In:
Journal of Medical Microbiology, Microbiology Society, Vol. 70, No. 9 ( 2021-09-06)
Kurzfassung:
Introduction. Non-invasive sample collection and viral sterilizing buffers have independently enabled workflows for more widespread COVID-19 testing by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Gap statement. The combined use of sterilizing buffers across non-invasive sample types to optimize sensitive, accessible, and biosafe sampling methods has not been directly and systematically compared. Aim. We aimed to evaluate diagnostic yield across different non-invasive samples with standard viral transport media (VTM) versus a sterilizing buffer eNAT- (Copan diagnostics Murrieta, CA) in a point-of-care diagnostic assay system. Methods. We prospectively collected 84 sets of nasal swabs, oral swabs, and saliva, from 52 COVID-19 RT-PCR-confirmed patients, and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs from 37 patients. Nasal swabs, oral swabs, and saliva were placed in either VTM or eNAT, prior to testing with the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Xpert). The sensitivity of each sampling strategy was compared using a composite positive standard. Results. Swab specimens collected in eNAT showed an overall superior sensitivity compared to swabs in VTM (70 % vs 57 %, P =0.0022). Direct saliva 90.5 %, (95 % CI: 82 %, 95 %), followed by NP swabs in VTM and saliva in eNAT, was significantly more sensitive than nasal swabs in VTM (50 %, P 〈 0.001) or eNAT (67.8 %, P =0.0012) and oral swabs in VTM (50 %, P 〈 0.0001) or eNAT (58 %, P 〈 0.0001). Saliva and use of eNAT buffer each increased detection of SARS-CoV-2 with the Xpert; however, no single sample matrix identified all positive cases. Conclusion. Saliva and eNAT sterilizing buffer can enhance safe and sensitive detection of COVID-19 using point-of-care GeneXpert instruments.
Materialart:
Online-Ressource
ISSN:
0022-2615
,
1473-5644
DOI:
10.1099/jmm.0.001380
Sprache:
Englisch
Verlag:
Microbiology Society
Publikationsdatum:
2021
ZDB Id:
2083944-3
SSG:
12
