Background COVID-19 has rapidly evolved to become a global pandemic due largely to the transmission of its causative virus through asymptomatic carriers. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic people is an urgent priority for the prevention and containment of disease outbreaks in communities. However, few data are available in asymptomatic persons regarding the accuracy of PCR testing. Additionally, although self-collected saliva has significant logistical advantages in mass screening, its utility as an alternative specimen in asymptomatic persons is yet to be determined. Methods We conducted a mass-screening study to compare the utility of nucleic acid amplification, such as reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing, using nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) and saliva samples from each individual in two cohorts of asymptomatic persons: the contact tracing cohort and the airport quarantine cohort. Results In this mass-screening study including 1,924 individuals, the sensitivity of nucleic acid amplification testing with nasopharyngeal and saliva specimens were 86% (90%CI:77-93%) and 92% (90%CI:83-97%), respectively, with specificities greater than 99.9%. The true concordance probability between the nasopharyngeal and saliva tests was estimated at 0.998 (90%CI:0.996-0.999) on the estimated airport prevalence at 0.3%. In positive individuals, viral load was highly correlated between NPS and saliva. Conclusion Both nasopharyngeal and saliva specimens had high sensitivity and specificity. Self-collected saliva is a valuable specimen to detect SARS-CoV-2 in mass screening of asymptomatic persons.

Background COVID-19 has rapidly evolved to become a global pandemic due largely to the transmission of its causative virus through asymptomatic carriers. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic people is an urgent priority for the prevention and containment of disease outbreaks in communities. However, few data are available in asymptomatic persons regarding the accuracy of PCR testing. Additionally, although self-collected saliva has significant logistical advantages in mass screening, its utility as an alternative specimen in asymptomatic persons is yet to be determined. Methods We conducted a mass-screening study to compare the utility of nucleic acid amplification, such as reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing, using NPS and saliva samples from each individual in two cohorts of asymptomatic persons: the contact tracing cohort and the airport quarantine cohort. Results In this mass-screening study including 1,924 individuals, the sensitivity of nucleic acid amplification testing with nasopharyngeal and saliva specimens were 86% (90%CI:77-93%) and 92% (90%CI:83-97%), respectively, with specificities greater than 99.9%. The true concordance probability between the nasopharyngeal and saliva tests was estimated at 0.998 (90%CI:0.996-0.999) on the estimated airport prevalence, 0.3%. In positive individuals, viral load was highly correlated between NPS and saliva. Conclusion Both nasopharyngeal and saliva specimens had high sensitivity and specificity. Self-collected saliva is a valuable specimen to detect SARS-CoV-2 in mass screening of asymptomatic persons.

Background Quantitative RT-PCR (RT-qPCR) of nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection requires medical personnel and is time consuming, and thus is poorly suited to mass screening. In June, 2020, a chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLEIA; Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag kit, Fujirebio, Tokyo, Japan) was developed that can detect SARS-CoV-2 nucleoproteins in NPS or saliva samples within 35 min. In this study, we assessed the utility of CLEIA in mass SARS-CoV-2 screening. MethodsWe did a diagnostic accuracy study to develop a mass-screening strategy for salivary detection of SARS-CoV-2 by CLEIA, enrolling hospitalised patients with clinically confirmed COVID-19, close contacts identified at community health centres, and asymptomatic international arrivals at two airports, all based in Japan. All test participants were enrolled consecutively. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of CLEIA compared with RT-qPCR, estimated according to concordance (Kendall's coefficient of concordance, W), and sensitivity (probability of CLEIA positivity given RT-qPCR positivity) and specificity (probability of CLEIA negativity given RT-qPCR negativity) for different antigen concentration cutoffs (0•19 pg/mL, 0•67 pg/mL, and 4•00 pg/mL; with samples considered positive if the antigen concentration was equal to or more than the cutoff and negative if it was less than the cutoff). We also assessed a two-step testing strategy post hoc with CLEIA as an initial test, using separate antigen cutoff values for test negativity and positivity from the predefined cutoff values. The proportion of intermediate results requiring secondary RT-qPCR was then quantified assuming prevalence values of RT-qPCR positivity in the overall tested population of 10%, 30%, and 50%. Findings Self-collected saliva was obtained from 2056 participants between June 12 and Aug 6, 2020. Results of CLEIA and RT-qPCR were concordant in 2020 (98•2%) samples (Kendall's W=0•99). Test sensitivity was 85•4% (76 of 89 positive samples; 90% credible interval [CrI] 78•0-90•3) at the cutoff of 0•19 pg/mL; 76•4% (68 of 89; 68•2-82•8) at the cutoff of 0•67 pg/mL; and 52•8% (47 of 89; 44•1-61•3) at the cutoff of 4•0 pg/mL. Test specificity was 91•3% (1796 of 1967 negative samples; 90% CrI 90•2-92•3) at the cutoff of 0•19 pg/mL, 99•2% (1952 of 1967; 98•8-99•5) at the cutoff of 0•67 pg/mL, and 100•0% (1967 of 1967; 99•8-100•0) at the cutoff of 4•00 pg/mL. Using a two-step testing strategy with a CLEIA negativity cutoff of 0•19 pg/mL (to maximise sensitivity) and a CLEIA positivity cutoff of 4•00 pg/mL (to maximise specificity), the proportions of indeterminate results (ie, samples requiring secondary RT-qPCR) would be approximately 11% assuming a prevalence of RT-qPCR positivity of 10%, 16% assuming a prevalence of RT-qPCR positivity of 30%, and 21% assuming a prevalence of RT-qPCR positivity of 50%.Interpretation CLEIA testing of self-collected saliva is simple and provides results quickly, and is thus suitable for mass testing. To improve accuracy, we propose a two-step ...

No abstract

Clinical features of COVID-19 are diverse, and a useful tool for predicting clinical outcomes based on clinical characteristics of COVID-19 is needed. This study examined the laboratory values and trends that influence mortality in hospitalised COVID-19 patients. Data on hospitalised patients enrolled in a registry study in Japan (COVID-19 Registry Japan) were obtained. Patients with records on basic information, outcomes, and laboratory data on the day of admission (day 1) and day 8 were included. In-hospital mortality was set as the outcome, and associated factors were identified by multivariate analysis using the stepwise method. A total of 8860 hospitalised patients were included. The group with lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels >222 IU/L on day 8 had a higher mortality rate compared to the group with LDH levels ≤222 IU/L. Similar results were observed in subgroups formed by age, body mass index (BMI), underlying disease, and mutation type, except for those aged <50 years. When age, sex, BMI, underlying disease, and laboratory values on days 1 and 8 were tested for factors strongly associated with in-hospital mortality, LDH on day 8 was most strongly associated with mortality. LDH level on day 8 was the strongest predictor of in-hospital mortality in hospitalised COVID-19 patients, indicating its potential usefulness in post-treatment decision-making in severe COVID-19 cases.