scholarly journals Comparing The Viral Load of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Different Human Specimens

2020 ◽  
pp. 131-145
Author(s):  
Ali Hattem Hussain
Keyword(s):  
Viral Load ◽  
Rectal Swab ◽  
Throat Swab ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Threshold Value ◽  
Load Cycle ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Load Detection ◽  
Respiratory Specimens

This meta-analysis study analyzed the data of 47 recent studies with data related SARS-COV-2 viral load detection in different human specimens. 1099 patients were tested for SARS-COV-2 viral load using up to 19 different respiratory and non-respiratory specimens using RT-PCR by targeting different types of viral genes of which ORF1ab is the most commonly used target gene. 9909 specimens were taken from the patients. The mean of viral load cycle threshold value is 17.8 (±11.7), with a median of 15.95 with minimum value of 0.2 and a maximum value of 36.5. Nasopharyngeal swab has the highest positivity rate (90.5%) for viral load detection followed by Bronchoalveolar lavage, nasal swab, nasopharyngeal aspirate, throat swab and sputum. For the non-respiratory specimen, stool and rectal swab are most appropriate specimens followed by blood. The urine is not appropriate specimen for viral load detection due to very low sensitivity. The sputum was positive up to 23 days in a daily manner since start of symptoms except for the days 19, 21, and 23 that were negative for the virus. Three specimens, the nasopharyngeal swab, throat swab, and rectal swab, showed positive RT-PCR results before the appearance of COVID-19 clinical features.  Possible positive results can be present up to 43 days in throat swab, stool, and rectal swab. After negative conversion of respiratory specimens, the viral shedding can continue more than one month from stool and rectal swab. The 3rd day since onset of symptoms is the most day of testing (223/2935). The highest positivity of SARS-COV-2 viral load was recorded in day 16 since the onset of symptoms.              

scholarly journals Viral Load, Detection Rate and Sensitivity of Nasopharyngeal and Oropharyngeal Swab Sampling for Diagnosis of COVID-19

2021 ◽  
pp. 35-50
Author(s):  
Eyzawiah Hassan ◽  
Nuralia Akma Mohamad Mustafa ◽  
Nor Azirah Salahuddin ◽  
Siti Asmat Md Arepen
Keyword(s):  
Viral Load ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Pcr Assay ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
Load Detection ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
Positive Rate ◽  
Oropharyngeal Swab

The rapid spread of the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a major public health crisis. Accurate screening methods for COVID-19 infection is essential and crucial for case detection, isolation, prevention and control of the current pandemic. At present, nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs are typically used as the method of choice for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We carried out a review on the accuracy of the two different sampling sites, the nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab sampling, focusing on the viral load, detection of positive cases and sensitivity in real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay in diagnosing COVID-19. A total of 25 articles related to the topic were selected out of 5221 articles searched online using Scopus, PubMed and Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Google scholar with the keywords  COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, nasopharyngeal swab, oropharyngeal swab, nasal swab and throat swab. All full text original articles were obtained and reviewed. Nasopharyngeal swab had significantly higher SARS-CoV-2 load than oropharyngeal swab (mean Ct value ranging from 24.3-37.8, higher detection of positive rate (highest rate 62.5%) and sensitivity (highest sensitivity 98.3%, P<0.05) in RT-PCR assay compared to oropharyngeal swab. Based on the scientific literature review, both nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs were reported to have 30% probability of yielding false negative results; thus clinically suspicious patients with negative results should be viewed with concern. In conclusion, although several methods of COVID-19 screening and type of specimen are available, nasopharyngeal swab is the best option for large scale screening as it yields significantly higher viral load, higher detection of positive rate among cases and higher sensitivity in RT-PCR assay compared to oropharyngeal swab in detecting SARS-CoV-2.

scholarly journals Pooled Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Testing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bidisha Barat ◽  
Sanchita Das ◽  
Valeria De Giorgi ◽  
David K. Henderson ◽  
Stacy Kopka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Viral Load ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
High Viral Load ◽  
Load Cycle ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Viral Loads ◽  
Viral Transport ◽  
Average Loss ◽  
Positive Agreement

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 percent positive agreement 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 average loss of signal upon pooling was 2-3 Ct values across the platforms. The sensitivity of detecting a positive specimen in a pool compared with testing individually was 94%, 90%, and 94% 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.

scholarly journals Pooled Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Testing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bidisha Barat ◽  
Sanchita Das ◽  
Valeria De Giorgi ◽  
David K. Henderson ◽  
Stacy Kopka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Viral Load ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
High Viral Load ◽  
Load Cycle ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Lower Viral Load ◽  
Viral Loads ◽  
Viral Transport ◽  
Positive Specimen

AbstractWe 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.

scholarly journals Performance of Self-Collected Saliva Testing Compared with Nasopharyngeal Swab Testing for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2

Viruses ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 895
Author(s):  
Florence Carrouel ◽  
Martine Valette ◽  
Hervé Perrier ◽  
Maude Bouscambert-Duchamp ◽  
Claude Dussart ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Viral Load ◽  
Quantitative Pcr ◽  
Statistical Analyses ◽  
Fair Agreement ◽  
Quantitative Detection ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Noninvasive Techniques ◽  
Concordance Probability ◽  
Salivary Test

The aim of this study was to determine whether self-collected pure saliva (SCPS) is comparable to nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs in the quantitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR in asymptomatic, mild patients with confirmed COVID-19. Thirty-one patients aged from 18 to 85 years were included between 9 June and 11 December 2020. A SCPS sample and a NP sample were taken for each patient. Quantitative PCR was performed to detect SARS-CoV-2 viral load. Results of SCPS vs NP samples testing were compared. Statistical analyses were performed. Viral load was significantly correlated (r = 0.72). The concordance probability was estimated at 73.3%. In symptomatic adults, SCPS performance was similar to that of NP swabs (Percent Agreement = 74.1%; p = 0.11). Thus, the salivary test based on pure oral saliva samples easily obtained by noninvasive techniques has a fair agreement with the nasopharyngeal one in asymptomatic, mild patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19.

scholarly journals Diagnosis of SARS-Cov-2 Infection by RT-PCR Using Specimens Other Than Naso- and Oropharyngeal Swabs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 363
Author(s):  
Vânia M. Moreira ◽  
Paulo Mascarenhas ◽  
Vanessa Machado ◽  
João Botelho ◽  
José João Mendes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Sample Collection ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Oropharyngeal Swab ◽  
Nucleic Acid Assays

The rapid and accurate testing of SARS-CoV-2 infection is still crucial to mitigate, and eventually halt, the spread of this disease. Currently, nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) are the recommended standard sampling techniques, yet, these have some limitations such as the complexity of collection. Hence, several other types of specimens that are easier to obtain are being tested as alternatives to nasal/throat swabs in nucleic acid assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection. This study aims to critically appraise and compare the clinical performance of RT-PCR tests using oral saliva, deep-throat saliva/posterior oropharyngeal saliva (DTS/POS), sputum, urine, feces, and tears/conjunctival swab (CS) against standard specimens (NPS, OPS, or a combination of both). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrial.gov and NIPH Clinical Trial) were searched up to the 30th of December, 2020. Case-control and cohort studies on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 were included. The methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS 2). We identified 1560 entries, 33 of which (1.1%) met all required criteria and were included for the quantitative data analysis. Saliva presented the higher accuracy, 92.1% (95% CI: 70.0–98.3), with an estimated sensitivity of 83.9% (95% CI: 77.4–88.8) and specificity of 96.4% (95% CI: 89.5–98.8). DTS/POS samples had an overall accuracy of 79.7% (95% CI: 43.3–95.3), with an estimated sensitivity of 90.1% (95% CI: 83.3–96.9) and specificity of 63.1% (95% CI: 36.8–89.3). The remaining index specimens could not be adequately assessed given the lack of studies available. Our meta-analysis shows that saliva samples from the oral region provide a high sensitivity and specificity; therefore, these appear to be the best candidates for alternative specimens to NPS/OPS in SARS-CoV-2 detection, with suitable protocols for swab-free sample collection to be determined and validated in the future. The distinction between oral and extra-oral salivary samples will be crucial, since DTS/POS samples may induce a higher rate of false positives. Urine, feces, tears/CS and sputum seem unreliable for diagnosis. Saliva testing may increase testing capacity, ultimately promoting the implementation of truly deployable COVID-19 tests, which could either work at the point-of-care (e.g. hospitals, clinics) or at outbreak control spots (e.g., schools, airports, and nursing homes).

scholarly journals A Direct Comparison of Enhanced Saliva to Nasopharyngeal Swab for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Symptomatic Patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 58 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary W. Procop ◽  
Nabin K. Shrestha ◽  
Sherilynn Vogel ◽  
Kelly Van Sickle ◽  
Susan Harrington ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Viral Load ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Reference Standard ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Viral Transport ◽  
Qualitative Detection ◽  
Diagnostic Panel ◽  
The One ◽  
Positive Agreement

ABSTRACT The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in shortages of nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) and viral transport media, necessitating the search for alternate diagnostic specimens, such as saliva. We directly compared matched saliva and NPS specimens from symptomatic patients suspected of having COVID-19. An enhanced saliva specimen (i.e., strong sniff, elicited cough, and collection of saliva/secretions) was collected without transport medium prior to collection of NPS from 224 patients with symptoms deemed consistent with COVID-19. Both specimens were tested with the CDC 2019 nCoV real-time RT-PCR diagnostic panel (4 February 2020 version), with the NPS result used as the reference standard. For the 216 patients included in the final analysis, there was 100% positive agreement (38/38 positive specimens) and 99.4% negative agreement (177/178 negative specimens). The one discrepant specimen had the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) confirmed in the saliva specimen using an alternate FDA EUA assay. The overall mean difference in cycle threshold (CT) values for the positive NPS and saliva specimens was −3.61 (95% confidence interval [CI], −5.78 to −1.44; P = 0.002). An enhanced saliva specimen performed as well as NPS for the qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic patients, although the overall mean viral load in saliva was lower.

scholarly journals RNAemia Corresponds to Disease Severity and Antibody Response in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients

Viruses ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (9) ◽  
pp. 1045 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsten Alexandra Eberhardt ◽  
Charlotte Meyer-Schwickerath ◽  
Eva Heger ◽  
Elena Knops ◽  
Clara Lehmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Viral Load ◽  
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome ◽  
Antibody Response ◽  
Critical Case ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Systemic Infection ◽  
Threshold Value ◽  
Plasma Samples ◽  
Systemic Component ◽  
Respiratory Specimens

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) represents a global health emergency. To improve the understanding of the systemic component of SARS-CoV-2, we investigated if viral load dynamics in plasma and respiratory samples are associated with antibody response and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). SARS-CoV-2 RNA was found in plasma samples from 14 (44%) out of 32 patients. RNAemia was detected in 5 out of 6 fatal cases. Peak IgG values were significantly lower in mild/moderate than in severe (0.6 (interquartile range, IQR, 0.4–3.2) vs. 11.8 (IQR, 9.9–13.0), adjusted p = 0.003) or critical cases (11.29 (IQR, 8.3–12.0), adjusted p = 0.042). IgG titers were significantly associated with virus Ct (Cycle threshold) value in plasma and respiratory specimens ((ß = 0.4, 95% CI (confidence interval, 0.2; 0.5), p < 0.001 and ß = 0.5, 95% CI (0.2; 0.6), p = 0.002). A classification as severe or a critical case was additionally inversely associated with Ct values in plasma in comparison to mild/moderate cases (ß = −3.3, 95% CI (−5.8; 0.8), p = 0.024 and ß = −4.4, 95% CI (−7.2; 1.6), p = 0.007, respectively). Based on the present data, our hypothesis is that the early stage of SARS-CoV-2 infection is characterized by a primary RNAemia, as a potential manifestation of a systemic infection. Additionally, the viral load in plasma seems to be associated with a worse disease outcome.

scholarly journals Multicenter evaluation of the Panbio™ COVID-19 Rapid Antigen-Detection Test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paloma Merino-Amador ◽  
Jesús Guinea ◽  
Irene Muñoz-Gallego ◽  
Patricia González-Donapetry ◽  
Juan-Carlos Galán ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Viral Load ◽  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Antigen Detection ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Diagnostic Strategy ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
University Hospitals ◽  
Kappa Score

AbstractThe standard RT-PCR assay for COVID-19 is laborious and time-consuming, limiting the availability of testing. Rapid antigen-detection tests are faster and less expensive; however, the reliability of these tests must be validated before they can be used widely. The objective of this study was to determine the reliability of the PanbioTM COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device (PanbioRT) (Abbott) for SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab specimens. This was a prospective multicenter study in ten Spanish university hospitals of patients from hospital units with clinical symptoms or epidemiological criteria for COVID-19. Patients whose onset of symptoms or exposure was more than 7 days earlier were excluded. Two nasopharyngeal exudate samples were taken to perform the PanbioRT and a diagnostic RT-PCR test. Among the 958 patients studied, 359 (37.5%) were positive by RT-PCR and 325 (33.9%) were also positive by the PanbioRT. Agreement was 95.7% (kappa score: 0.90). All 34 false-negative PanbioRT results were in symptomatic patients, with 23.5% of them at 6–7 days since the onset of symptoms and 58.8% presenting CT >30 values for RT-PCR, indicating a low viral load. Overall sensitivity and specificity for the PanbioRT were 90.5% and 98.8%, respectively. The PanbioRT provides good clinical performance as a point-of-care test, with even more reliable results for patients with a shorter clinical course of the disease or a higher viral load. While this study has had a direct impact on the national diagnostic strategy for COVID-19 in Spain, the results must be interpreted based on the local epidemiological context.

scholarly journals SARS-CoV2 infection in symptomatic patients: interest of serological tests and predictors of mortality: experience of DR Congo

2022 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Robert Makulo ◽  
Madone Ndona Mandina ◽  
Placide Kingebeni Mbala ◽  
Roger Dimosi Wumba ◽  
Pierre Zalagile Akilimali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Viral Load ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Clinical Stage ◽  
Threshold Value ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Serological Tests ◽  
Kappa Test ◽  
Clinical Stages ◽  
The University

Abstract Background In symptomatic patients, the diagnostic approach of COVID-19 should be holistic. We aimed to evaluate the concordance between RT-PCR and serological tests (IgM/IgG), and identify the factors that best predict mortality (clinical stages or viral load). Methods The study included 242 patients referred to the University hospital of Kinshasa for suspected COVID-19, dyspnea or ARDS between June 1st, 2020 and August 02, 2020. Both antibody-SARS-CoV2 IgM/IgG and RT-PCR method were performed on the day of admission to hospital. The clinical stages were established according to the COVID-19 WHO classification. The viral load was expressed by the CtN2 (cycle threshold value of the nucleoproteins) and the CtE (envelope) genes of SARS- CoV-2 detected using GeneXpert. Kappa test and Cox regression were used as appropriate. Results The GeneXpert was positive in 74 patients (30.6%). Seventy two patients (29.8%) had positive IgM and 34 patients (14.0%) had positive IgG. The combination of RT-PCR and serological tests made it possible to treat 104 patients as having COVID-19, which represented an increase in cases of around 41% compared to the result based on GeneXpert alone. The comparison between the two tests has shown that 57 patients (23.5%) had discordant results. The Kappa coefficient was 0.451 (p < 0.001). We recorded 23 deaths (22.1%) among the COVID-19 patients vs 8 deaths (5.8%) among other patients. The severe-critical clinical stage increased the risk of mortality vs. mild-moderate stage (aHR: 26.8, p < 0.001). The values of CtE and CtN2 did not influence mortality significantly. Conclusion In symptomatic patients, serological tests are a support which makes it possible to refer patients to the dedicated COVID-19 units and treat a greater number of COVID-19 patients. WHO Clinical classification seems to predict mortality better than SARS-Cov2 viral load.

A CYCLE THRESHOLD VALUE-BASED EPIDEMIC PROGNOSTICATION TO MONITOR LONG-TERM EPIDEMIOLOGIC TRENDS OF SARS-COV-2 VIRUS

2021 ◽  
pp. 24-30
Author(s):  
Aditi Munmun Sengupta ◽  
Diptendu Chatterjee ◽  
Bibhuti Saha
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Threshold Value ◽  
High Viral Load ◽  
World Health ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Cycle Threshold ◽  
Ct Value ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
The Impact

The real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is considered as the sensitive proof for detecting the viral infection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus obtained from respiratory samples. The quantitative values for the analysis are benecial for estimating the transmissibility of people who test positive for SARS-CoV-2. This can be further achieved by analyzing the samples by semiquantitative means through the interpretation of the cycle threshold (Ct) values of RT-PCR that represent the rst cycle of PCR at which a detectable signal appears during the assays. The Ct value shows a correlation between high viral load and disease infectiousness, which is observed with other respiratory viruses, including the inuenza B infection and rhinovirus infection. Hence, the present study aims to analyze the surveillance of COVID-19 to monitor longer-term epidemiologic trends and trends in deaths due to COVID-19. In order to achieve this aim, the present review was reported to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis statements (PRISMA) for analyzing the Ct value-based epidemic predictions and to monitor long-term epidemiologic trends of SARS-CoV-2 virus. Total 33 studies have been nalized for nding out the results of the study. The epidemiologic parameter and a representative of the surveillance data for reporting to the World Health Organization were fullled by analyzing the systematic review and metaanalysis of the selected study. Moreover, the evaluation of the impact of the pandemic on the health care system and society was achieved by analyzing the studies mentioned here.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document