Pesquisa | SciELO

BACKGROUND The high demand for adequate material for the gold standard reverse transcription real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR)-based diagnosis imposed by the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, combined with the inherent contamination risks for healthcare workers during nasopharyngeal swab (NP) sample collection and the discomfort it causes patients, brought the need to identify alternative specimens suitable for the diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). OBJECTIVES The aim of this work was to compare saliva and gingival fluid swabs to NP swabs as specimens for RT-qPCR-based SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. METHODS We compared gingival fluid swabs (n = 158) and saliva (n = 207) to the rayon-tipped NP swabs obtained from mild-symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects as specimens for RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2 detection. FINDINGS When compared to NP swabs, gingival fluid swabs had a concordance rate of 15.4% among positive samples, zero among inconclusive, and 100% among negative ones. For saliva samples, the concordance rate was 67.6% among positive samples, 42.9% among inconclusive, and 96.8% among negative ones. However, the concordance rate between saliva and NP swabs was higher (96.9%) within samples with lower cycle threshold (Ct) values (Ct > 10 ≤ 25). MAIN CONCLUSIONS Our data suggests that whereas gingival fluid swabs are not substitutes for NP swabs, saliva might be considered whenever NP swabs are not available or recommended.

ABSTRACT Introduction: In the current standard of care (SoC) RT-PCR method for COVID-19, the patient’s swab was extracted in viral transport media (VTM). For the PanbioTM COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test, the patient swab is flushed out in extraction buffer, of which a small fraction is used for testing, leaving more than half the sample unused. This study was designed to show that RT-PCR results from the residual sample of the PanbioTM COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (called Novel RT-PCR) are not worse than the SoC RT-PCR result. Methods: The study was performed using (1) dilution series of five patient samples, and (2) 413 patient samples comparing SOC versus Novel RT-PCR results. Results: For the dilution series samples, all tested positive by both methods. The bias between Ct values of Novel RT-PCR and SoC RT-PCR did not exceed 3.00 Ct using primers N1 and N2. A total of 413 COVID symptomatic patients seeking COVID testing were tested, of which 89 patients tested positive and 324 tested negative with SoC RT-PCR. In 324 patients who tested negative with SoC RT-PCR, 323 tested negative with Novel RT-PCR, and one (1) tested positive. Out of 89 who tested positive with SoC RT-PCR, 80 tested positive with the Novel RT-PCR, and nine patients showed a negative test result. The Overall Percent Agreement for the 413 valid patient sample pairs was 97.5 [95% CI 97 to 98]. Conclusion: The study demonstrated that the performance of the Novel RT-PCR method is acceptable compared to the SoC RT-PCR method and can be a useful tool to perform RTPCR without the need for new swab collections.

Cód. do Índice	Elemento
ti	título do artigo
au	autor
kw	palavras-chave do artigo
subject	assunto (palavras do título, resumo e palavras-chave)
ab	resumo
ta	título abreviado da revista (ex. Cad. Saúde Pública)
journal_title	título completo da revista (ex. Cadernos de Saúde Pública)
la	código do idioma da publicação (ex. pt - Português, es - Espanhol)
type	tipo do documento
pid	identificador da publicação
publication_year	ano de publicação do artigo
sponsor	financiador
aff_country	código do país de afiliação do autor
aff_institution	instituição de afiliação do autor
volume	volume do artigo
issue	número do artigo
elocation	elocation
doi	número DOI
issn	ISSN da revista
in	código da coleção SciELO (ex. scl - Brasil, col - Colômbia)
use_license	código da licença de uso do artigo

Não foram encontrados documentos para sua pesquisa