Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 859
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
2.
PLoS One ; 17(1): e0262258, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1606499

ABSTRACT

Although patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), influenza A, influenza B and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) show comparable or very similar manifestations, the therapeutic approaches of these respiratory viral infections are different, which requires an accurate diagnosis. Recently, the novel multiplex real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction assay AMPLIQUICK® Respiratory Triplex (BioSynex SA, Illkirch-Graffenstaden, France) allows simultaneous detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B, and RSV in respiratory tract samples. We herein evaluated the performance of the AMPLIQUICK® Respiratory Triplex for the detection of the four viruses in respiratory specimens, using Allplex™ Respiratory Panel 1 and 2019-nCoV assays (Seegene, Seoul, Korea) as reference comparator assays. A total of 359 archived predetermined respiratory samples, including 83, 145, 19 and 95 positive specimens for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B and RSV respectively, were included. The AMPLIQUICK® Respiratory Triplex showed high concordance with the reference assays, with an overall agreement for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B, and RSV at 97.6%, 98.8%, 98.3% and 100.0%, respectively, and high κ values ranging from 0.93 to 1.00, indicating an almost perfect agreement between assays. Furthermore, high correlations of cycle threshold (Ct) values were observed for positive samples of the four viruses between the AMPLIQUICK® Respiratory Triplex and comparator assays, with an overall high agreement between Ct values assessed by Bland-Altman analyses. In conclusion, these observations demonstrate that the multiplex AMPLIQUICK® Respiratory Triplex is a reliable assay for the qualitative detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B, and RSV in respiratory specimens, which may prove useful for streamlining diagnostics during the winter influenza-seasons.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections/diagnosis , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Influenza, Human/virology , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques , Nasopharynx/virology , Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections/virology , Retrospective Studies , Sensitivity and Specificity
3.
Crit Care ; 26(1): 10, 2022 01 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1604921

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Research on the duration of infectivity of ICU patients with COVID-19 has been sparse. Tests based on Reverse Transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) detect both live virus and non-infectious viral RNA. We aimed to determine the duration of infectiousness based on viral culture of nasopharyngeal samples of patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Prospective observational study in adult intensive care units with a diagnosis of COVID-19 Pneumonia. Patients had repeated nasopharyngeal sampling performed after day 10 of ICU admission. Culture positive rate (based on viral culture on Vero cells in a level 4 lab) and Cycle threshold from RT-PCR were measured. RESULTS: Nine patients of the 108 samples (8.3%, 95% CI 3.9-15.2%) grew live virus at a median of 13 days (interquartile range 11-19) after their initial positive test. 74.1% of patients were RT-PCR positive but culture negative, and the remaining (17.6%) were RT-PCR and culture negative. Cycle threshold showed excellent ability to predict the presence of live virus, with a Ct < 25 with an AUC of 0.90 (95% CI 0.83-0.97, p < 0.001). The specificity of a Ct > 25 to predict negative viral culture was 100% (95% CI 70-100%). CONCLUSION: 8.3% of our ICU patients with COVID-19 grew live virus at a median of 13 days post-initial positive RT-PCR test. Severity of illness, use of mechanical ventilation, and time between tests did not predict the presence of live virus. Cycle threshold of > 25 had the best ability to determine the lack of live virus in these patents.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Critical Illness , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Nasopharynx/virology , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
4.
PLoS One ; 16(12): e0262159, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1596328

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: GENECUBE® is a rapid molecular identification system, and previous studies demonstrated that GENECUBE® HQ SARS-CoV-2 showed excellent analytical performance for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) with nasopharyngeal samples. However, other respiratory samples have not been evaluated. METHODS: This prospective comparison between GENECUBE® HQ SARS-CoV-2 and reference real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was performed for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 using anterior nasal samples and saliva samples. Additionally, we evaluated a new rapid examination protocol using GENECUBE® HQ SARS-CoV-2 for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 with saliva samples. For the rapid protocol, in the preparation of saliva samples, purification and extraction processes were adjusted, and the total process time was shortened to approximately 35 minutes. RESULTS: For 359 anterior nasal samples, the total-, positive-, and negative concordance of the two assays was 99.7% (358/359), 98.1% (51/52), and 100% (307/307), respectively. For saliva samples, the total-, positive-, and negative concordance of the two assays was 99.6% (239/240), 100% (56/56), and 99.5% (183/184), respectively. With the new protocol, total-, positive-, and negative concordance of the two assays was 98.8% (237/240), 100% (56/56), and 98.4% (181/184), respectively. In all discordance cases, SARS-CoV-2 was detected by additional molecular examinations. CONCLUSION: GENECUBE® HQ SARS-CoV-2 provided high analytical performance for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in anterior nasal samples and saliva samples.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Diagnostic Tests, Routine/methods , Nasopharynx/virology , Pandemics , Saliva/virology , Humans , Prospective Studies
6.
PLoS One ; 16(12): e0260894, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1581768

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Performance of the SD Biosensor saliva antigen rapid test was evaluated at a large designated testing site in non-hospitalized patients, with or without symptoms. METHOD: All eligible people over 18 years of age presenting for a booked appointment at the designated SARS-CoV-2 testing site were approached for inclusion and enrolled following verbal informed consent. One nasopharyngeal swab was taken to carry out the default antigen rapid test from which the results were reported back to the patient and one saliva sample was self-taken according to verbal instruction on site. This was used for the saliva antigen rapid test, the RT-PCR and for virus culture. Sensitivity of the saliva antigen rapid test was analyzed in two ways: i, compared to saliva RT-PCR; and ii, compared to virus culture of the saliva samples. Study participants were also asked to fill in a short questionnaire stating age, sex, date of symptom onset. Recommended time of ≥30mins since last meal, drink or cigarette if applicable was also recorded. The study was carried out in February-March 2021 for 4 weeks. RESULTS: We could include 789 people with complete records and results. Compared to saliva RT-PCR, overall sensitivity and specificity of the saliva antigen rapid test was 66.1% and 99.6% which increased to 88.6% with Ct ≤30 cutoff. Analysis by days post onset did not result in higher sensitivities because the large majority of people were in the very early phase of disease ie <3 days post onset. When breaking down the data for symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, sensitivity ranged from 69.2% to 50% respectively, however the total number of RT-PCR positive asymptomatic participants was very low (n = 5). Importantly, almost all culture positive samples were detected by the rapid test. CONCLUSION: Overall, the potential benefits of saliva antigen rapid test, could outweigh the lower sensitivity compared to nasopharyngeal antigen rapid test in a comprehensive testing strategy, especially for home/self-testing and in vulnerable populations like elderly, disabled or children where in intrusive testing is either not possible or causes unnecessary stress.


Subject(s)
Biosensing Techniques/methods , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , Saliva/virology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/etiology , Carrier State/virology , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nasopharynx/virology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Young Adult
7.
Nat Immunol ; 23(1): 23-32, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1585822

ABSTRACT

Systemic immune cell dynamics during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are extensively documented, but these are less well studied in the (upper) respiratory tract, where severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replicates1-6. Here, we characterized nasal and systemic immune cells in individuals with COVID-19 who were hospitalized or convalescent and compared the immune cells to those seen in healthy donors. We observed increased nasal granulocytes, monocytes, CD11c+ natural killer (NK) cells and CD4+ T effector cells during acute COVID-19. The mucosal proinflammatory populations positively associated with peripheral blood human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-DRlow monocytes, CD38+PD1+CD4+ T effector (Teff) cells and plasmablasts. However, there was no general lymphopenia in nasal mucosa, unlike in peripheral blood. Moreover, nasal neutrophils negatively associated with oxygen saturation levels in blood. Following convalescence, nasal immune cells mostly normalized, except for CD127+ granulocytes and CD38+CD8+ tissue-resident memory T cells (TRM). SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells persisted at least 2 months after viral clearance in the nasal mucosa, indicating that COVID-19 has both transient and long-term effects on upper respiratory tract immune responses.


Subject(s)
CD4-Positive T-Lymphocytes/immunology , CD8-Positive T-Lymphocytes/immunology , Nasopharynx/immunology , Nose/cytology , Respiratory Mucosa/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/pathology , Granulocytes/immunology , HLA-DR Antigens/metabolism , Humans , Killer Cells, Natural/immunology , Monocytes/immunology , Nasopharynx/cytology , Nasopharynx/virology , Neutrophils/immunology , Nose/immunology , Nose/virology , Prospective Studies , Respiratory Mucosa/cytology , Respiratory Mucosa/virology
8.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 24234, 2021 12 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1585791

ABSTRACT

The main strategy for response and control of COVID-19 demands the use of rapid, accurate diagnostic tests aimed at the first point of health care. During the emergency, an increase in asymptomatic and symptomatic cases results in a great demand for molecular tests, which is promoting the development and application of rapid diagnostic technologies. In this study, we describe the development and evaluation of RT-LAMP to detect SARS-CoV-2 based on three genes (ORF1ab, M and N genes) in monoplex and triplex format. RT-LAMP assays were compared with the gold standard method RT-qPCR. The triplex format (RdRp, M and N genes) allowed obtaining comparable results with de RT-qPCR (RdRp and E genes), presented a sensitivity of 98.9% and a specificity of 97.9%, opening the opportunity to apply this method to detect SARS-CoV-2 at primary health-care centers.


Subject(s)
Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/methods , Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques/methods , RNA, Viral/metabolism , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , Coronavirus RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase/genetics , Humans , Limit of Detection , Nasopharynx/virology , Nucleocapsid Proteins/genetics , Point-of-Care Systems , RNA, Viral/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/metabolism , Viral Matrix Proteins/genetics
9.
J Korean Med Sci ; 36(48): e328, 2021 Dec 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1572278

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic era, the simultaneous detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), influenza virus (Flu), and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is important in the rapid differential diagnosis in patients with respiratory symptoms. Three multiplex real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) assays have been recently developed commercially in Korea: PowerChek™ SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A&B Multiplex Real-time PCR Kit (PowerChek; KogeneBiotech); STANDARD™ M Flu/SARS-CoV-2 Real-time Detection Kit (STANDARD M; SD BioSensor); and Allplex™ SARS-CoV-2/FluA/FluB/RSV Assay (Allplex; Seegene). We evaluated the analytical and clinical performances of these kits. METHODS: A limit of detection tests were performed and cross-reactivity analysis was executed using clinical respiratory samples. Ninety-seven SARS-CoV-2-positive, 201 SARS-CoV-2-negative, 71 influenza A-positive, 50 influenza B-positive, 78 RSV-positive, and 207 other respiratory virus-positive nasopharyngeal swabs were tested using the three assays. The AdvanSure™ respiratory viruses rRT-PCR assay (AdvanSure; LG Life Sciences) was used as a comparator assay for RSV. RESULTS: Except in influenza B, in SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A, there were no significant differences in detecting specific genes of the viruses among the three assays. All three kits did not cross-react with common respiratory viruses. All three kits had greater than 92% positive percent agreement and negative percent agreement and ≥ 0.95 kappa value in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 and flu A/B. Allplex detected RSV more sensitively than AdvanSure. CONCLUSION: The overall performance of three multiplex rRT-PCR assays for the concurrent detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B, and RSV was comparable. These kits will promote prompt differential diagnosis of COVID-19, influenza, and RSV infection in the COVID-19 pandemic era.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Nasopharynx/virology , RNA, Viral/analysis , Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections/diagnosis , COVID-19/virology , Cross Reactions , Humans , Influenza A virus/genetics , Influenza A virus/isolation & purification , Influenza B virus/genetics , Influenza B virus/isolation & purification , Influenza, Human/virology , Limit of Detection , Nucleocapsid Proteins/genetics , Polyproteins/genetics , RNA, Viral/metabolism , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic , Republic of Korea , Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections/virology , Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Human/genetics , Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Human/isolation & purification , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Viral Matrix Proteins/genetics , Viral Proteins/genetics
10.
PLoS One ; 16(12): e0261229, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1571989

ABSTRACT

In-depth study of the entire SARS-CoV-2 genome has uncovered many mutations, which have replaced the lineage that characterized the first wave of infections all around the world. In December 2020, the outbreak of variant of concern (VOC) 202012/01 (lineage B.1.1.7) in the United Kingdom defined a turning point during the pandemic, immediately posing a worldwide threat on the Covid-19 vaccination campaign. Here, we reported the evolution of B.1.1.7 lineage-related infections, analyzing samples collected from January 1st 2021, until April 15th 2021, in Friuli Venezia Giulia, a northeastern region of Italy. A cohort of 1508 nasopharyngeal swabs was analyzed by High Resolution Melting (HRM) and 479 randomly selected samples underwent Next Generation Sequencing analysis (NGS), uncovering a steady and continuous accumulation of B.1.1.7 lineage-related specimens, joined by sporadic cases of other known lineages (i.e. harboring the Spike glycoprotein p.E484K mutation). All the SARS-CoV-2 genome has been analyzed in order to highlight all the rare mutations that may eventually result in a new variant of interest. This work suggests that a thorough monitoring of the SARS-CoV-2 genome by NGS is essential to contain any new variant that could jeopardize all the efforts that have been made so far to resolve the emergence of the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Nasopharynx/virology , SARS-CoV-2/classification , Sequence Analysis, RNA/methods , COVID-19/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Phylogeny , Phylogeography , RNA, Viral/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , United Kingdom/epidemiology
11.
PLoS One ; 16(12): e0260732, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1571987

ABSTRACT

The Loopamp SARS-CoV-2 Detection Kit is used for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) is based on a measurement principle that can be used with a relatively simple device. Detection using this kit requires viral RNA extraction from samples with the QIAGEN QIAamp Viral Mini Kit (QIAGEN extraction) or the Loopamp Viral RNA Extraction Kit (Eiken extraction), which are recommended by the manufacturer. However, the efficacy of LAMP-based SARS-CoV-2 detection using these extraction methods has not been compared. In this study, we aimed to compare the results of genome extraction and detection from nasopharyngeal swab samples using the QIAGEN and Eiken extraction kits. The present study involved patients who presented to the Rinku General Medical Center with suspected COVID-19 (25 positive and 26 negative cases). A comparison of the results obtained using each extraction method with those obtained via PCR showed that the positive, negative, and overall concordance rates between QIAGEN extraction and PCR were 96.0% (24/25 samples), 100% (26/26), and 98.0% (50/51; κ = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.69-1.00), respectively. Results with Eiken extraction were also favorable, with positive, negative, and overall concordance rates of 88.0% (22/25), 100% (26/26), and 94.1% (48/51; κ = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.61-1.00), respectively. Favorable results were obtained using both QIAGEN and Eiken extraction kits. Since Eiken extraction can be completed in a few minutes, it enables prompt and reliable testing for SARS-CoV-2 detection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/methods , Nasopharynx/virology , Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques/methods , RNA, Viral/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Humans , Prospective Studies , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Sensitivity and Specificity
12.
PLoS One ; 16(12): e0260187, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1571986

ABSTRACT

To date, there is limited information about the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in semen especially in the acute phase of the infection. While available data from cohort studies including a total of 342 patients in the acute or recovery phase of the infection are reassuring, one study mentioned detecting virus in the semen of 6/38 COVID-19 patients. Here we assessed SARS-CoV-2 presence in the semen of COVID-19 positive patients in the acute stage of infection, within 24 hours of the positive nasopharyngeal swabs. Semen, seminal plasma and spermatozoa pellet were screened for SARS-CoV-2 and manual or airborne contamination during semen sampling. Among the 32 COVID-19 volunteers, the median interval from the onset of symptoms to semen collection was 4 days [IQR: 0-8]. Only one presented positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR in semen and seminal plasma fractions, although the spermatozoa pellet was negative. Viral cultures were all negative. We observed slightly higher concentrations of bacterial DNA in the SARS-CoV-2 positive specimen than in all negative samples. The bacteria identified neither confirm nor rule out contamination by oropharyngeal secretions during collection. SARS-CoV-2 was rarely present in semen during the acute phase of the disease. This very rare situation could be connected to oral or manual contamination during semen collection. The possible presence of SARS-CoV-2 in semen calls for nasopharyngeal viral testing and strict hygiene protocols during semen collection before assisted reproductive attempts.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/virology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Semen/chemistry , Spermatozoa/chemistry , Adult , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nasopharynx/virology , Semen/virology , Specimen Handling , Spermatozoa/virology
13.
ACS Appl Mater Interfaces ; 13(50): 60612-60624, 2021 Dec 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1569206

ABSTRACT

New analytical techniques that overcome major drawbacks of current routinely used viral infection diagnosis methods, i.e., the long analysis time and laboriousness of real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) and the insufficient sensitivity of "antigen tests", are urgently needed in the context of SARS-CoV-2 and other highly contagious viruses. Here, we report on an antifouling terpolymer-brush biointerface that enables the rapid and sensitive detection of SARS-CoV-2 in untreated clinical samples. The developed biointerface carries a tailored composition of zwitterionic and non-ionic moieties and allows for the significant improvement of antifouling capabilities when postmodified with biorecognition elements and exposed to complex media. When deployed on a surface of piezoelectric sensor and postmodified with human-cell-expressed antibodies specific to the nucleocapsid (N) protein of SARS-CoV-2, it made possible the quantitative analysis of untreated samples by a direct detection assay format without the need of additional amplification steps. Natively occurring N-protein-vRNA complexes, usually disrupted during the sample pre-treatment steps, were detected in the untreated clinical samples. This biosensor design improved the bioassay sensitivity to a clinically relevant limit of detection of 1.3 × 104 PFU/mL within a detection time of only 20 min. The high specificity toward N-protein-vRNA complexes was validated both by mass spectrometry and qRT-PCR. The performance characteristics were confirmed by qRT-PCR through a comparative study using a set of clinical nasopharyngeal swab samples. We further demonstrate the extraordinary fouling resistance of this biointerface through exposure to other commonly used crude biological samples (including blood plasma, oropharyngeal, stool, and nasopharyngeal swabs), measured via both the surface plasmon resonance and piezoelectric measurements, which highlights the potential to serve as a generic platform for a wide range of biosensing applications.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , Coronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteins/chemistry , Nasal Mucosa/virology , Polymers/chemistry , RNA, Viral/metabolism , SARS-CoV-2 , Biofouling , Biological Assay , Biosensing Techniques , Humans , Ions , Limit of Detection , Mass Spectrometry , Nasopharynx/virology , Phosphoproteins/chemistry , Reproducibility of Results , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , Sensitivity and Specificity , Specimen Handling
14.
Lab Med ; 52(6): e154-e158, 2021 Nov 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1559980

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the performance of an antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (RDT) for the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 677 patients. Two nasopharyngeal swabs and 1 oropharyngeal swab were collected from patients. The RDT was performed onsite by a commercially available immune-chromatographic assay on the nasopharyngeal swab. The nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs were examined for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by real-time reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assay. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 RDT was 34.5% and the specificity was 99.8%. The positive predictive value and negative predictive value of the test were 96.6% and 91.5%, respectively. The detection rate of RDT in RT-qPCR positive results was high (45%) for cycle threshold values <25. CONCLUSION: The utility of RDT is in diagnosing symptomatic patients and may not be particularly suited as a screening tool for patients with low viral load. The low sensitivity of RDT does not qualify its use as a single test in patients who test negative; RT-qPCR continues to be the gold standard test.


Subject(s)
Antigens, Viral/genetics , COVID-19 Serological Testing/standards , COVID-19/diagnosis , Chromatography, Affinity/methods , RNA, Viral/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Adolescent , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Automation, Laboratory , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nasopharynx/virology , Oropharynx/virology , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Viral Load/genetics
15.
J Virol Methods ; 300: 114420, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1560015

ABSTRACT

The emergence and spread of SARS-CoV-2 has led to a compelling request for accurate diagnostic tests. The aim of this study was assessing the performance of a real-time RT-qPCR (rt RT-qPCR) assay and of a droplet digital RT-PCR (dd RT-PCR) targeting the nsp14 genome region for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs. A total of 258 nasopharyngeal swabs were analyzed with the nsp14 assays and, for comparison, with a reference assay targeting the RdRp and E genes. Conflicting results were further investigated by two additional protocols, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) real-time targeting N1/N2, and a nested RT-PCR for the spike region. Agreement of results was achieved on 226 samples (156 positive and 70 negative), 8 samples were positive in the reference assay and in the nsp14 rt RT-qPCR but negative with the dd RT-PCR, and 24 samples provided different combinations of results with the three assays. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy (95 %C.I.) of the nsp14 assays were: 100.0 % (97.4-100.0), 98.7 % (92.1-100.0), and 99.6 % (97.5-100.0) for the rt RT-qPCR; 92.4 % (87.4-95.6), 100.0 % (94.2-100.0), and 94.7 % (91.1-97.0) for the dd RT-PCR. The results of the study support the use of the nsp14 real-time RT-qPCR and ddPCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnosis , Exonucleases , Humans , Nasopharynx/virology , RNA, Viral/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Sensitivity and Specificity
16.
J Med Virol ; 93(12): 6693-6695, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1544321

ABSTRACT

We aimed to compare reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results of nasopharyngeal aspiration (NA) and nasopharyngeal swab (NS) samples in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019. NS was obtained with a dacron swab and NA was performed by aspiration cannula. The sampling was performed by an otolaryngologist to ensure standardized correct sampling from the nasopharynx. RT-PCR was performed for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The level of agreement between the result of NA and NS samples for each patient was analyzed. The Ct values were compared. Thirty-three patients were enrolled in the study with a mean age of 56.3 years. Thirteen subjects resulted negative with both NS and NA; 20 subjects resulted positive with NA and 18 subjects resulted positive with NS. The mean values of Ct for NA samples and NS samples were 24.6 ± 5.9 and 24 ± 6.7, respectively. There was no statistical difference between Ct values of NA and NS samples (p = 0.48). RT-PCR for SARS-Cov2 performed with NA sample and NS sample showed a strong correlation regarding the positivity/negativity and the Ct values.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , Nasopharynx/virology , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , SARS-CoV-2 , Specimen Handling/methods , Adult , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Reproducibility of Results , Sensitivity and Specificity
17.
J Med Virol ; 93(12): 6837-6840, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1544319

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Gargle samples have been proposed as a noninvasive method for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The clinical performance of gargle specimens diluted in Cobas® PCR Media and in Cobas® Omni Lysis Reagent was compared to oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal swab (ONPS) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. STUDY DESIGN: Participants were recruited prospectively in two COVID-19 screening clinics. In addition to the ONPS, participants gargled with 5 ml of natural spring water split in the laboratory as follows: 1 ml was added to 4.3 ml of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) media and 400 µl was added to 200 µl of lysis buffer. Testing was performed with the Cobas® SARS-CoV-2 test on the Cobas® 6800 or 8800 platforms. RESULTS: Overall, 134/647 (20.7%) participants were considered infected because the ONPS or at least one gargle test was positive. ONPS had, respectively, a sensitivity of 96.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 91.3-98.5); both gargle processing methods were slightly less but equally sensitive (90.3% [95% CI: 83.9-94.3]). When ONPS and gargle specimens were both positive, the mean cycle threshold (Ct ) was significantly higher for gargles, suggesting lower viral loads. CONCLUSION: Gargle specimens directly added in PCR Media provide a similar clinical sensitivity to chemical lysis, both having a slightly, not significantly, lower sensitivity to ONPS.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/virology , Nasopharynx/virology , Oropharynx/virology , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Diagnostic Tests, Routine/methods , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , Prospective Studies , RNA, Viral/genetics , Saliva/virology , Specimen Handling/methods , Viral Load/genetics
18.
J Med Virol ; 93(12): 6808-6812, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1544312

ABSTRACT

Real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for SARS-CoV-2 is the mainstay of COVID-19 diagnosis, yet there are conflicting reports on its diagnostic performance. Wide ranges of false-negative PCR tests have been reported depending on clinical presentation, the timing of testing, specimens tested, testing method, and reference standard used. We aimed to estimate the frequency of discordance between initial nasopharyngeal (NP) PCR and repeat NP sampling PCR and serology in acutely ill patients admitted to the hospital. Panel diagnosis of COVID-19 infection is further utilized in discordance analysis. Included in the study were 160 patients initially tested by NP PCR with repeat NP sampling PCR and/or serology performed. The percent agreement between initial and repeat PCR was 96.7%, while the percent agreement between initial PCR and serology was 98.9%. There were 5 (3.1%) cases with discordance on repeat testing. After discordance analysis, 2 (1.4%) true cases tested negative on initial PCR. Using available diagnostic methods, discordance on repeat NP sampling PCR and/or serology is a rare occurrence.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/virology , Nasopharynx/virology , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Adult , COVID-19 Testing/methods , Female , Humans , Male , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Reference Standards , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Sensitivity and Specificity , Specimen Handling/methods
19.
J Med Virol ; 93(12): 6803-6807, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1544308

ABSTRACT

We evaluated the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device as a point-of-care diagnostic tool for COVID-19 in 357 patients at a pediatric emergency department. Thirty-four patients tested positive by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, of which 24 were positive by the antigen assay. The sensitivity and specificity of the assay were 70.5% and 100%, respectively.


Subject(s)
Antigens, Viral/immunology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , Child , Child, Preschool , Emergency Service, Hospital , Female , Humans , Immunologic Tests/methods , Infant , Male , Nasopharynx/immunology , Nasopharynx/virology , Point-of-Care Testing , Prospective Studies , Sensitivity and Specificity
20.
J Med Virol ; 93(12): 6512-6518, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1544296

ABSTRACT

There is a great demand for more rapid tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection to reduce waiting time, boost public health strategies for combating disease, decrease costs, and prevent overwhelming laboratory capacities. This study was conducted to assess the performance of 10 lateral flow device viral antigen immunoassays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab specimens. We analyzed 231 nasopharyngeal samples collected from October 2020 to December 2020, from suspected COVID-19 cases and contacts of positive cases at Biotechnology Research Center laboratories, Tripoli, Libya. The performance of 10 COVID-19 Antigen (Ag) rapid test devices for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen was compared to a quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). In this study, 161 cases had symptoms consistent with COVID-19. The mean duration from symptom onset was 6.6 ± 4.3 days. The median cycle threshold (Ct ) of positive samples was 25. Among the 108 positive samples detected by RT-qPCR, the COVID-19 antigen (Ag) tests detected 83 cases correctly. All rapid Ag test devices used in this study showed 100% specificity. While tests from six manufacturers had an overall sensitivity range from 75% to 100%, the remaining four tests had a sensitivity of 50%-71.43%. Sensitivity during the first 6 days of symptoms and in samples with high viral loads (Ct < 25), was 100% in all but two of the test platforms. False-negative samples had a median Ct of 34 and an average duration of onset of symptoms of 11.3 days (range = 5-20 days). Antigen test diagnosis has high sensitivity and specificity in early disease when patients present less than 7 days of symptom onset. Patients are encouraged to test as soon as they get COVID-19-related symptoms within 1 week and to seek medical advice within 24 h if they develop disturbed smell/taste. The use of rapid antigen tests is important for controlling the COVID-19 pandemic and reducing the burden on molecular diagnostic laboratories.


Subject(s)
Antigens, Viral/analysis , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Immunoassay/methods , Adult , COVID-19 Serological Testing/economics , False Negative Reactions , Female , Humans , Immunoassay/economics , Male , Nasopharynx/virology , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Time Factors , Viral Load
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...