The diagnosis of COVID-19 relies on the direct detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in respiratory specimens by RT-PCR. The pandemic spread of the disease caused an imbalance between demand and supply of materials and reagents needed for diagnostic purposes including swab sets. In a comparative effectiveness study, we conducted serial follow-up swabs in hospitalized laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients. We assessed the diagnostic performance of an in-house system developed according to recommendations by the US CDC. In a total of 96 serial swabs, we found significant differences in the accuracy of the different swab systems to generate a positive result in SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, ranging from around 50 to 80%. Of note, an in-house swab system was superior to most commercially available sets as reflected by significantly lower Ct values of viral genes. Thus, a simple combination of broadly available materials may enable diagnostic laboratories to bypass global limitations in the supply of swab sets.
The diagnosis of COVID-19 relies oene">n the direct detectioene">n of n class="Species">SARS-CoV-2 RNA in respiratory specimens by RT-PCR. The pandemic spread of the disease caused an imbalance between demand and supply of materials and reagents needed for diagnostic purposes including swab sets. In a comparative effectiveness study, we conducted serial follow-up swabs in hospitalized laboratory-confirmed COVID-19patients. We assessed the diagnostic performance of an in-house system developed according to recommendations by the US CDC. In a total of 96 serial swabs, we found significant differences in the accuracy of the different swab systems to generate a positive result in SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, ranging from around 50 to 80%. Of note, an in-house swab system was superior to most commercially available sets as reflected by significantly lower Ct values of viral genes. Thus, a simple combination of broadly available materials may enable diagnostic laboratories to bypass global limitations in the supply of swab sets.
Authors: Angelica Moran; Kathleen G Beavis; Scott M Matushek; Carol Ciaglia; Nina Francois; Vera Tesic; Nedra Love Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2020-07-23 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Frederick S Buckner; Denise J McCulloch; Vidya Atluri; Michela Blain; Sarah A McGuffin; Arun K Nalla; Meei-Li Huang; Alex L Greninger; Keith R Jerome; Seth A Cohen; Santiago Neme; Margaret L Green; Helen Y Chu; H Nina Kim Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2020-11-19 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Kathryn A Kundrod; Mary E Natoli; Megan M Chang; Chelsey A Smith; Sai Paul; Dereq Ogoe; Christopher Goh; Akshaya Santhanaraj; Anthony Price; Karen W Eldin; Keyur P Patel; Ellen Baker; Kathleen M Schmeler; Rebecca Richards-Kortum Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-02-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Siggeir F Brynjolfsson; Hildur Sigurgrimsdottir; Olafur Gudlaugsson; Mar Kristjansson; Karl G Kristinsson; Bjorn R Ludviksson Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-08-12