-pharyngeal (NP)-swab and saliva collection (Salivette). Inpatients also underwent repeated blood collections to evaluate inflammation and organs involvement. In all patients and subjects, SARS-CoV-2 (gene E) rRT-PCR was undertaken in saliva and NP-swabs. Salivary IgA and serum IgA, IgG, IgM were measured on inpatients' samples.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>NP-swabs and saliva were both SARS-CoV-2 positive in 7 (16%) or both negative in 35 (82%) out of 43 patients successfully included in the study. NP-swabs and saliva results did not perfectly match in one patient (saliva positive, NP-swab negative). Positive molecular results were significantly associated with disease duration (p = 0.0049). 326/326 screening subjects were SARS-CoV-2 negative on both NP-swabs and saliva. Among the 27 saliva samples tested for IgA, 18 were IgA positive. Salivary IgA positivity was associated with pneumonia (p = 0.002) and CRP values (p = 0.0183), not with other clinical and molecular data, or with serum immunoglubulins.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A standardized saliva collection can be adopted to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection in alternative to NP-swabs. Preliminary data on salivary IgA support the use of saliva also for patient monitoring.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":504940,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"717-722\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.cca.2020.09.018\",\"citationCount\":\"56\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2020.09.018\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/9/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2020.09.018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/9/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
SARS-CoV-2 identification and IgA antibodies in saliva: One sample two tests approach for diagnosis.
Aim: This study aims to verify whether standardized saliva collection is suitable for SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection and IgA measurement.
Methods: 43 COVID-19 inpatients and 326 screening subjects underwent naso-pharyngeal (NP)-swab and saliva collection (Salivette). Inpatients also underwent repeated blood collections to evaluate inflammation and organs involvement. In all patients and subjects, SARS-CoV-2 (gene E) rRT-PCR was undertaken in saliva and NP-swabs. Salivary IgA and serum IgA, IgG, IgM were measured on inpatients' samples.
Results: NP-swabs and saliva were both SARS-CoV-2 positive in 7 (16%) or both negative in 35 (82%) out of 43 patients successfully included in the study. NP-swabs and saliva results did not perfectly match in one patient (saliva positive, NP-swab negative). Positive molecular results were significantly associated with disease duration (p = 0.0049). 326/326 screening subjects were SARS-CoV-2 negative on both NP-swabs and saliva. Among the 27 saliva samples tested for IgA, 18 were IgA positive. Salivary IgA positivity was associated with pneumonia (p = 0.002) and CRP values (p = 0.0183), not with other clinical and molecular data, or with serum immunoglubulins.
Conclusions: A standardized saliva collection can be adopted to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection in alternative to NP-swabs. Preliminary data on salivary IgA support the use of saliva also for patient monitoring.