Pooled Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Testing.

We evaluated saliva (SAL) specimens for SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) testing by comparison of 459 prospectively paired nasopharyngeal (NP) or midturbinate (MT) swabs from 449 individuals with the aim of using saliva for asymptomatic screening. Samples were collected in a drive-through car line for symptomatic individuals (n = 380) and in the emergency department (ED) (n = 69). The percentages of positive and negative agreement of saliva compared to nasopharyngeal swab were 81.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.8% to 90.5%) and 99.8% (95% CI, 98.7% to 100%), respectively. The percent positive agreement increased to 90.0% (95% CI, 74.4% to 96.5%) when considering only samples with moderate to high viral load (cycle threshold [CT ] for the NP, ≤34). Pools of five saliva specimens were also evaluated on three platforms, bioMérieux NucliSENS easyMAG with ABI 7500Fast (CDC assay), Hologic Panther Fusion, and Roche Cobas 6800. The average loss of signal upon pooling was 2 to 3 CT values across the platforms. The sensitivities of detecting a positive specimen in a pool compared with testing individually were 94%, 90%, and 94% for the CDC 2019-nCoV real-time RT-PCR, Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assay, and Cobas SARS-CoV-2 test, respectively, with decreased sample detection trending with lower viral load. We conclude that although pooled saliva testing, as collected in this study, is not quite as sensitive as NP/MT testing, saliva testing is adequate to detect individuals with higher viral loads in an asymptomatic screening program, does not require swabs or viral transport medium for collection, and may help to improve voluntary screening compliance for those individuals averse to various forms of nasal collections.

Pooled Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Testing.

We evaluated saliva (SAL) specimens for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing by comparison of 459 prospectively paired nasopharyngeal (NP) or mid-turbinate (MT) swabs from 449 individuals with the aim of using saliva for asymptomatic screening. Samples were collected in a drive-through car line for symptomatic individuals (N=380) and in the emergency department (ED) (N=69). The percent positive and negative agreement of saliva compared to nasopharyngeal swab were 81.1% (95% CI: 65.8% - 90.5%) and 99.8% (95% CI: 98.7% - 100%), respectively. The sensitivity increased to 90.0% (95% CI: 74.4% - 96.5%) when considering only samples with moderate to high viral load (Cycle threshold (Ct) for the NP <=34). Pools of five saliva specimens were also evaluated on three platforms: bioMérieux NucliSENS easyMAG with ABI 7500Fast (CDC assay), Hologic Panther Fusion, and Roche COBAS 6800. The median loss of signal upon pooling was 2-4 Ct values across the platforms. The sensitivity of detecting a positive specimen in a pool compared with testing individually was 100%, 93%, and 95% for CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR, Panther Fusion® SARS-CoV-2 assay, and cobas® SARS-CoV-2 test respectively, with decreased sample detection trending with lower viral load. We conclude that although pooled saliva testing, as collected in this study, is not quite as sensitive as NP/MT testing, saliva testing is adequate to detect individuals with higher viral loads in an asymptomatic screening program, does not require swabs or viral transport media for collection, and may help to improve voluntary screening compliance for those individuals averse to various forms of nasal collections.

FAmily-CEntered (FACE) Advance Care Planning Among African-American and Non-African-American Adults Living With HIV in Washington, DC: A Randomized Controlled Trial to Increase Documentation and Health Equity.

CONTEXT: No prospective studies address disease-specific advance care planning (ACP) for adults living with HIV/AIDS. OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy of FAmily-CEntered (FACE) ACP in increasing ACP and advance directive documentation in the medical record. METHODS: Longitudinal, two-arm, randomized controlled trial with intent-to-treat design recruited from five hospital-based outpatient HIV clinics in Washington, DC. Adults living with HIV and their surrogate decision-makers (N = 233 dyads) were randomized to either an intensive facilitated two-session FACE ACP (Next Steps: Respecting Choices goals of care conversation and Five Wishes advance directive) or healthy living control (conversations about developmental/relationship history and nutrition). RESULTS: Patients (n = 223) mean age: 51 years, 56% male, 86% African-American. One hundred ninety-nine dyads participated in the intervention. At baseline, only 13% of patients had an advance directive. Three months after intervention, this increased to 59% for the FACE ACP group versus 17% in the control group (P < 0.0001). Controlling for race, the odds of having an advance directive in the medical record in the FACE ACP group was approximately seven times greater than controls (adjusted odds ratio = 6.58, 95% CI: 3.21-13.51, P < 0.0001). Among African-Americans randomized to FACE, 58% had completed/documented advance directives versus 20% of controls (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The FACE ACP intervention significantly improved ACP completion and advance directive documentation in the medical record among both African-American and non-African-American adults living with HIV in Washington, DC, providing health equity in ACP, which can inform best practices.