Simple Saliva Sample Collection for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Variants Compared With Nasopharyngeal Swab Sample.

CONTEXT.­: The use of saliva samples for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection offers several advantages, including ease of sample collection, feasibility of self-collection, and minimization of medical staff exposure to infection. The emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants has had an impact on the viral load of specimens and the results of real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR). OBJECTIVE.­: To compare nasopharyngeal swab and saliva samples for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 using rRT-PCR. DESIGN.­: In this study, participants were recruited prospectively, and paired nasopharyngeal swab and saliva samples were collected simultaneously from each participant. After adding universal transport medium, RNA was extracted in an identical manner for both sample types, and samples were tested using rRT-PCR. In addition, samples with positive results were tested for SARS-CoV-2 variants. RESULTS.­: Of the 338 paired samples, 100 nasopharyngeal swab and 101 saliva samples tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The rRT-PCR results of the saliva and nasopharyngeal swab samples showed a positive percent agreement of 95.0% (95% CI, 88.7%-98.4%), a negative percent agreement of 97.9% (95% CI, 95.2%-99.3%), and an overall percent agreement of 96.8% (95% CI, 94.3%-98.4%). SARS-CoV-2 was detected in the saliva samples of 6 participants with negative nasopharyngeal sample results. In addition, the sensitivity of saliva samples was similar to that of nasopharyngeal samples for detecting various SARS-CoV-2 variants, including the Omicron variant. CONCLUSIONS.­: Saliva samples can be used as an alternative to nasopharyngeal samples for convenient and effective detection of various SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Pre-existing liver disease is associated with poor outcome in patients with SARS CoV2 infection; The APCOLIS Study (APASL COVID-19 Liver Injury Spectrum Study).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: COVID-19 is a dominant pulmonary disease, with multisystem involvement, depending upon comorbidities. Its profile in patients with pre-existing chronic liver disease (CLD) is largely unknown. We studied the liver injury patterns of SARS-Cov-2 in CLD patients, with or without cirrhosis. METHODS: Data was collected from 13 Asian countries on patients with CLD, known or newly diagnosed, with confirmed COVID-19. RESULTS: Altogether, 228 patients [185 CLD without cirrhosis and 43 with cirrhosis] were enrolled, with comorbidities in nearly 80%. Metabolism associated fatty liver disease (113, 61%) and viral etiology (26, 60%) were common. In CLD without cirrhosis, diabetes [57.7% vs 39.7%, OR = 2.1 (1.1-3.7), p = 0.01] and in cirrhotics, obesity, [64.3% vs. 17.2%, OR = 8.1 (1.9-38.8), p = 0.002] predisposed more to liver injury than those without these. Forty three percent of CLD without cirrhosis presented as acute liver injury and 20% cirrhotics presented with either acute-on-chronic liver failure [5 (11.6%)] or acute decompensation [4 (9%)]. Liver related complications increased (p < 0.05) with stage of liver disease; a Child-Turcotte Pugh score of 9 or more at presentation predicted high mortality [AUROC 0.94, HR = 19.2 (95 CI 2.3-163.3), p < 0.001, sensitivity 85.7% and specificity 94.4%). In decompensated cirrhotics, the liver injury was progressive in 57% patients, with 43% mortality. Rising bilirubin and AST/ALT ratio predicted mortality among cirrhosis patients. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-Cov-2 infection causes significant liver injury in CLD patients, decompensating one fifth of cirrhosis, and worsening the clinical status of the already decompensated. The CLD patients with diabetes and obesity are more vulnerable and should be closely monitored.