@awyllie13 Numerous reports show saliva comes up earlier and w Omicron there have been MANY anecdotes that throat swabs (which interact with saliva!) are turning positive BEFORE nasal swabs
And this pre-print suggests people are infectious when saliva turns positive
2/
Importantly, people are becoming symptomatic really fast too! As this study suggests
So we can use this to our GREAT advantage...
If beginning to feel Symptomatic - ASSUME positive, ASSUME infectious
What this ALSO shows is the rapid Ag tests are continuing to work w Omicron as before.
Although not much data, the for this thread does do some PCR of nasal specimens and for those, the rapid antigen tests are working the same as before when compared across nasal swabs
4/
Major difference w Omicron is ppl becoming infectious earlier before nasal PCR turning Pos and before nasal antigen is turning Pos
So as far as infection of Omicron is concerned, the biology is pushing more towards early transmission, detectable only in first days w Saliva
5/
Does it mean tests with nasal swabs are no longer appropriate?
No, biology means must pay attention to symptoms - assume Pos at first
Unfortunately even w added 1-3 days earlier detection in saliva, accessibility/speed mean fastest tool for detection often still rapid test
6/
I hope this new research will push manufacturers to really look into using saliva for rapid tests...
We now have rapid Molecular Tests, we also have rapid Antigen tests
We should be rigorously looking into throat swabs to add some level of sensitivity even if not saliva
7/
The study also supports that PCR remains positive longer than people are infectious
The earlier sensitivity is beneficial if you happen to get the saliva sample in those first 1-3 days of positivity
Rapid Ag still positive most days of infectiousness, and not beyond.
8/
Finally - I would have suggested a title that focused more on what the study really looked at
Discordance in sensitivity based on sampling site: SALIVA vs NASAL was the most important difference.
Antigen vs PCR given same sampling site remained as expected.
9/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Its finally dawning on me that there is an endless supply of ppl - many in public health & medicine - who will not understand science of testing & how to interpret the sea of (poorly performed) studies (including by CDC)
This is a failure of messaging by Federal government
1/
Confusion around rapid tests is becoming immensely harmful at local levels as every small town and city has their own decision makers trying to wade through a mix of confusing and often conflicting messages, with no guidance and no idea who or what to trust.
2/
The frustrating thing is that this doesn’t need to be hard!
The science and biology of rapid Ag tests is extremely simple/straightforward if we allow their formal evaluation to be towards why we take the tests: answering “Am I infectious” or “Do I need to isolate still?”
3/
Most who test Pos on PCR are No Longer contagious-Esp if no symptoms
Millions have Isolated entirely AFTER contagious
(Rapid tests don’t cause this)
Why won’t FDA evaluate tests for how ppl use them: to answer “Am I Infectious?
PCR has its place…
For medical diagnostics OR when you know that someone was recently exposed etc
But 2 years in, we continue to use a Binary PCR to tell people they need to isolate, without using the right cutoff or tests to ask the public health question: am I infectious?
2/
Currently, FDA evaluate tests ONLY based on their medical diagnostic utility
2 years in to the worst public health crisis in modern history, there STILL is NO effort at FDA to regulate tests based on their ability to answer relevant PUBLIC HEALTH questions.
Sorry - if anyone didn’t get the joke - I Was making fun of the use of the word “Breakthrough” as a positive to market just because the word these days is so caught up w Breakthrough Infections.