The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Sample collection is a key driver of accuracy in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Viral load may vary at different anatomical sampling sites and accuracy may be compromised by difficulties obtaining specimens and the expertise of the person taking the sample. It is important to optimise sampling accuracy within cost, safety and accessibility constraints.
To compare the sensitivity of different sampling collection sites and methods for the detection of current SARS-CoV-2 infection with any molecular or antigen-based test.
Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 22 February 2022. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions.
We included studies of symptomatic or asymptomatic people with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection undergoing testing. We included studies of any design that compared results from different sample types (anatomical location, operator, collection device) collected from the same participant within a 24-hour period.
Within a sample pair, we defined a reference sample and an index sample collected from the same participant within the same clinical encounter (within 24 hours). Where the sample comparison was different anatomical sites, the reference standard was defined as a nasopharyngeal or combined naso/oropharyngeal sample collected into the same sample container and the index sample as the alternative anatomical site. Where the sample comparison was concerned with differences in the sample collection method from the same site, we defined the reference sample as that closest to standard practice for that sample type. Where the sample pair comparison was concerned with differences in personnel collecting the sample, the more skilled or experienced operator was considered the reference sample. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C checklists, tailored to this review. We present estimates of the difference in the sensitivity (reference sample (%) minus index sample sensitivity (%)) in a pair and as an average across studies for each index sampling method using forest plots and tables. We examined heterogeneity between studies according to population (age, symptom status) and index sample (time post-symptom onset, operator expertise, use of transport medium) characteristics.
This review includes 106 studies reporting 154 evaluations and 60,523 sample pair comparisons, of which 11,045 had SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ninety evaluations were of saliva samples, 37 nasal, seven oropharyngeal, six gargle, six oral and four combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples. Four evaluations were of the effect of operator expertise on the accuracy of three different sample types. The majority of included evaluations (146) used molecular tests, of which 140 used RT-PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction). Eight evaluations were of nasal samples used with Ag-RDTs (rapid antigen tests). The majority of studies were conducted in Europe (35/106, 33%) or the USA (27%) and conducted in dedicated COVID-19 testing clinics or in ambulatory hospital settings (53%). Targeted screening or contact tracing accounted for only 4% of evaluations. Where reported, the majority of evaluations were of adults (91/154, 59%), 28 (18%) were in mixed populations with only seven (4%) in children. The median prevalence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 was 23% (interquartile (IQR) 13%-40%). Risk of bias and applicability assessment were hampered by poor reporting in 77% and 65% of included studies, respectively. Risk of bias was low across all domains in only 3% of evaluations due to inappropriate inclusion or exclusion criteria, unclear recruitment, lack of blinding, nonrandomised sampling order or differences in testing kit within a sample pair. Sixty-eight percent of evaluation cohorts were judged as being at high or unclear applicability concern either due to inflation of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in study populations by selectively including individuals with confirmed PCR-positive samples or because there was insufficient detail to allow replication of sample collection. When used with RT-PCR • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between gargle and nasopharyngeal samples (on average -1 percentage points, 95% CI -5 to +2, based on 6 evaluations, 2138 sample pairs, of which 389 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between saliva collection from the deep throat and nasopharyngeal samples (on average +10 percentage points, 95% CI -1 to +21, based on 2192 sample pairs, of which 730 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was evidence that saliva collection using spitting, drooling or salivating was on average -12 percentage points less sensitive (95% CI -16 to -8, based on 27,253 sample pairs, of which 4636 had SARS-CoV-2) compared to nasopharyngeal samples. We did not find any evidence of a difference in the sensitivity of saliva collected using spitting, drooling or salivating (sensitivity difference: range from -13 percentage points (spit) to -21 percentage points (salivate)). • Nasal samples (anterior and mid-turbinate collection combined) were, on average, 12 percentage points less sensitive compared to nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -17 to -7), based on 9291 sample pairs, of which 1485 had SARS-CoV-2. We did not find any evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples collected from the mid-turbinates (3942 sample pairs) or from the anterior nares (8272 sample pairs). • There was evidence that oropharyngeal samples were, on average, 17 percentage points less sensitive than nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -29 to -5), based on seven evaluations, 2522 sample pairs, of which 511 had SARS-CoV-2. A much smaller volume of evidence was available for combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples and oral samples. Age, symptom status and use of transport media do not appear to affect the sensitivity of saliva samples and nasal samples. When used with Ag-RDTs • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples (sensitivity, on average, 0 percentage points -0.2 to +0.2, based on 3688 sample pairs, of which 535 had SARS-CoV-2).
When used with RT-PCR, there is no evidence for a difference in sensitivity of self-collected gargle or deep-throat saliva samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples collected by healthcare workers when used with RT-PCR. Use of these alternative, self-collected sample types has the potential to reduce cost and discomfort and improve the safety of sampling by reducing risk of transmission from aerosol spread which occurs as a result of coughing and gagging during the nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal sample collection procedure. This may, in turn, improve access to and uptake of testing. Other types of saliva, nasal, oral and oropharyngeal samples are, on average, less sensitive compared to healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples, and it is unlikely that sensitivities of this magnitude would be acceptable for confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection with RT-PCR. When used with Ag-RDTs, there is no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples and healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples for detecting SARS-CoV-2. The implications of this for self-testing are unclear as evaluations did not report whether nasal samples were self-collected or collected by healthcare workers. Further research is needed in asymptomatic individuals, children and in Ag-RDTs, and to investigate the effect of operator expertise on accuracy. Quality assessment of the evidence base underpinning these conclusions was restricted by poor reporting. There is a need for further high-quality studies, adhering to reporting standards for test accuracy studies.
Davenport C
，Arevalo-Rodriguez I
，Mateos-Haro M
，Berhane S
，Dinnes J
，Spijker R
，Buitrago-Garcia D
，Ciapponi A
，Takwoingi Y
，Deeks JJ
，Emperador D
，Leeflang MMG
，Van den Bruel A
，Cochrane COVID-19 Diagnostic Test Accuracy Group
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
Dexmedetomidine reduces hippocampal microglia inflammatory response induced by surgical injury through inhibiting NLRP3.
To investigate whether dexmedetomidine (Dex) can reduce the production of inflammatory factor IL-1β by inhibiting the activation of NLRP3 inflammasome in hippocampal microglia, thereby alleviating the inflammatory response of the central nervous system induced by surgical injury.
Exploratory laparotomy was used in experimental models in this study. Totally 48 Sprague Dawley male rats were randomly divided into 4 groups (n = 12 for each), respectively sham control (group A), laparotomy only (group B); and Dex treatment with different doses of 5 μg/kg (group D1) or 10 μg/kg (group D2). Rats in groups D1 and D2 were intraperitoneally injected with corresponding doses of Dex every 6 h. The rats were sacrificed 12 h after operation; the hippocampus tissues were isolated, and frozen sections were made. The microglia activation was estimated by immunohistochemistry. The protein expression of NLRP3, caspase-1, ASC and IL-1β were detected by immunoblotting. All data were presented as mean ± standard deviation, and independent sample t test was used to analyze the statistical difference between groups.
The activated microglia in the hippocampus of the rats significantly increased after laparotomy (group B vs. sham control, p < 0.01). After Dex treatment, the number was decreased in a dose-dependent way (group D1 vs. D2, p < 0.05), however the activated microglia in both groups were still higher than that of sham controls (both p < 0.05). Further Western blot analysis showed that the protein expression levels of NLRP3, caspase-1, ASC and downstream cytokine IL-1β in the hippocampus from the laparotomy group were significantly higher than those of the sham control group (all p < 0.01). The elevated expression of these proteins was relieved after Dex treatment, also in a dose-dependent way (D2 vs. D1 group, p < 0.05).
Dex can inhibit the activation of microglia and NLRP3 inflammasome in the hippocampus of rats after operation, and the synthesis and secretion of IL-1β are also reduced in a dose-dependent manner by using Dex. Hence, Dex can alleviate inflammation activation on the central nervous system induced by surgical injury.
Peng J
，Zhang P
，Zheng H
，Ren YQ
，Yan H
... -
《-》
Peripheral immune signatures associated with the risk of hepatocarcinogenesis in cirrhotic Egyptian HCV patients before and after treatment with direct-acting antivirals.
Although direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) have revolutionized the management of chronic HCV, the debatable association with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) occurrence/recurrence has raised major concerns about their long-term use, especially in cirrhotic cases. The role of epithelial tight junction proteins (TJPs) in hepatocarcinogenesis has been highlighted; however, the association of their expression in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) with HCC has rarely been reported. This study aimed to explore the role of peripheral claudin (Cldn)1 in liver pathogenesis and its crosstalk with soluble immune mediators in HCC prognosis.
The study population included six independent subgroups: healthy controls, cirrhotic/non-cirrhotic treatment-naïve HCV patients, DAA-SVR patients, and anticancer treatment-naïve de novo HCC patients. The laboratory tests included serum levels of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), albumin, liver transaminases, total bilirubin, and CBC profiling. The serum levels of soluble cluster of differentiation (sCD)163, IL-10, and IL-12 were estimated by corresponding ELISA kits, whereas the levels of Cldn1 and transforming growth factor (TGF)-β in PBMCs were quantified using quantitative PCR (qPCR).
Serum sCD163, IL-10, and IL-12 levels were significantly higher in the HCC patient group than in the control and non-malignant patient groups (P < 0.0001). No significant difference was detected in the serum levels of the three markers between cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients, whereas their levels were significantly different between cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients (P < 0.0001). Similarly, the transcriptional levels of peripheral Cldn1 and TGF-β were significantly higher in patients with HCC and non-malignant cirrhosis than in patients without cirrhosis (P = 0.0185-<0.0001 and 0.0089-<0.0001, respectively). Logistic regression analysis revealed a significant association between all the abovementioned markers and HCC (P = 0.0303 to < 0.0001), which was further confirmed by the results of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, which revealed an area under the curve (AUC) value ranging from 0.883 to 0.996. The calculated cutoff values demonstrated remarkable prognostic capacity, with ranges of 88-99.41% and 82.14-97.92% and positive/negative predictive values ranging from 84.62 to 98.3% and 92-98%, respectively.
The proposed HCC predictors are novel non-invasive HCC biomarkers that maintain their predictive power under different pathological conditions and circumvent the drawbacks of conventional prognostic markers in patients with mild cirrhosis and/or normal AFP, albumin, and/or platelet counts.
El-Shenawy R
，Moustafa RI
，Helmy NM
，El-Abd YS
，Tabll AA
，Elesnawy YK
，Shawky H
... -
《Virology Journal》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
