Introduction The current gold standard for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA involves subjecting nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs to reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR). However, both sample types need to be collected by trained professionals. Using self-collected buccal swabs as an alternative could simplify and accelerate diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective To assess self-collected buccal swab samples as an alternative method for SARS-CoV-2 detection in patients with COVID-19. Methods Buccal swab samples were self-collected by 73 patients with COVID-19. Total RNA was extracted using Qiagen kits. RNA encoding the SARS-CoV-2 Env protein and human RNase P as an internal control was amplified using the TRUPCR® SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR kit version 2.1 and a Bio-Rad CFX96 Real-Time Detection System. Result The sensitivity of RT-qPCR from buccal swabs was 58.9% (43/73; 95% confidence interval [CI] 46.77%–70.27%) and that of RT-qPCR from saliva was 62.90% (39/62; 95% CI 49.69%–74.84%) taking positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR from nasopharyngeal swabs as the gold standard. Conclusion Self-collected buccal swabs are promising alternatives to nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs for SARS CoV-2 detection.
Purpose
To determine the utility, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value of the laboratory based Covid-19 antigen detection test (Coris Bio- Concept, Gembloux, Belgium) for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in a tertiary care hospital among symptomatic and asymptomatic patients.
Methods
The nasopharyngeal swab samples were collected from the symptomatic patients and their contacts. The diagnostic accuracy of this antigen kit was determined in comparison to SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse transcriptase (RT-PCR).
Results
A total of 825 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included in the study; RT-PCR and antigen detection was performed simultaneously for 484 samples to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the test. The overall specificity and sensitivity was 99.32% and 71.96% respectively. Also, 3.7% of the asymptomatic patients who were negative by RAT were detected positive by RT-PCR.
Conclusion
This rapid antigen test (RAT) was sensitive in the symptomatic patients presenting during the initial phase of the illness. Since, majority of the SARS-CoV-2 patients are asymptomatic and considering the huge population, the testing strategy formulated by Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) at the national level was cost effective. Thus, Ag-RDTs could play a pivotal role in early diagnosis, policy making and surveillance of the SARS-CoV-2.
Background:
Naphthalene ingestion and skin or inhalational exposure (accidental or deliberate) is an
under-recognized cause of a severe toxidrome in regions where it is commonly used (e.g., mothballs in households).
Methods:
This review is an update for the clinicians to understand the pharmacology, clinical features, laboratory
evaluation, and treatment for naphthalene toxicity. High-quality literature for the past eight decades was collected
and reviewed in this article. Several landmark articles were reviewed using PubMed, EMBASE Ovid, and the Cochrane
Library, which have essential implications in the current toxicology practice.
Results and Conclusion:
Naphthalene toxicity usually occurs abruptly and leads to acute hemolysis, methemoglobinemia,
renal failure, respiratory depression, and acute brain dysfunction that are difficult to manage. The toxicity is
more marked in patients with G6PD deficiency and associated with high morbidity and mortality. The management
should mainly focus on high-quality supportive care; however, severe methemoglobinemia (>20-30%) requires specific
therapy with intravenous methylene blue. Methylene blue is a highly effective agent but contraindicated in
severe G6PD deficiency.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.