Dataset Information

Sampling site for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-An intrapatient four-site comparison from Tampere, Finland.

ABSTRACT:

Background

SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis relies on the performance of nasopharyngeal swabs. Alternative sample sites have been assessed but the heterogeneity of the studies have made comparing different sites difficult.

Objectives

Our aim was to compare the performance of four different sampling sites for SARS-CoV-2 samples with nasopharynx being the benchmark.

Study design

COVID-19 positive patients were recruited prospectively, and samples were collected and analysed for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR from all four anatomical sites in 43 patients, who provided written informed consent.

Results

All anterior nasal and saliva samples were positive, while two oropharyngeal samples were negative. There was no significant difference in the cycle threshold values of nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal samples while saliva and oropharynx had higher cycle threshold values.

Conclusions

Anterior nasal swab performs as good as nasopharynx swab with saliva also finding all the positives but with higher cycle threshold values. Thus, we can conclude that anterior nasal swabs can be used for SARS-CoV-2 detection instead of nasopharyngeal swabs if the situation would require so.

SUBMITTER: Kerimov D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8594827 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sampling site for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-An intrapatient four-site comparison from Tampere, Finland.

Kerimov Dominik D Tamminen Pekka P Viskari Hanna H Lehtimäki Lauri L Aittoniemi Janne J

PloS one 20211116 11

<h4>Background</h4>SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis relies on the performance of nasopharyngeal swabs. Alternative sample sites have been assessed but the heterogeneity of the studies have made comparing different sites difficult.<h4>Objectives</h4>Our aim was to compare the performance of four different sampling sites for SARS-CoV-2 samples with nasopharynx being the benchmark.<h4>Study design</h4>COVID-19 positive patients were recruited prospectively, and samples were collected and analysed for SARS-CoV- ...[more]

PMID: 34784386

Similar Datasets

Project description:Most individuals acutely infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exhibit mild symptoms. However, 10 to 20% of those infected develop long-term symptoms, referred to as post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) condition (PCC). One hypothesis is that PCC might be exacerbated by viral persistence in tissue sanctuaries. Therefore, the accurate detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 are not only necessary for viral load monitoring but also crucial for detecting long-term viral persistence and determining whether viral replication is occurring in tissue reservoirs. In this study, the sensitivity and robustness of reverse transcription (RT)-droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and RT-quantitative PCR (qPCR) techniques have been compared for the detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 genomic and subgenomic RNAs from oropharyngeal swabs taken from confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive, SARS-CoV-2-exposed, and nonexposed individuals as well as from samples from mice infected with SARS-CoV-2. Our data demonstrated that both techniques presented equivalent results in the mid- and high-viral-load ranges. Additionally, RT-ddPCR was more sensitive than RT-qPCR in the low-viral-load range, allowing the accurate detection of positive results in individuals exposed to the virus. Overall, these data suggest that RT-ddPCR might be an alternative to RT-qPCR for detecting low viral loads in samples and for assessing viral persistence in samples from individuals with PCC. IMPORTANCE We developed one-step reverse transcription (RT)-droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) protocols to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA and compared them to the gold-standard RT-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) method. RT-ddPCR was more sensitive than RT-qPCR in the low-viral-load range, while both techniques were equivalent in the mid- and high-viral-load ranges. Overall, these results suggest that RT-ddPCR might be a viable alternative to RT-qPCR when it comes to detecting low viral loads in samples, which is a highly relevant issue for determining viral persistence in as-yet-unknown tissue reservoirs in individuals suffering from post-COVID conditions or long COVID.

Project description:BackgroundThe comparative performance of different clinical sampling methods for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-PCR among populations with suspected infection remains unclear. This meta-analysis aims to systematically compare the diagnostic performance of different clinical specimen collection methods.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, medRxiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, and Research Square from Jan 1, 2000, to Nov 16, 2020. We included original clinical studies that examined the performance of nasopharyngeal swabs and any additional respiratory specimens for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection among individuals presenting in ambulatory care. Studies without data on paired samples, or those that only examined different samples from confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases were not useful for examining diagnostic performance of a test and were excluded. Diagnostic performance, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, was examined using random effects models and double arcsine transformation.FindingsOf the 5577 studies identified in our search, 23 studies including 7973 participants with 16 762 respiratory samples were included. Respiratory specimens examined in these studies included 7973 nasopharyngeal swabs, 1622 nasal swabs, 6110 saliva samples, 338 throat swabs, and 719 pooled nasal and throat swabs. Using nasopharyngeal swabs as the gold standard, pooled nasal and throat swabs gave the highest sensitivity of 97% (95% CI 93-100), whereas lower sensitivities were achieved by saliva (85%, 75-93) and nasal swabs (86%, 77-93) and a much lower sensitivity by throat swabs (68%, 35-94). A comparably high positive predictive value was obtained by pooled nasal and throat (97%, 90-100) and nasal swabs (96%, 87-100) and a slightly lower positive predictive value by saliva (93%, 88-97). Throat swabs have the lowest positive predictive value of 75% (95% CI 45-96). Comparably high specificities (range 97-99%) and negative predictive value (range 95-99%) were observed among different clinical specimens. Comparison between health-care-worker collection and self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs showed comparable diagnostic performance. No significant heterogeneity was observed in the analysis of pooled nasal and throat swabs and throat swabs, whereas moderate to substantial heterogeneity (I2 ≥30%) was observed in studies on saliva and nasal swabs.InterpretationOur review suggests that, compared with the gold standard of nasopharyngeal swabs, pooled nasal and throat swabs offered the best diagnostic performance of the alternative sampling approaches for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in ambulatory care. Saliva and nasal swabs gave comparable and very good diagnostic performance and are clinically acceptable alternative specimen collection methods. Throat swabs gave a much lower sensitivity and positive predictive value and should not be recommended. Self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs was not associated with any significant impairment of diagnostic accuracy. Our results also provide a useful reference framework for the proper interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 testing results using different clinical specimens.FundingHong Kong Research Grants Council.

Dataset Information

Sampling site for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-An intrapatient four-site comparison from Tampere, Finland.

Background

Objectives

Study design

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Sampling site for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-An intrapatient four-site comparison from Tampere, Finland.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets