2021
DOI: 10.1101/2021.01.26.21250523
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Post-Disease Divergence in SARS-CoV-2 RNA Detection between Nasopharyngeal, Anterior Nares and Saliva/Oral Fluid Specimens - Significant Implications for Policy & Public Health

Abstract: BackgroundPatients have been shown to shed SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in nasopharyngeal (NP) specimens for over 100 days after resolution of clinical disease (1, 2). How this relates to anterior nares and oral fluid specimens has not previously been investigated.MethodsWe prospectively collected oral fluid, anterior nares, NP swab and serum specimens from 1,326 individuals at 2 “drive-through” testing locations. The Curative SARS-CoV-2 Assay (Curative Assay)(3) on oral fluid and anterior nares specimens was compared… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

2
8
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
2
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Of the collection methods tested, the optimal strategy was found to be a provider-collected nasal sample using a Copan flocked swab that was rotated ten times in each nostril. This optimal collection strategy resulted in a positive RT-qPCR agreement with a paired nasopharyngeal swab of 71%, compared to an agreement of only 47% when using non-optimal swabs and collection methods (S4A Fig) . The positive agreement for paired nasal and nasopharyngeal swabs undergoing RT-qPCR with the optimal sample collection method is comparable to that in other reports [57]. Samples collected under non-optimal conditions were excluded from subsequent analyses.…”
Section: Plos Onesupporting
confidence: 78%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Of the collection methods tested, the optimal strategy was found to be a provider-collected nasal sample using a Copan flocked swab that was rotated ten times in each nostril. This optimal collection strategy resulted in a positive RT-qPCR agreement with a paired nasopharyngeal swab of 71%, compared to an agreement of only 47% when using non-optimal swabs and collection methods (S4A Fig) . The positive agreement for paired nasal and nasopharyngeal swabs undergoing RT-qPCR with the optimal sample collection method is comparable to that in other reports [57]. Samples collected under non-optimal conditions were excluded from subsequent analyses.…”
Section: Plos Onesupporting
confidence: 78%
“…Nasal swabs from the same patient consistently had higher Ct values than the corresponding nasopharyngeal swab, whereas the Ct value of the corresponding saliva sample was variable. These trends in viral load distribution among the sample types likely reflect that the patients tested were late in their course of infection [60], and support findings that viral RNA is persistently detected in nasopharyngeal swabs longer than saliva [7,57,60,61] or nasal samples [57,60].…”
Section: Plos Onesupporting
confidence: 73%
“…Because symptoms start in the early phase of the disease, when viral load is still high, studies testing only symptomatic patients have a higher chance of including patients with high viral loads. In contrast, study populations drawn from only asymptomatic patients have a higher chance of including patients at any point of disease (i.e., including late in disease, when PCR is still positive, but viable virus is rapidly decreasing) [301].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At that stage of the disease, those most likely represent inactivated viral RNA shedding (false positive) with no transmission potential. This finding was observed with multiple FDA EUA molecular assays, suggesting that biological variation among specimen types, rather than the assay used for testing, is the main reason for this phenomenon ( Turner et al, 2021 ). Furthermore, viral cultures from patients with prolonged disease onset/ high RT-PCR Ct values failed to identify viable virus ( Laferl et al, 2021 , Manzulli et al, 2021 , van Kampen et al, 2021 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 81%