4.7 Article

Saliva as a diagnostic specimen for testing respiratory virus by a point-of-care molecular assay: a diagnostic validity study

Journal

CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION
Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages 372-378

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2018.06.009

Keywords

Automated; Cost; Influenza virus; Nasopharyngeal; Point-of-care testing; Respiratory syncytial virus; Saliva

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Automated point-of-care molecular assays have greatly shortened the turnaround time of respiratory virus testing. One of the major bottlenecks now lies at the specimen collection step, especially in a busy clinical setting. Saliva is a convenient specimen type that can be provided easily by adult patients. This study assessed the diagnostic validity, specimen collection time and cost associated with the use of saliva. Methods: This was a prospective diagnostic validity study comparing the detection rate of respiratory viruses between saliva and nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA) among adult hospitalized patients using Xpert (R) Xpress Flu/RSV. The cost and time associated with the collection of saliva and nasopharyngeal specimens were also estimated. Results: Between July and October 2017, 214 patients were recruited. The overall agreement between saliva and NPA was 93.3% (196/210, kappa 0.851, 95% CI 0.776-0.926). There was no significant difference in the detection rate of respiratory viruses between saliva and NPA (32.9% (69/210) versus 35.7% (75/210); p 0.146). The overall sensitivity and specificity were 90.8% (81.9%-96.2%) and 100% (97.3%-100%), respectively, for saliva, and were 96.1% (88.9%-99.2%) and 98.5% (94.7%-99.8%), respectively, for NPA. The time and cost associated with the collection of saliva were 2.26-fold and 2.59-fold lower, respectively, than those of NPA. Conclusions: Saliva specimens have high sensitivity and specificity in the detection of respiratory viruses by an automated multiplex Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-waived point-of-care molecular assay when compared with those of NPA. The use of saliva also reduces the time and cost associated with specimen collection. (c) 2018 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available