PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-seven clinical strains of T. marneffei were received from various Malaysian hospitals from the year 2020 until 2022. Their identities were determined using microscopic, macroscopic and molecular methods. Next, the susceptibility of yeast and mold forms of each isolate against amphotericin B, itraconazole, voriconazole, posaconazole, ketoconazole, isavuconazole, terbinafine, caspofungin and micafungin were tested according to the broth microdilution according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) M38 and M27 guidelines. The geometric means of minimal inhibitory concentration (GM MIC), MIC50, and MIC90 were determined for each antifungal. Additionally, Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the significant difference of GM MICs for each antifungal, GM MIC, MIC50 and MIC90 for the combined nine antifungals against different growth forms of T. marneffei. The significance was set at p<0.05.
RESULTS: Micafungin had the highest GM MIC, MIC50 and MIC90 for mold form of T. marneffei. For yeast form, amphotericin B achieved the highest GM MIC and MIC50 while micafungin achieved the highest MIC90. However, the GM MIC, MIC50 and MIC90 of terbinafine and azole antifungals on T. marneffei were similar to each other, namely between 0.03 and 0.60µg/mL. The difference of GM MIC of all tested antifungals except caspofungin and micafungin was insignificant. Overall, GM MIC, MIC50 and MIC90 of the combined nine antifungals against two growth forms were insignificant.
CONCLUSION: The findings suggested either yeast or mold form can be used in the susceptibility testing of T. marneffei against amphotericin B, itraconazole, voriconazole, posaconazole, ketoconazole, isavuconazole and terbinafine.
METHODS: This was a prospective single center study which recruited 217 asymptomatic adult male participants in a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) quarantine center who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 8-10 days prior to isolation. Paired NPS and saliva specimens were collected and processed within 5 hours of sample collection. Real time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) targeting Envelope (E) and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) genes was performed and the results were compared.
RESULTS: Overall, 160 of the 217 (74%) participants tested positive for COVID-19 based on saliva, NPS, or both testing methods. The detection rate for SARS-CoV-2 was higher in saliva compared to NPS testing (93.1%, 149/160 vs 52.5%, 84/160, P < .001). The concordance between the 2 tests was 45.6% (virus was detected in both saliva and NPS in 73/160), whereas 47.5% were discordant (87/160 tested positive for 1 whereas negative for the other). The cycle threshold (Ct) values for E and RdRp genes were significantly lower in saliva specimens compared to NP swab specimens.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that saliva is a better alternative specimen for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Taking into consideration, the simplicity of specimen collection, shortage of PPE and the transmissibility of the virus, saliva could enable self-collection for an accurate SARS-CoV-2 surveillance testing.