Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in different types of clinical specimens among suspected COVID-19 patients in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Q2 Medicine VirusDisease Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-09 DOI:10.1007/s13337-024-00892-9
Tadesse Lejisa, Rozina Ambachew, Demiraw Bikila, Chala Bashea, Abera Abdeta, Dawit Chala, Natnael Dejene, Habteyes Hailu Tola, Gadissa Bedada Hundie
{"title":"Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in different types of clinical specimens among suspected COVID-19 patients in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.","authors":"Tadesse Lejisa, Rozina Ambachew, Demiraw Bikila, Chala Bashea, Abera Abdeta, Dawit Chala, Natnael Dejene, Habteyes Hailu Tola, Gadissa Bedada Hundie","doi":"10.1007/s13337-024-00892-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although nasopharyngeal swabs (NPSs) are superior to saliva specimens, saliva can be used as an alternative specimen for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing. Moreover, studies have reported contradicting findings on whether SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in urine or not. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic utility of NPSs, saliva and urine specimens in suspected COVID-19 patients. We conducted a cross-sectional study among a total of 604 specimens collected from 219 individuals suspected for COVID-19 from February to July 2022. We recruited participants from two COVID-19 isolation and treatment centers in Addis Ababa. We analyzed the specimens by real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) with a Cobas 8800 automated system. The presence of SARS-CoV-2 in NPS, saliva, and urine samples was measured by cycle threshold (Ct) values. Descriptive statistics such as frequency, percent, and mean with standard deviation were used to summarize participants characteristics. We conducted chi-square test to compare RT‒PCR results of NPS, saliva and urine specimens. All data was analyzed by SPSS version 27, and the level of significance was set at a <i>p</i> value ≤ 0.05. Of the 219 participants, 126 (57.5%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 either from NPS, saliva, urine or all specimens. The rate of SARS-CoV-2 detection was significantly higher in NPS (53.9%) than in saliva (35.2%; <i>p</i> = 0.001) and urine (9.0%; <i>p</i> = 0.001) specimens. The percentage of positive agreement between NPS and saliva was 92.2%, while negative agreement was 66.9%. The overall agreement between NPS and saliva was 75.8% (K = 0.53, <i>p</i> < 0.001). In addition, there was a significant correlation in Ct values of both ORF1ab and E genes between the paired NPS and saliva specimens. There was significant positive correlation between NPS and saliva specimens Ct values of both ORF1ab and E genes and days from onset of symptoms to specimen collection. SARS-CoV-2 was significantly detected in NPS than in saliva and urine specimens. Although NPS is better for SARS-CoV-2 detection, saliva specimen can be used as an alternative clinical specimen in resource-limited settings where access to swabs is limited. Both saliva and urine could be sources of viral transmission.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13337-024-00892-9.</p>","PeriodicalId":23708,"journal":{"name":"VirusDisease","volume":"35 4","pages":"567-576"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11635055/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"VirusDisease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13337-024-00892-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although nasopharyngeal swabs (NPSs) are superior to saliva specimens, saliva can be used as an alternative specimen for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing. Moreover, studies have reported contradicting findings on whether SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in urine or not. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic utility of NPSs, saliva and urine specimens in suspected COVID-19 patients. We conducted a cross-sectional study among a total of 604 specimens collected from 219 individuals suspected for COVID-19 from February to July 2022. We recruited participants from two COVID-19 isolation and treatment centers in Addis Ababa. We analyzed the specimens by real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) with a Cobas 8800 automated system. The presence of SARS-CoV-2 in NPS, saliva, and urine samples was measured by cycle threshold (Ct) values. Descriptive statistics such as frequency, percent, and mean with standard deviation were used to summarize participants characteristics. We conducted chi-square test to compare RT‒PCR results of NPS, saliva and urine specimens. All data was analyzed by SPSS version 27, and the level of significance was set at a p value ≤ 0.05. Of the 219 participants, 126 (57.5%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 either from NPS, saliva, urine or all specimens. The rate of SARS-CoV-2 detection was significantly higher in NPS (53.9%) than in saliva (35.2%; p = 0.001) and urine (9.0%; p = 0.001) specimens. The percentage of positive agreement between NPS and saliva was 92.2%, while negative agreement was 66.9%. The overall agreement between NPS and saliva was 75.8% (K = 0.53, p < 0.001). In addition, there was a significant correlation in Ct values of both ORF1ab and E genes between the paired NPS and saliva specimens. There was significant positive correlation between NPS and saliva specimens Ct values of both ORF1ab and E genes and days from onset of symptoms to specimen collection. SARS-CoV-2 was significantly detected in NPS than in saliva and urine specimens. Although NPS is better for SARS-CoV-2 detection, saliva specimen can be used as an alternative clinical specimen in resource-limited settings where access to swabs is limited. Both saliva and urine could be sources of viral transmission.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13337-024-00892-9.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
埃塞俄比亚亚的斯亚贝巴疑似COVID-19患者不同类型临床标本中SARS-CoV-2 RNA检测比较
虽然鼻咽拭子(nps)优于唾液标本,但唾液可作为严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2 (SARS-CoV-2)检测的替代标本。此外,关于尿液中是否可以检测到SARS-CoV-2,研究报告了相互矛盾的结果。因此,我们旨在评估nps、唾液和尿液标本对疑似COVID-19患者的诊断价值。我们对2022年2月至7月从219名COVID-19疑似病例中采集的604份标本进行了横断面研究。我们从亚的斯亚贝巴的两个COVID-19隔离和治疗中心招募了参与者。采用实时逆转录聚合酶链反应(RT-PCR), Cobas 8800自动检测系统对标本进行分析。通过循环阈值(Ct)值测量NPS、唾液和尿液样本中SARS-CoV-2的存在。描述性统计,如频率,百分比,平均值与标准差被用来总结参与者的特征。我们采用卡方检验比较NPS、唾液和尿液标本的RT-PCR结果。所有数据采用SPSS 27版分析,p值≤0.05。在219名参与者中,126人(57.5%)从NPS、唾液、尿液或所有标本中检测出SARS-CoV-2阳性。NPS中SARS-CoV-2检出率(53.9%)显著高于唾液(35.2%);P = 0.001)和尿(9.0%;P = 0.001)标本。NPS与唾液阳性率为92.2%,阴性阳性率为66.9%。NPS与唾液的总体一致性为75.8% (K = 0.53, p)。补充信息:在线版本包含补充资料,可在10.1007/s13337-024-00892-9获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
VirusDisease
VirusDisease Medicine-Infectious Diseases
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: VirusDisease, formerly known as ''Indian Journal of Virology'', publishes original research on all aspects of viruses infecting animal, human, plant, fish and other living organisms.
期刊最新文献
Epidemiological description of an avian infectious bronchitis outbreak in Costa Rica, associated with an IBV GA13-like variant. Pathological and molecular characterization of infectious bronchitis virus in Kerala. Quality of life among people living with HIV/AIDS in nepal: the role of HIV status disclosure and gender. Diversity of porcine circovirus 2 genotypes: insights from the studies reported worldwide in the past decade. Human herpesvirus 7 (HHV-7) outbreak among hostel inmates in Odisha, India.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1