Palikša Sigitas, Lopeta Mantvydas, Belevičius Jonas, Kurmauskaitė Vaida, Ašmenavičiūtė Ieva, Pereckaitė Laura, Vitkauskienė Astra, Baliūtytė Ieva, Valentaitė Monika, Mickienė Auksė, Gagilas Julius
JSC Diagnolita, Vilnius, 10257, Lithuania.
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, 50161, Lithuania.
Infect Drug Resist. 2021 Jul 27;14:2943-2951. doi: 10.2147/IDR.S314491. eCollection 2021.
The precise diagnostic testing is of high importance in fighting the coronavirus pandemic. While nasopharyngeal (NP) swab testing is currently the gold standard, the SARS-CoV-2 virus could be also detected in some other body fluids. In this study, we aimed to compare the SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection results, obtained using saliva samples and NP swab samples, collected from infected patients and healthy volunteers.
A total of 111 individuals were enrolled in this study: 53 healthy volunteers, participating in routine testing and 58 COVID-19 patients. Diagnosis for both groups was confirmed using a set of diagnostic CE-IVD labeled RT-qPCR kits. Most of the saliva samples were collected within 48 hours after the NP swabs were taken. RNA was purified from saliva samples and analyzed using a laboratory-developed kit (Diagnolita). Detection results for both sample types were compared and analyzed in terms of result agreement, Ct variation, and quantity of internal control, as well as population analysis.
We found a good concordance between the NP swab and saliva samples. The positive percent agreement was 98.28% (CI 90.76-99.96%) and negative percent agreement was 98.11% (CI 89.93-99.95%). Additionally, we observed a statistically significant (p<0.05) and moderately strong (R = 0.53) correlation between Ct values in saliva and NP swab samples. The saliva collection method is more robust since the Ct variation of internal control ribonuclease P mRNA detection is lower in saliva samples.
Saliva sample testing is a robust and reliable non-invasive alternative to the NP swab method for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection, as well as a promising tool for COVID-19 screening.
精确的诊断检测对于抗击新冠疫情至关重要。虽然鼻咽拭子检测目前是金标准,但在其他一些体液中也能检测到严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2(SARS-CoV-2)病毒。在本研究中,我们旨在比较从感染患者和健康志愿者采集的唾液样本和鼻咽拭子样本中SARS-CoV-2 RNA的检测结果。
本研究共纳入111人:53名参与常规检测的健康志愿者和58名新冠患者。两组均使用一套经诊断CE-IVD标记的逆转录定量聚合酶链反应(RT-qPCR)试剂盒进行确诊。大多数唾液样本在采集鼻咽拭子后48小时内收集。从唾液样本中纯化RNA,并使用实验室研发的试剂盒(Diagnolita)进行分析。对两种样本类型的检测结果从结果一致性、Ct值变化、内控量以及群体分析等方面进行比较和分析。
我们发现鼻咽拭子样本和唾液样本之间具有良好的一致性。阳性符合率为98.28%(90.76 - 99.96%置信区间),阴性符合率为98.11%(89.93 - 99.95%置信区间)。此外,我们观察到唾液样本和鼻咽拭子样本的Ct值之间存在统计学显著相关性(p<0.05)且呈中度强相关(R = 0.53)。由于唾液样本中内控核糖核酸酶P mRNA检测的Ct值变化较小,唾液采集方法更可靠。
唾液样本检测是一种可靠且无创的替代鼻咽拭子方法用于SARS-CoV-2 RNA检测,也是新冠筛查的一种有前景的工具。