社区环境中自采唾液样本在SARS-CoV-2大规模检测中的应用

IF 1.6 Q4 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Olivia Kay , Matthias E Futschik , Elena Turek , David Chapman , Simon Carr , Malur Sudhanva , Paul E. Klapper , Tony Cox , Michael Hill , Joanna Cole-Hamilton , Peter Marks , Sarah A Tunkel , Timothy Peto , Lindsey Davies , Tom Fowler
{"title":"社区环境中自采唾液样本在SARS-CoV-2大规模检测中的应用","authors":"Olivia Kay ,&nbsp;Matthias E Futschik ,&nbsp;Elena Turek ,&nbsp;David Chapman ,&nbsp;Simon Carr ,&nbsp;Malur Sudhanva ,&nbsp;Paul E. Klapper ,&nbsp;Tony Cox ,&nbsp;Michael Hill ,&nbsp;Joanna Cole-Hamilton ,&nbsp;Peter Marks ,&nbsp;Sarah A Tunkel ,&nbsp;Timothy Peto ,&nbsp;Lindsey Davies ,&nbsp;Tom Fowler","doi":"10.1016/j.jcvp.2023.100161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Saliva has been considered a suitable sample material for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA testing, but uncertainty remained regarding sensitivity and reliability of different saliva collection methods.</p></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>This study aimed to investigate the potential utility of expectorated saliva (ES) and drooled saliva (DS) for community mass testing.</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>Self-collected ES and DS samples were obtained in a prospective cohort study with 2,878 participants. The utility of saliva for SARS-CoV-2 qRT-PCR testing was assessed by comparing the capacity to detect SARS-CoV-2 positive cases with results for self-collected combined throat and nose (CTN) swabs. Additionally, quantification cycle (Cq) values were compared.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>ES- and DS-based tests showed the same high level of concordance (98% vs 98%) with CTN swab-based results. Sensitivity was higher for DS (94%) than for ES (83%) or CTN swab (90%) but differences were statistically not significant. Comparing only symptomatic cases, however, a significantly higher sensitivity of DS (96%) than of ES (76%) or CTN swab (91%) was observed. Cq values of saliva and swab specimen were significantly correlated and appeared to be not impacted by age or other potentially confounding factors.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing showed high diagnostic accuracy and can be considered an alternative where swabbing may not be tolerated or operationally feasible. DS yielded the same or better diagnostic performance compared to ES and may present a preferred option with reduced aerosol risk and increased compliance.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73673,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical virology plus","volume":"3 3","pages":"Article 100161"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance of self-collected saliva samples for SARS-CoV-2 mass testing in community settings\",\"authors\":\"Olivia Kay ,&nbsp;Matthias E Futschik ,&nbsp;Elena Turek ,&nbsp;David Chapman ,&nbsp;Simon Carr ,&nbsp;Malur Sudhanva ,&nbsp;Paul E. Klapper ,&nbsp;Tony Cox ,&nbsp;Michael Hill ,&nbsp;Joanna Cole-Hamilton ,&nbsp;Peter Marks ,&nbsp;Sarah A Tunkel ,&nbsp;Timothy Peto ,&nbsp;Lindsey Davies ,&nbsp;Tom Fowler\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcvp.2023.100161\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Saliva has been considered a suitable sample material for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA testing, but uncertainty remained regarding sensitivity and reliability of different saliva collection methods.</p></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>This study aimed to investigate the potential utility of expectorated saliva (ES) and drooled saliva (DS) for community mass testing.</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>Self-collected ES and DS samples were obtained in a prospective cohort study with 2,878 participants. The utility of saliva for SARS-CoV-2 qRT-PCR testing was assessed by comparing the capacity to detect SARS-CoV-2 positive cases with results for self-collected combined throat and nose (CTN) swabs. Additionally, quantification cycle (Cq) values were compared.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>ES- and DS-based tests showed the same high level of concordance (98% vs 98%) with CTN swab-based results. Sensitivity was higher for DS (94%) than for ES (83%) or CTN swab (90%) but differences were statistically not significant. Comparing only symptomatic cases, however, a significantly higher sensitivity of DS (96%) than of ES (76%) or CTN swab (91%) was observed. Cq values of saliva and swab specimen were significantly correlated and appeared to be not impacted by age or other potentially confounding factors.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing showed high diagnostic accuracy and can be considered an alternative where swabbing may not be tolerated or operationally feasible. DS yielded the same or better diagnostic performance compared to ES and may present a preferred option with reduced aerosol risk and increased compliance.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73673,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical virology plus\",\"volume\":\"3 3\",\"pages\":\"Article 100161\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical virology plus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667038023000285\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical virology plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667038023000285","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景唾液一直被认为是严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2型(SARS-CoV-2)RNA检测的合适样本材料,但不同唾液采集方法的敏感性和可靠性仍存在不确定性。目的本研究旨在探讨吐口水(ES)和流口水(DS)在社区大规模检测中的潜在效用。研究设计自采ES和DS样本是在一项有2878名参与者的前瞻性队列研究中获得的。唾液用于严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒2型qRT-PCR检测的效用是通过比较检测严重急性呼吸系冠状病毒2型阳性病例的能力和自行收集的咽鼻联合拭子(CTN)的结果来评估的。此外,还比较了定量周期(Cq)值。结果基于ES和DS的测试显示出与基于CTN拭子的结果相同的高度一致性(98%对98%)。DS(94%)的敏感性高于ES(83%)或CTN拭子(90%),但差异无统计学意义。然而,仅比较有症状的病例,观察到DS(96%)的敏感性明显高于ES(76%)或CTN拭子(91%)。唾液和拭子样本的Cq值显著相关,似乎不受年龄或其他潜在混杂因素的影响。结论基于唾液的严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒2型RNA检测显示出较高的诊断准确性,可以被认为是一种替代方法,在这种情况下,拭子可能不耐受或操作不可行。与ES相比,DS具有相同或更好的诊断性能,并且可能是降低气溶胶风险和提高依从性的首选方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Performance of self-collected saliva samples for SARS-CoV-2 mass testing in community settings

Background

Saliva has been considered a suitable sample material for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA testing, but uncertainty remained regarding sensitivity and reliability of different saliva collection methods.

Objectives

This study aimed to investigate the potential utility of expectorated saliva (ES) and drooled saliva (DS) for community mass testing.

Study design

Self-collected ES and DS samples were obtained in a prospective cohort study with 2,878 participants. The utility of saliva for SARS-CoV-2 qRT-PCR testing was assessed by comparing the capacity to detect SARS-CoV-2 positive cases with results for self-collected combined throat and nose (CTN) swabs. Additionally, quantification cycle (Cq) values were compared.

Results

ES- and DS-based tests showed the same high level of concordance (98% vs 98%) with CTN swab-based results. Sensitivity was higher for DS (94%) than for ES (83%) or CTN swab (90%) but differences were statistically not significant. Comparing only symptomatic cases, however, a significantly higher sensitivity of DS (96%) than of ES (76%) or CTN swab (91%) was observed. Cq values of saliva and swab specimen were significantly correlated and appeared to be not impacted by age or other potentially confounding factors.

Conclusions

Saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing showed high diagnostic accuracy and can be considered an alternative where swabbing may not be tolerated or operationally feasible. DS yielded the same or better diagnostic performance compared to ES and may present a preferred option with reduced aerosol risk and increased compliance.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of clinical virology plus
Journal of clinical virology plus Infectious Diseases
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
66 days
×
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