Dataset Information

Evaluation of automated molecular tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in pooled nasopharyngeal and saliva specimens.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Pooling of samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing in low-prevalence settings has been used as an effective strategy to expand testing capacity and mitigate challenges with the shortage of supplies. We evaluated two automated molecular test systems for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in pooled specimens.

Methods

Pooled nasopharyngeal and saliva specimens were tested by Qiagen QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel (QIAstat) or Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Xpert), and the results were compared to that of standard RT-qPCR tests without pooling.

Results

In nasopharyngeal specimens, the sensitivity/specificity of the pool testing approach, with 5 and 10 specimens per pool, were 77%/100% (n = 105) and 74.1%/100% (n = 260) by QIAstat, and 97.1%/100% (n = 250) and 100%/99.5% (n = 200) by Xpert, respectively. Pool testing of saliva (10 specimens per pool; n = 150) by Xpert resulted in 87.5% sensitivity and 99.3% specificity compared to individual tests. Pool size of 5 or 10 specimens did not significantly affect the difference of RT-qPCR cycle threshold (C_T ) from standard testing. RT-qPCR C_T values obtained with pool testing by both QIAstat and Xpert were positively correlated with that of individual testing (Pearson's correlation coefficient r = 0.85 to 0.99, p < 0.05). However, the C_T values from Xpert were significantly stronger (p < 0.01, paired t test) than that of QIAstat in a subset of SARS-CoV-2 positive specimens, with mean differences of -4.3 ± 2.43 and -4.6 ± 2 for individual and pooled tests, respectively.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that Xpert SARS-CoV-2 can be utilized for pooled sample testing for COVID-19 screening in low-prevalence settings providing significant cost savings and improving throughput without affecting test quality.

SUBMITTER: Al-Hail H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8373324 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.