ABSTRACT
Rapid identification of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals is a cornerstone for the control of virus spread. The sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection by RT-PCR is similar in saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs. Rapid molecular point-of-care tests in saliva could facilitate, broaden and speed up the diagnosis. We conducted a prospective study in two community COVID-19 screening centers to evaluate the performances of a CE-marked RT-LAMP assay (EasyCoV) designed for the detection of SARS-CoV2 RNA from fresh saliva samples, compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, to saliva RT-PCR and to nasopharyngeal antigen testing. Overall, 117 of the 1718 participants (7%) tested positive with nasopharyngeal RT-PCR. Compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, the sensitivity and specificity of the RT-LAMP assay in saliva were 34% and 97%, respectively. The Ct values of nasopharyngeal RT-PCR were significantly lower in the 40 true positive subjects with saliva RT-LAMP (Ct 25.9) than in the 48 false negative subjects with saliva RT-LAMP (Ct 28.4) (p = 0.028). Considering six alternate criteria for reference tests, including saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen, the sensitivity of saliva RT-LAMP ranged between 27 and 44%. The detection of SARS-CoV-2 in crude saliva samples with an RT-LAMP assay had a lower sensitivity than nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen testing.Registration number: NCT04578509.
Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care/methods , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/metabolism , SARS-CoV-2 , Saliva/metabolism , Adult , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , False Negative Reactions , False Positive Reactions , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques , Molecular Medicine , Nasopharynx/virology , Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques , Point-of-Care Systems , Point-of-Care Testing , Prospective Studies , RNA, Viral/genetics , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , Reproducibility of Results , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Environmental contamination by patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) through respiratory droplets suggests that surfaces and equipment could be a medium of transmission. We aimed to assess the surface and equipment contamination by SARS-COV-2 of an emergency department (ED) during the coronavirus infectious disease-2019 (COVID-19) outbreak. METHODS: We performed multiple samples from different sites in ED patients care and non-patient care areas with sterile premoistened swabs and used real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 ribonucleic acid (RNA). We also sampled the personal protective equipment (PPE) from health care workers (HCWs). RESULTS: Among the 192 total samples, 10 (5.2%) were positive. In patient care areas, 5/46 (10.9%) of the surfaces directly in contact with COVID-19 patients revealed the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and 4/56 (7.1%) of the surfaces that were not directly in contact with COVID-19 patients were positive. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was present only in the patients' examination and monitoring rooms. Before decontamination SARS-CoV-2 RNA was present on the saturation clip, the scuff for blood pressure measurement, the stretcher, the plastic screens between patients and the floor. After decontamination, SARS-CoV-2 RNA remained on the scuff, the stretcher and the trolleys. All samples from non-patient care areas or staff working rooms were negative. Only one sample from the PPE of the HCWs was positive. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that surfaces and equipment contamination by SARS-CoV-2 RNA in an ED during the COVID-19 outbreak is low and concerns exclusively patients' examination and monitoring rooms, preserving non-patient care areas.