Natural spring water gargle and direct RT-PCR for the diagnosis of COVID-19 (COVID-SPRING study).
COVID-19
Diagnosis
Gargle
PCR
SARS-CoV-2
Saliva
Journal
Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology
ISSN: 1873-5967
Titre abrégé: J Clin Virol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9815671
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2021
11 2021
Historique:
received:
11
03
2021
revised:
13
09
2021
accepted:
29
09
2021
pubmed:
8
10
2021
medline:
3
11
2021
entrez:
7
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Nasopharyngeal swab has long been considered the specimen of choice for the diagnosis of respiratory viral infections, including SARS-CoV-2 infection, but it suffers from several drawbacks: its discomfort limits screening acceptability, and it is vulnerable to shortages in both specialized materials and trained healthcare workers in the context of a pandemic. We prospectively compared natural spring water gargle to combined oro-nasopharyngeal swab (ONPS) for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in paired clinical specimens (1005 ONPS and 1005 gargles) collected from 987 unique early symptomatic as well as asymptomatic individuals from the community. Using a direct RT-PCR method with the Allplex™ 2019-nCoV Assay (Seegene), the clinical sensitivity of the gargle was 95.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.2 - 98.3%), similar to the sensitivity of the ONPS (93.8%; 95% CI, 88.2 - 97.3%), despite significantly lower viral RNA concentration in gargles, as reflected by higher cycle threshold values. No single specimen type detected all COVID-19 cases. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was stable in gargles at room temperature for at least 7 days. The simplicity of this sampling method coupled with the accessibility of spring water are clear advantages in a pandemic situation where testing frequency, turnaround time and shortage of consumables and trained staff are critical elements.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Nasopharyngeal swab has long been considered the specimen of choice for the diagnosis of respiratory viral infections, including SARS-CoV-2 infection, but it suffers from several drawbacks: its discomfort limits screening acceptability, and it is vulnerable to shortages in both specialized materials and trained healthcare workers in the context of a pandemic.
METHODS
We prospectively compared natural spring water gargle to combined oro-nasopharyngeal swab (ONPS) for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in paired clinical specimens (1005 ONPS and 1005 gargles) collected from 987 unique early symptomatic as well as asymptomatic individuals from the community.
RESULTS
Using a direct RT-PCR method with the Allplex™ 2019-nCoV Assay (Seegene), the clinical sensitivity of the gargle was 95.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.2 - 98.3%), similar to the sensitivity of the ONPS (93.8%; 95% CI, 88.2 - 97.3%), despite significantly lower viral RNA concentration in gargles, as reflected by higher cycle threshold values. No single specimen type detected all COVID-19 cases. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was stable in gargles at room temperature for at least 7 days.
CONCLUSION
The simplicity of this sampling method coupled with the accessibility of spring water are clear advantages in a pandemic situation where testing frequency, turnaround time and shortage of consumables and trained staff are critical elements.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34619381
pii: S1386-6532(21)00262-6
doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2021.104995
pmc: PMC8487097
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
RNA, Viral
0
Water
059QF0KO0R
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
104995Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Références
Clin Infect Dis. 2021 May 4;72(9):e352-e356
pubmed: 32761244
Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Nov 2;73(9):e3127-e3129
pubmed: 33570097
J Clin Virol. 2020 Sep;130:104567
pubmed: 32750665
J Med Microbiol. 2021 Aug;70(8):
pubmed: 34369860
N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 26;383(22):e120
pubmed: 32997903
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Jun 16;:
pubmed: 32556191
Med (N Y). 2021 Mar 12;2(3):263-280.e6
pubmed: 33521748
J Clin Virol. 2020 Jul;128:104469
pubmed: 32474371
N Engl J Med. 2020 Sep 24;383(13):1283-1286
pubmed: 32857487
Virol J. 2020 Dec 18;17(1):196
pubmed: 33339539
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2021 Nov;42(11):1340-1344
pubmed: 33436122
Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Feb 1;72(3):403-410
pubmed: 33527126
JAMA Intern Med. 2021 Mar 1;181(3):353-360
pubmed: 33449069
Indian J Med Res. 2020 Jul & Aug;152(1 & 2):77-81
pubmed: 32820725
J Virol Methods. 2017 Oct;248:83-86
pubmed: 28633963
Viruses. 2020 Nov 17;12(11):
pubmed: 33212817
J Clin Virol. 2020 Jul;128:104423
pubmed: 32416598
J Clin Microbiol. 2021 Mar 19;59(4):
pubmed: 33514627