Accuracy of saliva and nasopharyngeal sampling for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in community screening: a multicentric cohort study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kerneis S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8329409 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The gold standard method in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is the detection of viral RNA in the nasopharyngeal sample by RT-PCR. Recently, saliva samples have been suggested as an alternative sample. In the present study, we aimed to compare RT-PCR results in nasopharyngeal, oro-nasopharyngeal and saliva samples of COVID-19 patients. 98 of 200 patients were positive in RT-PCR analysis performed before the hospitalization. On day 0, at least one sample was positive in 67 % of 98 patients. The positivity rate was 83 % for both oro-nasopharyngeal and nasopharyngeal samples, while it was 63 % for saliva samples (p?<?0.001). On day 5, RT-PCR was performed in 59 patients, 34 % had at least one positive result. The positivity rate was 55 % for both saliva and nasopharyngeal samples, while it was 60 % for oro-nasopharyngeal samples. Our study shows that the sampling saliva does not increase the sensitivity of RT-PCR tests at the early stages of infection. However, on the 5th day, viral RNA detection rates in saliva were similar to nasopharyngeal and oro-nasopharyngeal samples. In conclusion, we suggest that, in patients receiving treatment, RT-PCR in saliva, in addition to the standard samples, is important to determine the isolation period and control transmission.
| S-EPMC7833528 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has caused an unprecedented strain on healthcare systems worldwide, including the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS). We conducted an observational cohort study of SARS-CoV-2 infection in frontline healthcare workers (HCW) working in an acute NHS Trust during the first wave of the pandemic, to answer emerging questions surrounding SARS-CoV-2 infection, diagnosis, transmission and control.MethodsUsing self-collected weekly saliva and twice weekly combined oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal (OP/NP) samples, in addition to self-assessed symptom profiles and isolation behaviours, we retrospectively compared SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-qPCR of saliva and OP/NP samples. We report the association with contemporaneous symptoms and isolation behaviour.ResultsOver a 12-week period from 30th March 2020, 40·0% (n = 34/85, 95% confidence interval 31·3-51·8%) HCW had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection by surveillance OP/NP swab and/or saliva sample. Symptoms were reported by 47·1% (n = 40) and self-isolation by 25·9% (n = 22) participants. Only 44.1% (n = 15/34) participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection reported any symptoms within 14 days of a positive result and only 29·4% (n = 10/34) reported self-isolation periods. Overall agreement between paired saliva and OP/NP swabs was 93·4% (n = 211/226 pairs) but rates of positive concordance were low. In paired samples with at least one positive result, 35·0% (n = 7/20) were positive exclusively by OP/NP swab, 40·0% (n = 8/20) exclusively by saliva and in only 25·0% (n = 5/20) were the OP/NP and saliva result both positive.ConclusionsHCW are a potential source of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in hospitals and symptom screening will identify the minority of infections. Without routine asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 screening, it is likely that HCW with SARS-CoV-2 infection would continue to attend work. Saliva, in addition to OP/NP swab testing, facilitated ascertainment of symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. Combined saliva and OP/NP swab sampling would improve detection of SARS-CoV-2 for surveillance and is recommended for a high sensitivity strategy.
| S-EPMC9882898 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7484747 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis relies on quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase-chain reaction (RT-qPCR) from nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens, but NPSs present several limitations. The simplicity, low invasive and possibility of self-collection of saliva imposed these specimens as a relevant alternative for SARS-CoV-2 detection. However, the discrepancy of saliva test results compared to NPSs made of its use controversial. Here, we assessed Salivettes®, as a standardized saliva collection device, and compared SARS-CoV-2 positivity on paired NPS and saliva specimens. Methods: A total of 303 individuals randomly selected among those investigated for SARS-CoV-2 were enrolled, including 30 (9.9%) patients previously positively tested using NPS (follow-up group), 90 (29.7%) mildly symptomatic and 183 (60.4%) asymptomatic. Results: The RT-qPCR revealed a positive rate of 11.6% (n = 35) and 17.2% (n = 52) for NPSs and saliva samples, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of saliva samples were 82.9% and 91.4%, respectively, using NPS as reference. The highest proportion of discordant results concerned the follow-up group (33.3%). Although the agreement exceeded 90.0% in the symptomatic and asymptomatic groups, 17 individuals were detected positive only in saliva samples, with consistent medical arguments. Conclusion Saliva collected with Salivette® was more sensitive for detecting symptomatic and pre-symptomatic infections.
| S-EPMC8098750 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9604035 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe current gold standard in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) diagnostics is the real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA in nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples. Alternatively, nasal swab (NS) or saliva swab (SS) specimens are used, although available data on test accuracy are limited. We examined the diagnostic accuracy of NPS/NS/SS samples for this purpose.MethodsTen patients were included after being tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR in NPS samples according to the National Institute of Infectious Disease guidelines. In comparison with this conventional diagnostic method, NPS/NS/SS samples were tested using the cobas 6800 systems RT-PCR device. To investigate the usefulness of the cobas method and the difference among sample types, the agreement and sensitivity were calculated. Five to six samples were collected over a total period of 5-6 d from each patient.ResultsFifty-seven sets of NPS/NS/SS samples were collected, of which 40 tested positive for COVID-19 by the conventional method. Overall, the concordance rates using the conventional method were 86.0%/70.2%/54.4% for NPS/NS/SS samples (cobas); however, for samples collected up to and including on Day 9 after disease onset (22 negative and one positive specimens), the corresponding rates were 95.7%/87.0%/65.2%. The overall sensitivity estimates were 100.0%/67.5%/37.5% for NPS/NS/SS samples (cobas). For samples up to 9 d after onset, the corresponding values were 100.0%/86.4%/63.6%.ConclusionsNS samples are more reliable than SS samples and can be an alternative to NPS samples. They can be a useful diagnostic method in the future.
| S-EPMC8006266 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTesting is critical for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection, but the best sampling method remains unclear.ObjectivesTo determine whether nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), oropharyngeal swab (OPS) or saliva specimen collection has the highest detection rate for SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing.MethodsWe conducted a randomised clinical trial at two COVID-19 outpatient test centres where NPS, OPS and saliva specimens were collected by healthcare workers in different orders for reverse transcriptase PCR testing. The SARS-CoV-2 detection rate was calculated as the number positive by a specific sampling method divided by the number in which any of the three sampling methods was positive. As secondary outcomes, test-related discomfort was measured with an 11-point numeric scale and cost-effectiveness was calculated.ResultsAmong 23 102 adults completing the trial, 381 (1.65%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive. The SARS-CoV-2 detection rate was higher for OPSs, 78.7% (95% CI 74.3 to 82.7), compared with NPSs, 72.7% (95% CI 67.9 to 77.1) (p=0.049) and compared with saliva sampling, 61.9% (95% CI 56.9 to 66.8) (p<0.001). The discomfort score was highest for NPSs, at 5.76 (SD, 2.52), followed by OPSs, at 3.16 (SD 3.16) and saliva samples, at 1.03 (SD 18.8), p<0.001 between all measurements. Saliva specimens were associated with the lowest cost, and the incremental costs per detected SARS-CoV-2 infection for NPSs and OPSs were US$3258 and US$1832, respectively.ConclusionsOPSs were associated with higher SARS-CoV-2 detection and lower test-related discomfort than NPSs for SARS-CoV-2 testing. Saliva sampling had the lowest SARS-CoV-2 detection but was the least costly strategy for mass testing.Trial registration numberNCT04715607.
| S-EPMC10511974 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Widely available and easily accessible testing for COVID-19 is a cornerstone of pandemic containment strategies. Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) are the currently accepted standard for sample collection but are limited by their need for collection devices and sampling by trained healthcare professionals. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of saliva to NPS in an outpatient setting. This was a prospective study conducted at three centers, which compared the performance of saliva and NPS samples collected at the time of assessment center visit. Samples were tested by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and sensitivity and overall agreement determined between saliva and NPS. Clinical data was abstracted by chart review for select study participants. Of the 432 paired samples, 46 were positive for SARS-CoV-2, with seven discordant observed between the two sample types (four individuals testing positive only by NPS and three by saliva only). The observed agreement was 98.4% (kappa coefficient 0.91) and a composite reference standard demonstrated sensitivity of 0.91 and 0.93 for saliva and NPS samples, respectively. On average, the Ct values obtained from saliva as compared to NPS were higher by 2.76. This study demonstrates that saliva performs comparably to NPS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Saliva was simple to collect, did not require transport media, and could be tested with equipment readily available at most laboratories. The use of saliva as an acceptable alternative to NPS could support the use of widespread surveillance testing for SARS-CoV-2.
| S-EPMC7697440 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The genome of the Omicron variant of concern (VOC) contains more than 50 mutations, many of which have been associated with increased transmissibility, differing disease severity, and the potential to elute immune responses acquired after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination or infection with previous VOCs. Due to a better tropism for the upper respiratory tract, it was suggested that the detection of the Omicron variant could be preferred in saliva, compared to nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS). Our objective was to compare the SARS-CoV-2 levels in saliva fluid and NPS to estimated Ct values, according to the main SARS-CoV-2 variants circulating in France since the beginning of 2021. We analyzed 1,289 positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results during the three major waves: Alpha, Delta, and Omicron. NPS and saliva sampling were performed for 909 (71%) and 380 (29%) cases, respectively. The Ct values were significantly lower in the NPS samples than in the saliva samples for the three main VOCs. Still, the difference was less pronounced with the Omicron variant than for the Alpha and Delta variants. In contrast, in the saliva samples, Ct values were significantly lower for the Omicron variant than for the Delta (difference of -2.7 Ct) and the Alpha (difference of -3.0 Ct) variants, confirming a higher viral load in saliva. To conclude, the higher viral load in saliva was evidenced for the Omicron variant, compared to the Alpha and Delta variants, suggesting that established diagnostic methods might require revalidation with the emergence of novel variants. IMPORTANCE Established methods for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics might require revalidation with the emergence of novel variants. This is important for screening strategy programs and for the investigation of the characteristics of new variants in terms of tropism modification and increased viral burden leading to its spread. SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR screening on saliva samples reported lower but acceptable performance, compared to nasopharyngeal samples. Due to a better tropism for the upper respiratory tract, it was suggested that the detection of the Omicron variant could be preferred in saliva, compared to nasopharyngeal swabs. Our study analyzed 1,289 positive RT-PCR results during the three major waves in France: Alpha, Delta, and Omicron. Our findings also showed a higher viral load in saliva for the Omicron variant, compared to the Alpha and Delta variants.
| S-EPMC9769595 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionRapid antigen detection (RAD) tests are convenient tools for detecting the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in clinics, and testing using saliva samples could decrease the risk of infection during sample collection. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of the SARS-CoV-2 RAD for testing of nasopharyngeal swab specimens and saliva samples in comparison with the RT-PCR tests and viral culture for detecting viable virus.MethodsOne hundred seventeen nasopharyngeal swab specimens and 73 saliva samples with positive results on RT-PCR were used. Residual samples were assayed using a commercially available RAD test immediately, and its positivity was determined at various time points during the clinical course. The concordance between 54 nasopharyngeal swab samples and saliva samples that were collected simultaneously was determined. Viral culture was performed on 117 samples and compared with the results of the RAD test.ResultsThe positive rate of RAD test using saliva samples was low throughout the clinical course. Poor concordance was observed between nasopharyngeal swab specimens and saliva samples (75.9%, kappa coefficient 0.310). However, a substantially high concordance between the RAD test and viral culture was observed in both nasopharyngeal swab specimens (86.8%, kappa coefficient 0.680) and saliva samples (95.1%, kappa coefficient 0.643).ConclusionsThe sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 RAD test was insufficient, particularly for saliva samples. However, a substantially high concordance with viral culture suggests its potential utility as an auxiliary test for estimating SARS-CoV-2 viability.
| S-EPMC8052479 | biostudies-literature