Альтернатива глубокому мазку
Oct. 2nd, 2021 06:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chuka_lisБельгийские исследователи показали, что слюна ничуть не хуже подходит для тестирования на ковид. Включая у детей.
Хочется верить, что все же перейдут массово к этому более рациональному методу.
While a PCR test on a nasopharyngeal swab is generally considered to be the most sensitive diagnostic test, it comes with a few important shortcomings, such as discomfort for the patient (in particular, but not limited to children), the necessity for a trained healthcare professional to take a sample, risk for nosocomial virus transmission, and the identification of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients that are no longer infectious1. As COVID-19 is an airborne disease due to virus-laden aerosols expelled by an infectious individual2, several studies have evaluated saliva as an alternative and more easily accessible sample to detect SARS-CoV-2. In a meta-analysis, PCR testing on saliva yielded a sensitivity and specificity comparable to nasopharyngeal swab testing in ambulatory patients presenting with minimal or mild symptoms3. Given the ease of sample collection and increased patient comfort, the authors suggest that laboratories should consider adopting saliva as their first sample choice, especially inscreening programs.In amore recent systematic review and meta-analysis, saliva PCR testing was specifically evaluated in children4. Comparable performance of saliva to nasopharyngeal samples was shown in both symptomatic and asymptomatic pediatric patients.While in general the RT-qPCR SARS-CoV-2 detection sensitivity and specificity on saliva is good, the various studies are quite heterogeneous in terms of patient inclusion criteria,volume of saliva collected, and saliva collection and preservation method. In our study, weaimedto evaluate a new saliva collection kit for self-sampling of a small volume of saliva under supervision using a virus inactivating and RNA stabilizing medium at the general practitioner’s office, with a focus on children.In total, matched swab and saliva was taken from 245 individuals, including 216 children.
Results: Blind RT-qPCR testing of the saliva samples confirmed all 23 positives identified by swab testing (100% concordance), irrespective of age, presence of symptoms, or high-risk status. One child's saliva sample was found low positive while negative on the nasopharyngeal swab, resulting in an overall relative sensitivity of RT-qPCR saliva testing of 104.3%. Conclusion: Saliva collected in InActiv Blue® can be a valid alternative for SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR testing in the general practitioner's setting, including children.
Хочется верить, что все же перейдут массово к этому более рациональному методу.
While a PCR test on a nasopharyngeal swab is generally considered to be the most sensitive diagnostic test, it comes with a few important shortcomings, such as discomfort for the patient (in particular, but not limited to children), the necessity for a trained healthcare professional to take a sample, risk for nosocomial virus transmission, and the identification of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients that are no longer infectious1. As COVID-19 is an airborne disease due to virus-laden aerosols expelled by an infectious individual2, several studies have evaluated saliva as an alternative and more easily accessible sample to detect SARS-CoV-2. In a meta-analysis, PCR testing on saliva yielded a sensitivity and specificity comparable to nasopharyngeal swab testing in ambulatory patients presenting with minimal or mild symptoms3. Given the ease of sample collection and increased patient comfort, the authors suggest that laboratories should consider adopting saliva as their first sample choice, especially inscreening programs.In amore recent systematic review and meta-analysis, saliva PCR testing was specifically evaluated in children4. Comparable performance of saliva to nasopharyngeal samples was shown in both symptomatic and asymptomatic pediatric patients.While in general the RT-qPCR SARS-CoV-2 detection sensitivity and specificity on saliva is good, the various studies are quite heterogeneous in terms of patient inclusion criteria,volume of saliva collected, and saliva collection and preservation method. In our study, weaimedto evaluate a new saliva collection kit for self-sampling of a small volume of saliva under supervision using a virus inactivating and RNA stabilizing medium at the general practitioner’s office, with a focus on children.In total, matched swab and saliva was taken from 245 individuals, including 216 children.
Results: Blind RT-qPCR testing of the saliva samples confirmed all 23 positives identified by swab testing (100% concordance), irrespective of age, presence of symptoms, or high-risk status. One child's saliva sample was found low positive while negative on the nasopharyngeal swab, resulting in an overall relative sensitivity of RT-qPCR saliva testing of 104.3%. Conclusion: Saliva collected in InActiv Blue® can be a valid alternative for SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR testing in the general practitioner's setting, including children.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2021-10-03 12:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-10-03 06:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-10-03 03:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-10-03 06:27 pm (UTC)