Dataset Information

Comparison of Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Swab Nucleic Acid Amplification Testing for Detection of SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Nasopharyngeal swab nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) is the noninvasive criterion standard for diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, it requires trained personnel, limiting its availability. Saliva NAAT represents an attractive alternative, but its diagnostic performance is unclear.

Objective

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of saliva NAAT for COVID-19.

Data sources

In this systematic review, a search of the MEDLINE and medRxiv databases was conducted on August 29, 2020, to find studies of diagnostic test accuracy. The final meta-analysis was performed on November 17, 2020.

Study selection

Studies needed to provide enough data to measure salivary NAAT sensitivity and specificity compared with imperfect nasopharyngeal swab NAAT as a reference test. An imperfect reference test does not perfectly reflect the truth (ie, it can give false results). Studies were excluded if the sample contained fewer than 20 participants or was neither random nor consecutive. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias.

Data extraction and synthesis

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline was followed for the systematic review, with multiple authors involved at each stage of the review. To account for the imperfect reference test sensitivity, we used a bayesian latent class bivariate model for the meta-analysis.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was pooled sensitivity and specificity. Two secondary analyses were performed: one restricted to peer-reviewed studies, and a post hoc analysis limited to ambulatory settings.

Results

The search strategy yielded 385 references, and 16 unique studies were identified for quantitative synthesis. Eight peer-reviewed studies and 8 preprints were included in the meta-analyses (5922 unique patients). There was significant variability in patient selection, study design, and stage of illness at which patients were enrolled. Fifteen studies included ambulatory patients, and 9 exclusively enrolled from an outpatient population with mild or no symptoms. In the primary analysis, the saliva NAAT pooled sensitivity was 83.2% (95% credible interval [CrI], 74.7%-91.4%) and the pooled specificity was 99.2% (95% CrI, 98.2%-99.8%). The nasopharyngeal swab NAAT had a sensitivity of 84.8% (95% CrI, 76.8%-92.4%) and a specificity of 98.9% (95% CrI, 97.4%-99.8%). Results were similar in secondary analyses.

Conclusions and relevance

These results suggest that saliva NAAT diagnostic accuracy is similar to that of nasopharyngeal swab NAAT, especially in the ambulatory setting. These findings support larger-scale research on the use of saliva NAAT as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs.

SUBMITTER: Butler-Laporte G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7811189 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:We examined the detection rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) of side-by-side saliva and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) samples from 639 symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects, of which 47 subjects were found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the OPS or saliva sample or both. It was found that the detection rate (93.6% for both OPS and saliva) as well as the sensitivity and specificity were comparable between the two sampling methods in this cohort. The sensitivity was 0.932 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.818 to 0.977) and the specificity was 0.995 (95% CI, 0.985 to 0.998), both for saliva when OPS sampling was used as the reference and for OPS when saliva was used as the reference. Furthermore, the Cohen's kappa value was 0.926 (95% CI, 0.868 to 0.985), indicating strong agreement between the two sampling methods. In addition, the viral RNA stability in pure saliva and saliva mixed with preservation buffers was examined following storage at room temperature and at 4°C. It was found that pure saliva kept the viral RNA stable for 9 days at both temperatures and that the type of preservation buffer can either enhance or reduce the stability of the RNA. We conclude that self-administered saliva sampling is an attractive alternative to oropharyngeal swabbing for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and it might be useful in large-scale testing. IMPORTANCE It is not inconceivable that we will witness recurring surges of COVID-19 before the pandemic finally recedes. It is therefore still relevant to look for feasible, simple, and flexible screening methods so that schools, workplaces, and communities in general can avoid lockdowns. In this work, we analyzed two different sampling methods: oropharyngeal swabs and saliva collection. Oropharyngeal swabs must be collected by trained health personnel at clinics, whereas self-assisted saliva collection can be performed at any given location. It was found that the two sampling methods were comparable. Saliva sampling is a simple method that allows easy mass testing using minimal resources from the existing health care system, and this method may therefore prove to be an effective tool for containing the COVID-19 pandemic.

Project description:Saliva is a promising alternative for a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) in specimen collection to detect SARS-CoV-2. We compared the diagnostic performance and tolerability of saliva collection versus NPS in a clinical setting. Paired NPS and saliva specimens were collected sequentially from participants (n = 250) at the Turku University Hospital drive-in coronavirus testing station in the spring of 2022, with Omicron BA.2 as the dominant SARS-CoV-2 variant. Discomfort and preference for the sampling method were assessed. The specimens were analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 using real-time multiplex reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) with a laboratory-developed test (LDT) and two commercial kits (PerkinElmer SARS-CoV-2 and PerkinElmer SARS-CoV-2 Plus) for several target genes. Among the 250 participants, 246 had respiratory symptoms. With LDT, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 135 and 134 participants from NPS and saliva, respectively. Of the 250 specimens, 11 gave a discordant outcome, resulting in excellent agreement between the specimen types (Cohen's kappa coefficient of 0.911; P = 0.763). The cycle threshold (CT) values of LDT and commercial kit target genes were significantly lower from NPS than from saliva. A total of 172 (69%) participants assessed saliva sampling as more tolerable than NPS (P < 0.0001). Our findings present saliva as an applicable alternative for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. However, the lower CT values obtained from NPS indicate that NPS may be a slightly more sensitive specimen type. Participants preferred saliva sampling, although delivering an adequate volume of saliva was challenging for some participants. IMPORTANCE The extensive testing of SARS-CoV-2 is vital in controlling the spread of COVID-19. The reference standard for specimen collection is a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS). However, the discomfort of NPS sampling, the risk of nosocomial infections, and global material shortages have accelerated the development of alternative testing methods. Our study demonstrates that patients tolerate saliva sampling better than NPS. Of importance, although the RT-PCR qualitative test results seem to correspond between NPS and saliva, we show significantly lower CT values for NPS, compared to saliva, thus contradicting the suggested superiority of the saliva specimen over NPS in the detection of the Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2. Future research is still required to enable individual planning for specimen collection and to determine the effects of different SARS-CoV-2 variants on the sensitivity of the saliva matrix.