3.8 Article

From Delta to Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant: Switch to saliva sampling for higher detection rate

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcvp.2022.100090

关键词

SARS-CoV-2; Omicron; Delta; Nasopharyngeal swab; Saliva; Oropharyngeal swab

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the performance of oropharyngeal swab, nasopharyngeal swab, and saliva in detecting SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron variants using RT-PCR. The results showed that saliva was superior to nasopharyngeal swab in detecting the Omicron variant. For the Delta variant, nasopharyngeal swab and saliva were considered equivalent specimens. Oropharyngeal swab was the least sensitive sample type and provided little additional value when collected in addition to a single nasopharyngeal swab.
Background: Real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing on a nasopharyngeal swab is the current standard for SARS-CoV-2 virus detection. Since collection of this sample type is experienced uncomfortable by patients, saliva- and oropharyngeal swab collections should be considered as alternative specimens. Objectives: Evaluation of the relative performance of oropharyngeal swab, nasopharyngeal swab and saliva for the RT-PCR based SARS-CoV-2 Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant detection. Study design: Nasopharyngeal swab, oropharyngeal swab and saliva were collected from 246 adult patients who presented for SARS-CoV-2 testing at the screening centre in Ypres (Belgium). RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 detection was performed on all three sample types separately. Variant type was determined for each positive patient using whole genome sequencing or Allplex SARS-CoV-2 variants I and II Assay. Results and conclusions: Saliva is superior compared to nasopharyngeal swab for the detection of the Omicron variant. For the detection of the Delta variant, nasopharyngeal swab and saliva can be considered equivalent specimens. Oropharyngeal swab is the least sensitive sample type and shows little added value when collected in addition to a single nasopharyngeal swab.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据