Are vaccinated measles cases protected against severe disease?

Bonneton, Marion; Antona, Denise; Danis, Kostas; Aït-Belghiti, Fatima; Lévy-Brühl, Daniel

doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.005

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even if early-morning specimens tend to have a higher viral load than saliva samples collected at other times of the day, we collected saliva throughout the day because this was more consistent with the ARI surveillance protocol in the field [ 19 ]. To obtain an enhanced saliva sample [ 19 , 20 ], patients with ARI were instructed and supervised by physicians to produce saliva coughed up from the posterior oropharynx (by clearing the throat or gargle) as this kind of sample seems to be much more sensitive than saliva from the oral cavity alone or from salivary glands [ 21 ]. However, recent studies suggested that oral cavity saliva specimens and deep throat sputum offer high sensitivity and specificity too [ 22 , 23 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Posterior Oropharyngeal Saliva Specimens an Acceptable Alternative to Nasopharyngeal Sampling for the Monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 in Primary-Care Settings?

Masse

Bonnet

Vilcu

et al. 2021

Viruses

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The present study was set up to evaluate the efficacy of virological surveillance using posterior oropharyngeal saliva samples to monitor the COVID-19 pandemic in general practice. Methods: Posterior oropharyngeal saliva samples were collected without restriction on timing or alimentation by general practitioners from patients with acute respiratory infection (ARI) seen in consultation. Saliva samples were tested by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction for SARS-CoV-2 and 21 other respiratory pathogens. Results for SARS-CoV-2 in saliva samples were compared to results obtained using a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) collected in a certified medical laboratory before or after the ARI consultation. Results: Overall, 143 ARI patients were enrolled between 6 June 2020, and 19 January 2021. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 37.0% (n = 53) of saliva samples and in 39.0% (n = 56) of NPS. Both saliva and NPS were positive in 51 patients. Positive and negative results were concordant between saliva samples and NPS in 51 (96.2%) and in 85 (94.4%) patients, respectively, with a Cohen’s Kappa coefficient of 0.89 (95% CI 0.82–0.97, p < 0.001). Other respiratory viruses were detected in 28.0% (n = 40) of the 143 saliva samples. Conclusions: Findings suggest that saliva samples could represent an attractive alternative to NPS for surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in patients consulting for an ARI in primary care.

show abstract