K K W To1, C C Y Yip2, C Y W Lai2, C K H Wong3, D T Y Ho4, P K P Pang4, A C K Ng4, K-H Leung5, R W S Poon2, K-H Chan4, V C C Cheng2, I F N Hung6, K-Y Yuen7. 1. Department of Microbiology, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, China; Department of Microbiology, Queen Mary Hospital, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, China; State Key Laboratory for Emerging Infectious Diseases, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, China; Carol Yu Centre for Infection, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China; Department of Clinical Microbiology and Infection Control, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China. 2. Department of Microbiology, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, China; Department of Microbiology, Queen Mary Hospital, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, China. 3. Department of Family Medicine and Primary Care, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. 4. Department of Microbiology, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, China. 5. Department of Microbiology, Queen Mary Hospital, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, China. 6. Carol Yu Centre for Infection, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China; Department of Clinical Microbiology and Infection Control, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China; Department of Medicine, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. 7. Department of Microbiology, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, China; Department of Microbiology, Queen Mary Hospital, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, China; State Key Laboratory for Emerging Infectious Diseases, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, China; Carol Yu Centre for Infection, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China; Department of Clinical Microbiology and Infection Control, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China. Electronic address: kyyuen@hku.hk.
Abstract
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® 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, κ 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.
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® 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, κ 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.
Authors: Ibrahim Warsi; Zohaib Khurshid; Hamda Shazam; Muhammad Farooq Umer; Eisha Imran; Muhammad Owais Khan; Paul Desmond Slowey; J Max Goodson Journal: Diseases Date: 2021-05-20