Reliability of induced sputum test is greater than that of throat swab test for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19: A multi-center cross-sectional study.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Betacoronavirus
/ genetics
Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid
/ virology
COVID-19
COVID-19 Testing
China
Clinical Laboratory Techniques
/ methods
Coronavirus Infections
/ diagnosis
Cross-Sectional Studies
False Negative Reactions
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Pandemics
Pneumonia, Viral
/ diagnosis
Prospective Studies
Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction
SARS-CoV-2
Sensitivity and Specificity
Sputum
/ virology
Young Adult
COVID-19
SARS-CoV-2
induced sputum
reliability
throat swab
Journal
Virulence
ISSN: 2150-5608
Titre abrégé: Virulence
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101531386
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2020
12 2020
Historique:
entrez:
19
10
2020
pubmed:
20
10
2020
medline:
3
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We previously reported that sputum induction was more sensitive than throat swabs for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in two convalescent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients; however, the value and safety of induced sputum testing require further study. We conducted a prospective multi-center cross-sectional study to compare induced sputum to throat swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Confirmed COVID-19 patients from six hospitals in six cities across China who received one or more negative RT-PCR result for SARS-CoV-2 were enrolled, and paired specimens (induced sputum and throat swabs; 56 cases) were assayed. In three paired samples, both the induced sputum and throat swabs were positive for SARS-CoV-2. The positive rate for induced sputum was significantly higher than for throat swabs both overall (28.6% vs 5.4%, respectively; p < 0.01). Patients were divided according to time span from onset of illness to sample collection into the more-than-30-day (n = 26) and less-than-30-day (n = 30) groups. The positive rate for induced sputum was also significantly higher than for throat swabs in the less-than-30-day group (53.3% vs 10.0%, respectively; p < 0.001). For the more-than-30-day group, all paired samples were negative for SARS-CoV-2. Blood oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, and heart rate remained stable during sputum induction and no staff were infected. Because induced sputum is more reliable and has a lower false-negative rate than throat swabs, we believe induced sputum is more useful for the confirmation of COVID-19 and is safer as a criterion for release from quarantine.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33073676
doi: 10.1080/21505594.2020.1831342
pmc: PMC7575004
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1394-1401Références
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2020 Jun 25;58(7):1070-1076
pubmed: 32172228
Cureus. 2020 Apr 17;12(4):e7708
pubmed: 32313785
Chest. 2018 Apr;153(4):863-875
pubmed: 29113816
Euro Surveill. 2020 Jan;25(3):
pubmed: 31992387
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Jun;20(6):655-656
pubmed: 32171389
N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 6;383(6):e38
pubmed: 32502334
Cell. 2020 May 28;181(5):1016-1035.e19
pubmed: 32413319
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Apr 08;:
pubmed: 32266381
BMC Infect Dis. 2018 Dec 29;18(1):707
pubmed: 30594124
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Apr 09;:
pubmed: 32271374
Clin Exp Allergy. 1998 Sep;28(9):1047-9
pubmed: 9761006
Curr Pharm Des. 2017 Oct 30;23(27):4057-4065
pubmed: 28215154
JAMA. 2020 May 12;323(18):1843-1844
pubmed: 32159775
Chest. 2020 Sep;158(3):1268-1281
pubmed: 32361152
N Engl J Med. 2020 Sep 24;383(13):1283-1286
pubmed: 32857487
Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):497-506
pubmed: 31986264
Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 18;173(4):262-267
pubmed: 32422057
BMJ. 2020 May 29;369:m1996
pubmed: 32471884
J Dent Res. 2019 Feb;98(2):133-141
pubmed: 30782091
JAMA. 2020 Apr 21;323(15):1502-1503
pubmed: 32105304