File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Evaluating the use of posterior oropharyngeal saliva in a point-of-care assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2

TitleEvaluating the use of posterior oropharyngeal saliva in a point-of-care assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2
Authors
KeywordsCOVID-19
SARS-CoV-2
saliva
nasopharyngeal swab
point-of-care testing
Issue Date2020
PublisherTaylor & Francis Group, on behalf of Shanghai ShangyixunCultural Communication Co., Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/temi20/current
Citation
Emerging Microbes & Infections, 2020, v. 9 n. 1, p. 1356-1359 How to Cite?
AbstractDuring the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, logistic problems associated with specimen collection limited the SARS-CoV-2 testing, especially in the community. In this study, we assessed the use of posterior oropharyngeal saliva as specimens for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in an automated point-of-care molecular assay. Archived nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and posterior oropharyngeal saliva specimens of 58 COVID-19 patients were tested with the Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in either NPS or saliva specimens of all patients. Among them, 84.5% (49/58) tested positive in both NPS and saliva, 10.3% (6/58) tested positive in NPS only, and 5.2% (3/58) tested positive in saliva only. No significant difference in the detection rate was observed between NPS and saliva (McNemar’s test p = 0.5078). The detection rate was slightly higher for N2 (NPS 94.8% and Saliva 93.1%) than that of the E gene target (Saliva: 89.7% vs 82.8%) on both specimen types. Significantly earlier median Ct value was observed for NPS comparing to that of saliva on both E (26.8 vs 29.7, p = 0.0002) and N2 gene target (29.3 vs 32.3, p = 0.0002). The median Ct value of E gene target was significantly earlier than that of the N2 gene target for both NPS (26.8 vs 29.3, p < 0.0001) and saliva (29.7 vs 32.3, p < 0.0001). In conclusion, posterior oropharyngeal saliva and NPS were found to have similar detection rates in the point-of-care test for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Since posterior oropharyngeal saliva can be collected easily, the use of saliva as an alternative specimen type for SARS-CoV-2 detection is recommended.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/289782
ISSN
2018 Impact Factor: 6.212
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.774
PubMed Central ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChen, JHK-
dc.contributor.authorYip, CCY-
dc.contributor.authorPoon, RWS-
dc.contributor.authorChan, KH-
dc.contributor.authorCheng, VCC-
dc.contributor.authorHung, IFN-
dc.contributor.authorChan, JFW-
dc.contributor.authorYuen, KY-
dc.contributor.authorTo, KKW-
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-22T08:17:24Z-
dc.date.available2020-10-22T08:17:24Z-
dc.date.issued2020-
dc.identifier.citationEmerging Microbes & Infections, 2020, v. 9 n. 1, p. 1356-1359-
dc.identifier.issn2222-1751-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/289782-
dc.description.abstractDuring the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, logistic problems associated with specimen collection limited the SARS-CoV-2 testing, especially in the community. In this study, we assessed the use of posterior oropharyngeal saliva as specimens for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in an automated point-of-care molecular assay. Archived nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and posterior oropharyngeal saliva specimens of 58 COVID-19 patients were tested with the Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in either NPS or saliva specimens of all patients. Among them, 84.5% (49/58) tested positive in both NPS and saliva, 10.3% (6/58) tested positive in NPS only, and 5.2% (3/58) tested positive in saliva only. No significant difference in the detection rate was observed between NPS and saliva (McNemar’s test p = 0.5078). The detection rate was slightly higher for N2 (NPS 94.8% and Saliva 93.1%) than that of the E gene target (Saliva: 89.7% vs 82.8%) on both specimen types. Significantly earlier median Ct value was observed for NPS comparing to that of saliva on both E (26.8 vs 29.7, p = 0.0002) and N2 gene target (29.3 vs 32.3, p = 0.0002). The median Ct value of E gene target was significantly earlier than that of the N2 gene target for both NPS (26.8 vs 29.3, p < 0.0001) and saliva (29.7 vs 32.3, p < 0.0001). In conclusion, posterior oropharyngeal saliva and NPS were found to have similar detection rates in the point-of-care test for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Since posterior oropharyngeal saliva can be collected easily, the use of saliva as an alternative specimen type for SARS-CoV-2 detection is recommended.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherTaylor & Francis Group, on behalf of Shanghai ShangyixunCultural Communication Co., Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/temi20/current-
dc.relation.ispartofEmerging Microbes & Infections-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subjectCOVID-19-
dc.subjectSARS-CoV-2-
dc.subjectsaliva-
dc.subjectnasopharyngeal swab-
dc.subjectpoint-of-care testing-
dc.titleEvaluating the use of posterior oropharyngeal saliva in a point-of-care assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailChen, JHK: jonchk@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailYip, CCY: yipcyril@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailPoon, RWS: rosana@hkucc.hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailChan, KH: chankh2@hkucc.hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailCheng, VCC: vcccheng@hkucc.hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailHung, IFN: ivanhung@hkucc.hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailChan, JFW: jfwchan@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailYuen, KY: kyyuen@hkucc.hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailTo, KKW: kelvinto@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityYip, CCY=rp01721-
dc.identifier.authorityChan, KH=rp01921-
dc.identifier.authorityHung, IFN=rp00508-
dc.identifier.authorityChan, JFW=rp01736-
dc.identifier.authorityYuen, KY=rp00366-
dc.identifier.authorityTo, KKW=rp01384-
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/22221751.2020.1775133-
dc.identifier.pmid32459137-
dc.identifier.pmcidPMC7448919-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85086522847-
dc.identifier.hkuros317170-
dc.identifier.volume9-
dc.identifier.issue1-
dc.identifier.spage1356-
dc.identifier.epage1359-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats