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
Nasopharyngeal sampling for nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) is the standard diagnostic test of coronavirus disease 2019. Our objectives were to assess, in real-life conditions, the diagnostic accuracy of a nasopharyngeal point-of-care antigen (Ag) test and of saliva NAAT for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in ambulatory care. This was a prospective cohort study from 19 October through 18 December 2020 in two community COVID-19 screening centers in Paris, France. Two nasopharyngeal swabs and one saliva sample were simultaneously collected. Diagnostic accuracies of nasopharyngeal Ag testing and of three saliva NAAT methods were assessed as compared to nasopharyngeal NAAT. A total of 1452 ambulatory children and adults were included. Overall, 129/1443 (9%) participants tested positive on nasopharyngeal NAAT (102/564 [18%] in symptomatic and 27/879 [3%] in asymptomatic participants). Sensitivity was 94%, 23%, 96%, and 94% for the three different protocols of saliva NAAT and for the nasopharyngeal Ag test, respectively. Estimates of specificity were above 95% for all methods. Diagnostic accuracy was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. Diagnostic accuracy of nasopharyngeal Ag testing and of saliva NAAT is similar to that of nasopharyngeal NAAT, subject to compliance with specific protocols for saliva. Registration number: NCT04578509.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , Nasopharynx/virology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Saliva/virology , Specimen Handling/methods , Adult , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Mass Screening , Middle Aged , Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques/methods , Paris , Point-of-Care Testing , Prospective Studies , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
Drugs information systems, prescription support softwares, and drug decision support systems need to reason on drug properties. Combined pharmaceutical products need to be considered specifically because they may require a specific processing. Hence, they also need to be identified to automate the population of databases with up-to-date property values. We defined a set of digital filters designed for the identification of antibiotics in a public database. Four different filters are proposed, to be combined to extract the relevant information. Evaluation was conducted to combine filters and retrieve information about rand combined antibiotics with success. However, information provided in the structured files of the French drug database is limited; information provided in the HTML files suffers from a lack of quality. Hence, reuse of this data and this information should be performed very cautiously.
Subject(s)
Databases, Factual , Drug Information Services , FranceABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The use of 18F-FDG for clinical PET studies increases technologist radiation dose exposure because of the higher gamma-radiation energy of this isotope than of other conventional medical gamma-radiation-emitting isotopes. Therefore, 18F-FDG imaging necessitates stronger radiation protection requirements. The aims of this study were to assess technologist whole-body and extremity exposure in our PET department and to evaluate the efficiency of our radiation protection devices (homemade syringe drawing device, semiautomated injector, and video tracking of patients). METHODS: Radiation dose assessment was performed for monodose as well as for multidose 18F-FDG packaging with both LiF thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLD) and electronic personal dosimeters (ED) during 5 successive 18F-FDG PET steps (from syringe filling to patient departure). RESULTS: The mean +/- SD total effective doses received by technologists (n = 50) during all of the working steps were 3.24 +/- 2.1 and 3.01 +/- 1.4 microSv, respectively, as measured with ED and TLD (345 +/- 84 MBq injected). These values were confirmed by daily TLD technologist whole-body dose measurements (2.98 +/- 1.8 microSv; 294 +/- 78 MBq injected; n = 48). Finger irradiation doses during preparation of single 18F-FDG syringes were 204.9 +/- 24 and 198.4 +/- 23 microSv with multidose vials (345 +/- 93 MBq injected) and 127.3 +/- 76 and 55.9 +/- 47 microSv with monodose vials (302 +/- 43 MBq injected) for the right hand and the left hand, respectively. The protection afforded by the semiautomated injector, estimated as the ratio of the doses received by TLD placed on the syringe shield and on the external face of the injector, was near 2,000. CONCLUSION: These results showed that technologist radiation doses in our PET department were lower than those reported in the literature. This finding may be explained by the use of a homemade syringe drawing device, a semiautomated injector, and patient video tracking, allowing a shorter duration of contact between the technologist and the patient. Extrapolation of these results to an annual dose (4 patients per day per technologist) revealed that the annual extrapolated exposure values remained under the authorized limits for workers classified to work in a radioactivity-controlled area.
