Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
J Clin Virol Plus ; 2(4): 100109, 2022 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2273286

ABSTRACT

The Omicron emerged in November 2021 and became the predominant SARS-CoV-2 variant globally. It spreads more rapidly than ancestral lineages and its rapid detection is critical for the prevention of disease outbreaks. Antigen tests such as immunochromatographic assay (ICA) and chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLEIA) yield results more quickly than standard polymerase chain reaction (PCR). However, their utility for the detection of the Omicron variant remains unclear. We herein evaluated the performance of ICA and CLEIA in saliva from 51 patients with Omicron and 60 PCR negative individuals. The sensitivity and specificity of CLEIA were 98.0% (95%CI: 89.6-100.0%) and 100.0% (95%CI: 94.0-100.0%), respectively, with fine correlation with cycle threshold (Ct) values. The sensitivity and specificity of ICA were 58.8% (95%CI: 44.2-72.4%) and 100.0% (95%CI: 94.0-100.0%), respectively. The sensitivity of ICA was 100.0% (95%CI: 80.5-100.0%) when PCR Ct was less than 25. The Omicron can be efficiently detected in saliva by CLEIA. ICA also detects high viral load Omicron using saliva.

2.
Infect Dis Rep ; 13(3): 742-747, 2021 Aug 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1374333

ABSTRACT

The rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 is critical for the prevention of disease outbreaks. Antigen tests such as immunochromatographic assay (ICA) and chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLEIA) can yield results more quickly than PCR. We evaluated the performance of ICA and CLEIA using 34 frozen PCR-positive (17 saliva samples and 17 nasopharyngeal swabs [NPS]) and 309 PCR-negative samples. ICA detected SARS-CoV-2 in only 14 (41%) samples, with positivity rates of 24% in saliva and 59% in NPS. Notably, ICA detected SARS-CoV-2 in 5 of 6 samples collected within 4 days after symptom onset. CLEIA detected SARS-CoV-2 in 31 (91%) samples, with a positivity of 82% in saliva and 100% in NPS. These results suggest that the use of ICA should be limited to an earlier time after symptom onset and CLEIA is more sensitive and can be used in situations where quick results are required.

3.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(3): e559-e565, 2021 08 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1338669

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly evolved to become a global pandemic, largely owing to the transmission of its causative virus through asymptomatic carriers. Detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in asymptomatic people is an urgent priority for the prevention and containment of disease outbreaks in communities. However, few data are available in asymptomatic persons regarding the accuracy of polymerase chain reaction testing. In addition, although self-collected saliva samples have significant logistical advantages in mass screening, their utility as an alternative specimen in asymptomatic persons is yet to be determined. METHODS: We conducted a mass screening study to compare the utility of nucleic acid amplification, such as reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction testing, using nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and saliva samples from each individual in 2 cohorts of asymptomatic persons: the contact-tracing cohort and the airport quarantine cohort. RESULTS: In this mass screening study including 1924 individuals, the sensitivities of nucleic acid amplification testing with NPS and saliva specimens were 86% (90% credible interval, 77%-93%) and 92% (83%-97%), respectively, with specificities >99.9%. The true concordance probability between the NPS and saliva tests was estimated at 0.998 (90% credible interval, .996-.999) given the recent airport prevalence of 0.3%. In individuals testing positive, viral load was highly correlated between NPS and saliva specimens. CONCLUSION: Both NPS and saliva specimens had high sensitivity and specificity. Self-collected saliva specimens are valuable for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in mass screening of asymptomatic persons.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Mass Screening , Saliva , Specimen Handling
4.
Lancet Microbe ; 2(8): e397-e404, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1233658

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Quantitative RT-PCR (RT-qPCR) of nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection requires medical personnel and is time consuming, and thus is poorly suited to mass screening. In June, 2020, a chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLEIA; Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag kit, Fujirebio, Tokyo, Japan) was developed that can detect SARS-CoV-2 nucleoproteins in NPS or saliva samples within 35 min. In this study, we assessed the utility of CLEIA in mass SARS-CoV-2 screening. METHODS: We did a diagnostic accuracy study to develop a mass-screening strategy for salivary detection of SARS-CoV-2 by CLEIA, enrolling hospitalised patients with clinically confirmed COVID-19, close contacts identified at community health centres, and asymptomatic international arrivals at two airports, all based in Japan. All test participants were enrolled consecutively. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of CLEIA compared with RT-qPCR, estimated according to concordance (Kendall's coefficient of concordance, W), and sensitivity (probability of CLEIA positivity given RT-qPCR positivity) and specificity (probability of CLEIA negativity given RT-qPCR negativity) for different antigen concentration cutoffs (0·19 pg/mL, 0·67 pg/mL, and 4·00 pg/mL; with samples considered positive if the antigen concentration was equal to or more than the cutoff and negative if it was less than the cutoff). We also assessed a two-step testing strategy post hoc with CLEIA as an initial test, using separate antigen cutoff values for test negativity and positivity from the predefined cutoff values. The proportion of intermediate results requiring secondary RT-qPCR was then quantified assuming prevalence values of RT-qPCR positivity in the overall tested population of 10%, 30%, and 50%. FINDINGS: Self-collected saliva was obtained from 2056 participants between June 12 and Aug 6, 2020. Results of CLEIA and RT-qPCR were concordant in 2020 (98·2%) samples (Kendall's W=0·99). Test sensitivity was 85·4% (76 of 89 positive samples; 90% credible interval [CrI] 78·0-90·3) at the cutoff of 0·19 pg/mL; 76·4% (68 of 89; 68·2-82·8) at the cutoff of 0·67 pg/mL; and 52·8% (47 of 89; 44·1-61·3) at the cutoff of 4·0 pg/mL. Test specificity was 91·3% (1796 of 1967 negative samples; 90% CrI 90·2-92·3) at the cutoff of 0·19 pg/mL, 99·2% (1952 of 1967; 98·8-99·5) at the cutoff of 0·67 pg/mL, and 100·0% (1967 of 1967; 99·8-100·0) at the cutoff of 4·00 pg/mL. Using a two-step testing strategy with a CLEIA negativity cutoff of 0·19 pg/mL (to maximise sensitivity) and a CLEIA positivity cutoff of 4·00 pg/mL (to maximise specificity), the proportions of indeterminate results (ie, samples requiring secondary RT-qPCR) would be approximately 11% assuming a prevalence of RT-qPCR positivity of 10%, 16% assuming a prevalence of RT-qPCR positivity of 30%, and 21% assuming a prevalence of RT-qPCR positivity of 50%. INTERPRETATION: CLEIA testing of self-collected saliva is simple and provides results quickly, and is thus suitable for mass testing. To improve accuracy, we propose a two-step screening strategy with an initial CLEIA test followed by confirmatory RT-qPCR for intermediate concentrations, varying positive and negative thresholds depending on local prevalence. Implementation of this strategy has expedited sample processing at Japanese airports since July, 2020, and might apply to other large-scale mass screening initiatives. FUNDING: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnosis , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Saliva , Sensitivity and Specificity
5.
J Infect Chemother ; 27(2): 410-412, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-894033

ABSTRACT

Rapid and simple point-of-care detection of SARS-CoV-2 is an urgent need to prevent pandemic. Reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) can detect SARS-CoV-2 more rapidly than RT-PCR. Saliva is non-invasive specimen suitable for mass-screening, but data comparing utility of nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and saliva in RT-LAMP test are lacking and it remains unclear whether SARS-CoV-2 could be detected by direct processing of samples without the need for prior RNA extraction saliva. In this study, we compared utility of saliva and NPS samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by a novel RT-fluorescence LAMP (RT-fLAMP). The sensitivity and specificity of the RT-fLAMP with RNA extraction were 97% and 100%, respectively, with equivalent utility of NPS and saliva. However, sensitivity was decreased to 71% and 47% in NPS and saliva samples without RNA extraction, respectively, suggesting that RNA extraction process may be critical for the virus detection by RT-fLAMP.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/methods , Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques/methods , RNA, Viral/isolation & purification , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Fluorescence , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , Nasopharynx/virology , Point-of-Care Systems , RNA, Viral/analysis , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Saliva/virology , Sensitivity and Specificity
6.
Int J Infect Dis ; 98: 16-17, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-624246

ABSTRACT

Rapid detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is critical for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and preventing the spread of the virus. A novel detection kit - the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Detection Kit (nCoV-DK) - halves the detection time by eliminating the steps of RNA extraction and purification. We evaluated the concordance between the nCoV-DK and direct PCR. The virus was detected in 53/71 specimens (74.6%) by direct PCR and in 55/71 specimens (77.5%) by nCoV-DK; the overall concordance rate was 94.4%: 95.2% for nasopharyngeal swab, 95.5% for saliva, and 85.7% for sputum. The nCoV-DK test effectively detects SARS-CoV-2 in all types of sample including saliva, while reducing the time required for detection, labor, and the risk of human error.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/genetics , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Diagnostic Tests, Routine/methods , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , Pandemics , Polymerase Chain Reaction , RNA, Viral/isolation & purification , SARS-CoV-2 , Saliva/virology , Sputum/virology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL