Comparative study of SmartAmp assay and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction by saliva specimen for the diagnosing COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The pandemic of a novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by a severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has been problematic worldwide. A new SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test (SmartAmp) was licensed in Japan in July 2021. This method, which enables us to diagnose COVID-19 as well as a gene mutation on the virus, is promising to reduce medical costs and staff labor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To analyze the diagnostic accuracy of the SmartAmp assay for diagnosing COVID-19, we performed this retrospective study at our institute during April and May 2021. We compared the results of the SmartAmp assay and real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) using a saliva sample from individuals suspected as having COVID-19. RESULTS: Out of 70 samples tested, the SmartAmp assay had 50 (71%) positive and 20 (29%) negative results. Using rRT-PCR as a reference, the diagnostic accuracy displayed a sensitivity of 84%, a specificity of 95%, a positive predictive value of 97.7%, and a negative predictive value of 70.4%. On the other hand, false-negative cases were found in 7 (10%), and there was no significant difference of Ct-value between true positive and false negative cases (Mean Ct-value 25.2 vs. 27.5 cycles, p = 0.226 by Mann-Whitney U test). CONCLUSION: The SmartAmp assay is a valuable method to diagnose COVID-19 rapidly. However, the negative predictive value is not high enough to diagnose the disease, so that negative results should be considered for rRT-PCR testing if patients are suspected of having COVID-19.

Efficacy and validity of automated quantitative chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay for SARS-CoV-2 antigen test from saliva specimen in the diagnosis of COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The pandemic of a novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by a severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has been problematic worldwide. A new SARS-CoV-2 antigen test (LUMIPULSEⓇ) was licensed and widely used in Japan since May 2020. We conducted this study intending to whether the automated quantitative CLEIA antigen test using a saliva sample is effective and valid for the diagnosis of COVID-19. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed and compared the diagnostic accuracy of both the automated quantitative CLEIA antigen test and real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR) using a saliva sample from individuals suspected as having COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 305 samples were collected and tested in Aichi Medical University Hospital and affiliated facilities from December 2020 until January 2021 at our institute. Using reverse-transcription PCR as a reference, the AUROC of the automated quantitative CLEIA antigen test was 0.903 (95% confidential interval 0.845-0.962, p < 0.001). The appropriate cut-off antigen level was 4.0 pg/mL and had a sensitivity of 77.8%, a specificity of 99.6%, a positive predictive value of 98%, and a negative predictive value of 94.5%. On the other hand, the diagnostic accuracy of the antigen test decreased among patients among patients with COVID-19 with threshold cycle (Ct-value)≥27, which shows the AUROC was 0.795 (95%CI 0.687-0.907, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: While the automated quantitative CLEIA antigen test from saliva specimen could be one of the most useful diagnostic tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in general practice, clinicians should know the limitations of the antigen test.

Comparative evaluation of nasopharyngeal swab and saliva specimens for the molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Japanese patients with COVID-19.

Considering the issues of shortage of medical resources and the invasiveness and infection risk involved in the collection of nasopharyngeal swab specimens, there is a need for an effective alternative test specimen for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection. Here, we investigated suitability of saliva as a non-invasively obtained specimen for molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Japanese patients with COVID-19. In total, 28 paired clinical specimens of saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from 12 patients at various time points after symptom onset. Each specimen was assayed using reverse transcription real-time polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) on the BD MAX open system using primers and probes targeting the N-gene. The saliva and nasopharyngeal swab specimens showed 19 and 15 positive results, respectively. No invalid (PCR inhibition) result was observed for any specimen. The qualitative results of each specimen obtained in the period immediately after symptom onset were similar. Three convalescent patients presented saliva-positive results, whereas their nasopharyngeal swabs were negative at four different time points, suggesting that saliva may be superior to nasopharyngeal swabs in terms of obtaining stable assay result of SARS-CoV-2. In conclusion, our results suggest that saliva can potentially serve as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs as a specimen for SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR. As saliva can be collected by patients themselves, it may be an effective way to overcome the shortage of personal protective equipment and specimen sampling tools.

Could threshold cycle value correctly reflect the severity of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)?

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is diagnosed by positive result of reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for the novel coronavirus. We concluded that cycle threshold value (Ct-value) of real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR) assay could decrease as patients recover. Results of rRT-PCR assay could remain positive among asymptomatic patients for longer than 2 weeks. The discharge criteria of COVID-19 patients using a negative result of rRT-PCR should be reconsidered.