Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1080/22221751.2020.1775133
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85086522847
- PMID: 32459137
- WOS: WOS:000546839300001
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Evaluating the use of posterior oropharyngeal saliva in a point-of-care assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2
Title | Evaluating the use of posterior oropharyngeal saliva in a point-of-care assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 saliva nasopharyngeal swab point-of-care testing |
Issue Date | 2020 |
Publisher | Taylor & 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? |
Abstract | During 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 Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/289782 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 8.4 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 2.316 |
PubMed Central ID | |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Chen, JHK | - |
dc.contributor.author | Yip, CCY | - |
dc.contributor.author | Poon, RWS | - |
dc.contributor.author | Chan, KH | - |
dc.contributor.author | Cheng, VCC | - |
dc.contributor.author | Hung, IFN | - |
dc.contributor.author | Chan, JFW | - |
dc.contributor.author | Yuen, KY | - |
dc.contributor.author | To, KKW | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2020-10-22T08:17:24Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2020-10-22T08:17:24Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Emerging Microbes & Infections, 2020, v. 9 n. 1, p. 1356-1359 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 2222-1751 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/289782 | - |
dc.description.abstract | During 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.language | eng | - |
dc.publisher | Taylor & 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.ispartof | Emerging Microbes & Infections | - |
dc.rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. | - |
dc.subject | COVID-19 | - |
dc.subject | SARS-CoV-2 | - |
dc.subject | saliva | - |
dc.subject | nasopharyngeal swab | - |
dc.subject | point-of-care testing | - |
dc.title | Evaluating the use of posterior oropharyngeal saliva in a point-of-care assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.identifier.email | Chen, JHK: jonchk@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.email | Yip, CCY: yipcyril@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.email | Poon, RWS: rosana@hkucc.hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.email | Chan, KH: chankh2@hkucc.hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.email | Cheng, VCC: vcccheng@hkucc.hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.email | Hung, IFN: ivanhung@hkucc.hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.email | Chan, JFW: jfwchan@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.email | Yuen, KY: kyyuen@hkucc.hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.email | To, KKW: kelvinto@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Yip, CCY=rp01721 | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Chan, KH=rp01921 | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Hung, IFN=rp00508 | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Chan, JFW=rp01736 | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Yuen, KY=rp00366 | - |
dc.identifier.authority | To, KKW=rp01384 | - |
dc.description.nature | published_or_final_version | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1080/22221751.2020.1775133 | - |
dc.identifier.pmid | 32459137 | - |
dc.identifier.pmcid | PMC7448919 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85086522847 | - |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 317170 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 9 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 1 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 1356 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 1359 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000546839300001 | - |
dc.publisher.place | United Kingdom | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 2222-1751 | - |