Evaluation of symptomatic patient saliva as a sample type for the Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 assay
SoRelle, J.; Mahimmainathan, L.; McCormick-Baw, C.; Cavuoti, D.; Lee, F.; Bararia, A.; Thomas, A.; Sarode, R.; Clark, A. E.; Muthukumar, A.
Show abstract
The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has presented significant challenges for laboratories including supply chain limitations with restricted access to reagents and sample collection materials (i.e. swabs, viral transport media (VTM)) for patients testing. Therefore, saliva has been evaluated as an alternative specimen for COVID-19 diagnosis. comparable performance between dry nasal swabs (NS) and nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) collected in VTM has been observed with the ID NOW for SARS-CoV-2; the majority of false-negative results occur with higher cycle number (CN) or cycle threshold (Ct) values suggesting low viral load in these specimens. We performed clinical validation of saliva specimens on the ID NOW molecular platform to detect SARS-CoV-2. Saliva was compared to nasopharyngeal swabs tested on the ID NOW and the Cepheid molecular assay. We also performed stability studies of saliva samples over 5 days. A total of 96 saliva samples and 64 paired NPS were analyzed. We observed 78% (18/23) positive percent agreement (PPA) and 100% (44/44) negative percent agreement (NPA) between matched saliva and nasopharyngeal specimens performed on ID NOW. We found 83% (19/23) PPA and 100% NPA (25/25) between saliva run on the ID NOW and Cepheid assay. Six saliva specimens positive for SARS-CoV-2 were continuously positive for five days when stored at room temperature. Therefore, we propose further investigation of saliva as an alternative sample type for testing symptomatic patients with ID NOW as a promising method to address COVID-19 testing.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Analytical comparison of over-the-counter multiplex tests for influenza A, influenza B and SARS-CoV-2 96%
- Saliva Is Comparable to Nasopharyngeal Swabs for Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2 96%
- Clinical Performance of Direct RT-PCR Testing of Raw Saliva for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Individuals 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Direct comparison of clinical diagnostic sensitivity of saliva from buccal swabs versus combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 Omicron 95%
- Clinical evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay on a fully automated system for rapid on-demand testing in the hospital setting 95%
- Impaired performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid tests at elevated temperatures 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and Implementation of a Simple and Rapid Extraction-Free Saliva SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP Workflow for Workplace Surveillance 96%
- Evaluation of GENECUBE ® HQ SARS-CoV-2 for anterior nasal samples and saliva samples with a new rapid examination protocol 96%
- Rapid processing of SARS-CoV-2 containing specimens for direct RT-PCR 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Performance evaluation of a non-invasive one-step multiplex RT-qPCR assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 direct from human saliva 96%
- Validation of a rapid, saliva-based, and ultra-sensitive SARS-CoV-2 screening system for a pandemic-scale infection surveillance 96%
- Sensitive detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva 95%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.