The OXA-48 K-SeT assay was efficient, rapid and easy to implement in the routine workflow of a clinical microbiology laboratory for the confirmation of OXA-48-like carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. It could complete the existing panel of tests available for the confirmation of OXA-48-like carbapenemases, especially in countries with high OXA-48 prevalence.

Current testing for COVID-19 relies on reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction from a nasopharyngeal swab specimen. Saliva samples have advantages regarding ease and painlessness of collection, which does not require trained staff and may allow self-sampling. We enrolled 776 persons at various field-testing sites and collected nasopharyngeal and pooled saliva samples. One hundred sixty two had a positive COVID-19 RT-PCR, 61% were mildly symptomatic and 39% asymptomatic. The sensitivity of RT-PCR on saliva samples vs. nasopharygeal swabs varied depending on the patient groups considered or on Ct thresholds. There were 10 (6.2%) patients with a positive saliva sample and a negative nasopharyngeal swab, all of whom had Ct values <25 for three genes. For symptomatic patients for whom the interval between symptoms onset and sampling was <10 days sensitivity was 77% but when excluding persons with isolated N gene positivity (54/162), sensitivity was 90%. In asymptomatic patients, the sensitivity was only 24%. When we looked at patients with Cts <30, sensitivity was 83 or 88.9% when considering two genes. The relatively good performance for patients with low Cts suggests that Saliva testing could be a useful and acceptable tool to identify infectious persons in mass screening contexts, a strategically important task for contact tracing and isolation in the community.

A prospective study was conducted among different intra and extra-hospital populations of French Guiana to evaluate the performance of saliva testing compared to nasopharyngeal swabs. Persons aged 3 years and older with mild symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 and asymptomatic persons with a testing indication were prospectively enrolled. Nasopharyngeal and salivary samples were stored at 4°C before analysis. Both samples were analyzed with the same Real-time PCR amplification of E gene, N gene, and RdRp gene. Between July 22th and October 28th, 1159 persons were included, of which 1028 were analyzed. When only considering as positives those with 2 target genes with Ct values <35, the sensitivity of RT-PCR on saliva samples was 100% relative to nasopharyngeal samples. Specificity positive and negative predictive values were above 90%. Across a variety of cultures and socioeconomic conditions, saliva tests were generally much preferred to nasopharyngeal tests and persons seemed largely confident that they could self-sample. For positive patients defined as those with the amplification of 2 specific target genes with Ct values below 35, the sensitivity and specificity of RT-PCR on saliva samples was similar to nasopharyngeal samples despite the broad range of challenging circumstances in a tropical environment.

Current testing for COVID-19 relies on quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction from a nasopharyngeal swab specimen. Saliva samples have advantages regarding ease and painlessness of collection, which does not require trained staff and may allow self-sampling. We enrolled 776 persons at various field-testing sites and collected nasopharyngeal and pooled saliva samples. 162 had a positive COVID-19 RT-PCR, 61% were mildly symptomatic and 39% asymptomatic. The sensitivity of RT-PCR on saliva samples versus nasopharygeal swabs varied depending on the patient groups considered or on Ct thresholds. There were 10 (6.2%) patients with a positive saliva sample and a negative nasopharyngeal swab, all of whom had Ct values<25. For symptomatic patients for whom the interval between symptoms onset and sampling was <10 days sensitivity was 77% but when excluding persons with isolated Ngen positivity (54/162), sensitivity was 90%. In asymptomatic patients, the sensitivity was only 24%. When we looked at patients with Cts <30, sensitivity was 83% or 88.9% when considering 2 genes. The relatively good performance for patients with low Cts suggests that Saliva testing could be a useful and acceptable tool to identify infectious persons in mass screening contexts, a strategically important task for contact tracing and isolation in the community.