Dataset Information

Evaluating Diagnostic Accuracy of Saliva Sampling Methods for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Reveals Differential Sensitivity and Association with Viral Load.

ABSTRACT: Nasopharyngeal swabs are considered the preferential collection method for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) diagnostics. Less invasive and simpler alternative sampling procedures, such as saliva collection, are desirable. We compared saliva specimens and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs with respect to sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2. A nasopharyngeal and two saliva specimens (collected by spitting or oral swabbing) were obtained from >2500 individuals. All samples were tested by RT-qPCR, detecting RNA of SARS-CoV-2. The test sensitivity was compared on the two saliva collections with the nasopharyngeal specimen for all subjects and stratified by symptom status and viral load. Of the 2850 patients for whom all three samples were available, 105 were positive on NP swab, whereas 32 and 23 were also positive on saliva spitting and saliva swabbing samples, respectively. The sensitivity of the RT-qPCR to detect SARS-CoV-2 among NP-positive patients was 30.5% (95% CI, 1.9%-40.2%) for saliva spitting and 21.9% (95% CI, 14.4%-31.0%) for saliva swabbing. However, when focusing on subjects with medium to high viral load, sensitivity on saliva increased substantially: 93.9% (95% CI, 79.8%-99.3%) and 76.9% (95% CI, 56.4%-91.0%) for spitting and swabbing, respectively, regardless of symptomatic status. Our results suggest that saliva cannot readily replace nasopharyngeal sampling for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics but may enable identification of the most contagious cases with medium to high viral loads.

SUBMITTER: Mestdagh P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8330145 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating Diagnostic Accuracy of Saliva Sampling Methods for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Reveals Differential Sensitivity and Association with Viral Load.

Mestdagh Pieter P Gillard Michel M Dhillon Sharonjit K SK Pirnay Jean-Paul JP Poels Jeroen J Hellemans Jan J Hutse Veronik V Vermeiren Celine C Boutier Maxime M De Wever Veerle V Soentjens Patrick P Djebara Sarah S Malonne Hugues H André Emmanuel E Arbyn Marc M Smeraglia John J Vandesompele Jo J

The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD 20210803 10

Nasopharyngeal swabs are considered the preferential collection method for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) diagnostics. Less invasive and simpler alternative sampling procedures, such as saliva collection, are desirable. We compared saliva specimens and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs with respect to sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2. A nasopharyngeal and two saliva specimens (collected by spitting or oral swabbing) were obtained from >2500 individuals. All samples were ...[more]

PMID: 34358676

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEgypt was among the first 10 countries in Africa that experienced COVID-19 cases. The sudden surge in the number of cases is overwhelming the capacity of the national healthcare system, particularly in developing countries. Central to the containment of the ongoing pandemic is the availability of rapid and accurate diagnostic tests that could pinpoint patients at early disease stages. In the current study, we aimed to (1) Evaluate the diagnostic performance of the rapid antigen test (RAT) "Standard™ Q COVID-19 Ag" against reverse transcriptase quantitative real-time PCR (RT-qPCR) in eighty-three swabs collected from COVID-19 suspected individuals showing various demographic features, clinical and radiological findings. (2) Test whether measuring laboratory parameters in participant's blood would enhance the predictive accuracy of RAT. (3) Identify the most important features that determine the results of both RAT and RT-qPCR.MethodsDiagnostic measurements (e.g. sensitivity, specificity, etc.) and receiver operating characteristic curve were used to assess the clinical performance of "Standard™ Q COVID-19 Ag". We used the support vector machine (SVM) model to investigate whether measuring laboratory indices would enhance the accuracy of RAT. Moreover, a random forest classification model was used to determine the most important determinants of the results of RAT and RT-qPCR for COVID-19 diagnosis.ResultsThe sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of RAT were 78.2, 64.2, and 75.9%, respectively. Samples with high viral load and those that were collected within one-week post-symptoms showed the highest sensitivity and accuracy. The SVM modeling showed that measuring laboratory indices did not enhance the predictive accuracy of RAT.Conclusion"Standard™ Q COVID-19 Ag" should not be used alone for COVID-19 diagnosis due to its low diagnostic performance relative to the RT-qPCR. RAT is best used at the early disease stage and in patients with high viral load.

Project description:The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic demanded rapid diagnosis to isolate new COVID-19 cases and prevent disease transmission. Quantitative Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (qRT-PCR) rapidly became the gold standard for diagnosis. However, due to the high cost and delay of the results, other types of diagnosis were implemented, such as COVID-19 Ag Rapid Tests and Reverse Transcription Technique followed by Loop-Mediated isothermal Amplification (RT-LAMP). In this work, we validated the use of RT-LAMP in saliva samples rather than nasopharyngeal swabs, as the collection is more comfortable. First, we selected 5 primer sets based on the limit of detection for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, then validated their sensitivity and specificity in patient samples. A total of 117 samples were analyzed by fluorometric RT-LAMP and compared with qRT-PCR results. Our results show that the use of a high-sensitive primer ORF1-a, together with a low-sensitive primer set Gene E (time to threshold of 22.9 and 36.4 minutes, respectively, using 200 copies of viral RNA), achieved sensitivity in purified RNA from saliva samples of 95.2% (95% CI 76.1‒99.8) with 90.5% specificity (95% CI 69.6‒98.8) (n = 42).As RNA purification increases the turnaround time, we tested the outcome of RT-LAMP utilizing raw saliva samples without purification. The test achieved a sensitivity of 81.8% (95% CI 59.7‒94.8) and a specificity of 90.9% (95% CI 70.8‒98.8). As a result, the accuracy of 92.9% (95% CI 80.5‒98.5) in purified RNA-saliva samples was lowered to an acceptable level of 86.4% (95% CI 72.6‒94.8) in raw saliva. Although mass vaccination has been implemented, new strains and low vaccination progress helped to spread COVID-19. This study shows that it is feasible to track new COVID-19 cases in a large population with the use of raw saliva as sample in RT-LAMP assay which yields accurate results and offers a less invasive test.

Dataset Information

Evaluating Diagnostic Accuracy of Saliva Sampling Methods for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Reveals Differential Sensitivity and Association with Viral Load.

Publications

Evaluating Diagnostic Accuracy of Saliva Sampling Methods for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Reveals Differential Sensitivity and Association with Viral Load.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets