METHODS: We recruited 81 travelers and 15 non-travelers (including ten controls) prospectively within a mean of 3·22 days of RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19. Each study participant provided 2 mls of early morning fresh drooled whole saliva separately into a sterile plastic container and GeneFiX™ saliva collection kit. The saliva specimens were processed within 4 h and tested for SARS-CoV-2 genes (E, RdRP, and N2) and the results compared to paired NPS RT-PCR for diagnostic accuracy.
RESULTS: Majority of travellers were asymptomatic (75·0%) with a mean age of 34·26 years. 77 travelers were RT-PCR positive at the time of hospitalization whilst three travelers had positive contacts. In this group, the detection rate for SARS-CoV-2 with NPS, whole saliva, and GeneFiX™ were comparable (89·3%, 50/56; 87·8%, 43/49; 89·6%, 43/48). Both saliva collection methods were in good agreement (Kappa = 0·69). There was no statistical difference between the detection rates of saliva and NPS (p > 0·05). Detection was highest for the N2 gene whilst the E gene provided the highest viral load (mean = 27·96 to 30·10, SD = 3·14 to 3·85). Saliva specimens have high sensitivity (80·4%) and specificity (90·0%) with a high positive predictive value of 91·8% for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.
CONCLUSION: Saliva for SARS-CoV-2 screening is a simple accurate technique comparable with NPS RT-PCR.
METHODS: A total of 322 samples of mainly human origin were analysed using eight protocols, applying a wide variety of laboratory components. Several samples (60% of human specimens) were processed using different protocols. In total, 712 sequencing libraries were investigated for viral sequence contamination.
RESULTS: Among sequences showing similarity to viruses, 493 were significantly associated with the use of laboratory components. Each of these viral sequences had sporadic appearance, only being identified in a subset of the samples treated with the linked laboratory component, and some were not identified in the non-template control samples. Remarkably, more than 65% of all viral sequences identified were within viral clusters linked to the use of laboratory components.
CONCLUSIONS: We show that high prevalence of contaminating viral sequences can be expected in HTS-based virome data and provide an extensive list of novel contaminating viral sequences that can be used for evaluation of viral findings in future virome and metagenome studies. Moreover, we show that detection can be problematic due to stochastic appearance and limited non-template controls. Although the exact origin of these viral sequences requires further research, our results support laboratory-component-linked viral sequence contamination of both biological and synthetic origin.
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.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women underwent self-sampling followed by gynecologist sampling during screening at two primary health clinics. Pap cytology of cervical specimens was evaluated for specimen adequacy, presence of endocervical cells or transformation zone cells and cytological interpretation for cells abnormalities. Cervical specimens were also extracted and tested for HPV DNA detection. Positive HPV smears underwent gene sequencing and HPV genotyping by referring to the online NCBI gene bank. Results were compared between samplings by Kappa agreement and McNemar test.
RESULTS: For Pap specimen adequacy, KSSD showed 100% agreement with gynecologist sampling but had only 32.3% agreement for presence of endocervical cells. Both sampling showed 100% agreement with only 1 case detected HSIL favouring CIN2 for cytology result. HPV DNA detection showed 86.2%agreement (K=0.64, 95% CI 0.524-0.756, p=0.001) between samplings. KSSD and gynaecologist sampling identified high risk HPV in 17.3% and 23.9% respectively (p= 0.014).
CONCLUSION: The self-sampling using Kato device can serve as a tool in Pap cytology and HPV DNA detection in low resource settings in Malaysia. Self-sampling devices such as KSSD can be used as an alternative technique to gynaecologist sampling for cervical cancer screening among rural populations in Malaysia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted on 258 community dwelling women from urban and rural settings who participated in health campaigns. In order to reduce the sampling bias, half of the study population performed the self-sampling prior to the physician sampling while the other half performed the self-sampling after the physician sampling, randomly. Acquired samples were assessed for cytological changes as well as HPV DNA detection.
RESULTS: The mean age of the subjects was 40.4±11.3 years. The prevalence of abnormal cervical changes was 2.7%. High risk and low risk HPV genotypes were found in 4.0% and 2.7% of the subjects, respectively. A substantial agreement was observed between self-sampling and the physician obtained sampling in cytological diagnosis (k=0.62, 95%CI=0.50, 0.74), micro-organism detection (k=0.77, 95%CI=0.66, 0.88) and detection of hormonal status (k=0.75, 95%CI=0.65, 0.85) as well as detection of high risk (k=0.77, 95%CI=0.4, 0.98) and low risk (K=0.77, 95%CI=0.50, 0.92) HPV. Menopausal state was found to be related with 8.39 times more adequate cell specimens for cytology but 0.13 times less adequate cell specimens for virological assessment.
CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that self-sampling has a good agreement with physician sampling in detecting HPV genotypes. Self-sampling can serve as a tool in HPV screening while it may be useful in detecting cytological abnormalities in Malaysia.