In-Depth Longitudinal Comparison of Clinical Specimens to Detect SARS-CoV-2
The testing and isolation of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are indispensable tools to control the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. PCR tests are considered the “gold standard” of COVID-19 testing and mostly involve testing nasopharyngeal swab specimens. Our study aimed to compare the s...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2021-10-01
|
| Series: | Pathogens |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0817/10/11/1362 |
| _version_ | 1797508883387777024 |
|---|---|
| author | Justine Defêche Samira Azarzar Alyssia Mesdagh Patricia Dellot Amandine Tytgat Fabrice Bureau Laurent Gillet Yasmine Belhadj Sebastien Bontems Marie-Pierre Hayette Raphaël Schils Souad Rahmouni Marie Ernst Michel Moutschen Gilles Darcis |
| author_facet | Justine Defêche Samira Azarzar Alyssia Mesdagh Patricia Dellot Amandine Tytgat Fabrice Bureau Laurent Gillet Yasmine Belhadj Sebastien Bontems Marie-Pierre Hayette Raphaël Schils Souad Rahmouni Marie Ernst Michel Moutschen Gilles Darcis |
| author_sort | Justine Defêche |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The testing and isolation of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are indispensable tools to control the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. PCR tests are considered the “gold standard” of COVID-19 testing and mostly involve testing nasopharyngeal swab specimens. Our study aimed to compare the sensitivity of tests for various sample specimens. Seventy-five participants with confirmed COVID-19 were included in the study. Nasopharyngeal swabs, oropharyngeal swabs, Oracol-collected saliva, throat washes and rectal specimens were collected along with pooled swabs. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire to correlate specific clinical symptoms and the symptom duration with the sensitivity of detecting COVID-19 in various sample specimens. Sampling was repeated after 7 to 10 days (T2), then after 14 to 20 days (T3) to perform a longitudinal analysis of sample specimen sensitivity. At the first time point, the highest percentages of SARS-CoV-2-positive samples were observed for nasopharyngeal samples (84.3%), while 74%, 68.2%, 58.8% and 3.5% of throat washing, Oracol-collected saliva, oropharyngeal and rectal samples tested positive, respectively. The sensitivity of all sampling methods except throat wash samples decreased rapidly at later time points compared to the first collection. The throat washing method exhibited better performance than the gold standard nasopharyngeal swab at the second and third time points after the first positive test date. Nasopharyngeal swabs were the most sensitive specimens for early detection after symptom onset. Throat washing is a sensitive alternative method. It was found that SARS-CoV-2 persists longer in the throat and saliva than in the nasopharynx. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-10T05:11:04Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-a023c7e1c9334e3c880cc70b471d4e63 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2076-0817 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-10T05:11:04Z |
| publishDate | 2021-10-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Pathogens |
| spelling | doaj.art-a023c7e1c9334e3c880cc70b471d4e632023-11-23T00:52:09ZengMDPI AGPathogens2076-08172021-10-011011136210.3390/pathogens10111362In-Depth Longitudinal Comparison of Clinical Specimens to Detect SARS-CoV-2Justine Defêche0Samira Azarzar1Alyssia Mesdagh2Patricia Dellot3Amandine Tytgat4Fabrice Bureau5Laurent Gillet6Yasmine Belhadj7Sebastien Bontems8Marie-Pierre Hayette9Raphaël Schils10Souad Rahmouni11Marie Ernst12Michel Moutschen13Gilles Darcis14Department of Clinical Microbiology, University of Liège, 4000 Liège, BelgiumDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Liège University Hospital, 4000 Liège, BelgiumDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Liège University Hospital, 4000 Liège, BelgiumDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Liège University Hospital, 4000 Liège, BelgiumLaboratory of Cellular and Molecular Immunology, GIGA Institute, University of Liège, 4000 Liège, BelgiumLaboratory of Cellular and Molecular Immunology, GIGA Institute, University of Liège, 4000 Liège, BelgiumImmunology-Vaccinology Laboratory, Department of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, FARAH, University of Liège, 4000 Liège, BelgiumDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Liège University Hospital, 4000 Liège, BelgiumDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, University of Liège, 4000 Liège, BelgiumDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, University of Liège, 4000 Liège, BelgiumDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Liège University Hospital, 4000 Liège, BelgiumUnit of Animal Genomics, GIGA Institute, University of Liège, 4000 Liège, BelgiumBiostatistics and Medico-Economic Information Department, University Hospital of Liege, 4000 Liege, BelgiumDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Liège University Hospital, 4000 Liège, BelgiumDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Liège University Hospital, 4000 Liège, BelgiumThe testing and isolation of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are indispensable tools to control the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. PCR tests are considered the “gold standard” of COVID-19 testing and mostly involve testing nasopharyngeal swab specimens. Our study aimed to compare the sensitivity of tests for various sample specimens. Seventy-five participants with confirmed COVID-19 were included in the study. Nasopharyngeal swabs, oropharyngeal swabs, Oracol-collected saliva, throat washes and rectal specimens were collected along with pooled swabs. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire to correlate specific clinical symptoms and the symptom duration with the sensitivity of detecting COVID-19 in various sample specimens. Sampling was repeated after 7 to 10 days (T2), then after 14 to 20 days (T3) to perform a longitudinal analysis of sample specimen sensitivity. At the first time point, the highest percentages of SARS-CoV-2-positive samples were observed for nasopharyngeal samples (84.3%), while 74%, 68.2%, 58.8% and 3.5% of throat washing, Oracol-collected saliva, oropharyngeal and rectal samples tested positive, respectively. The sensitivity of all sampling methods except throat wash samples decreased rapidly at later time points compared to the first collection. The throat washing method exhibited better performance than the gold standard nasopharyngeal swab at the second and third time points after the first positive test date. Nasopharyngeal swabs were the most sensitive specimens for early detection after symptom onset. Throat washing is a sensitive alternative method. It was found that SARS-CoV-2 persists longer in the throat and saliva than in the nasopharynx.https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0817/10/11/1362COVID-19SARS-CoV-2diagnosispersistence |
| spellingShingle | Justine Defêche Samira Azarzar Alyssia Mesdagh Patricia Dellot Amandine Tytgat Fabrice Bureau Laurent Gillet Yasmine Belhadj Sebastien Bontems Marie-Pierre Hayette Raphaël Schils Souad Rahmouni Marie Ernst Michel Moutschen Gilles Darcis In-Depth Longitudinal Comparison of Clinical Specimens to Detect SARS-CoV-2 Pathogens COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis persistence |
| title | In-Depth Longitudinal Comparison of Clinical Specimens to Detect SARS-CoV-2 |
| title_full | In-Depth Longitudinal Comparison of Clinical Specimens to Detect SARS-CoV-2 |
| title_fullStr | In-Depth Longitudinal Comparison of Clinical Specimens to Detect SARS-CoV-2 |
| title_full_unstemmed | In-Depth Longitudinal Comparison of Clinical Specimens to Detect SARS-CoV-2 |
| title_short | In-Depth Longitudinal Comparison of Clinical Specimens to Detect SARS-CoV-2 |
| title_sort | in depth longitudinal comparison of clinical specimens to detect sars cov 2 |
| topic | COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis persistence |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0817/10/11/1362 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT justinedefeche indepthlongitudinalcomparisonofclinicalspecimenstodetectsarscov2 AT samiraazarzar indepthlongitudinalcomparisonofclinicalspecimenstodetectsarscov2 AT alyssiamesdagh indepthlongitudinalcomparisonofclinicalspecimenstodetectsarscov2 AT patriciadellot indepthlongitudinalcomparisonofclinicalspecimenstodetectsarscov2 AT amandinetytgat indepthlongitudinalcomparisonofclinicalspecimenstodetectsarscov2 AT fabricebureau indepthlongitudinalcomparisonofclinicalspecimenstodetectsarscov2 AT laurentgillet indepthlongitudinalcomparisonofclinicalspecimenstodetectsarscov2 AT yasminebelhadj indepthlongitudinalcomparisonofclinicalspecimenstodetectsarscov2 AT sebastienbontems indepthlongitudinalcomparisonofclinicalspecimenstodetectsarscov2 AT mariepierrehayette indepthlongitudinalcomparisonofclinicalspecimenstodetectsarscov2 AT raphaelschils indepthlongitudinalcomparisonofclinicalspecimenstodetectsarscov2 AT souadrahmouni indepthlongitudinalcomparisonofclinicalspecimenstodetectsarscov2 AT marieernst indepthlongitudinalcomparisonofclinicalspecimenstodetectsarscov2 AT michelmoutschen indepthlongitudinalcomparisonofclinicalspecimenstodetectsarscov2 AT gillesdarcis indepthlongitudinalcomparisonofclinicalspecimenstodetectsarscov2 |