Dataset Information

Concordance between PCR-based extraction-free saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing.

ABSTRACT: Introduction: Saliva represents a less invasive alternative to nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection. SalivaDirect is a nucleic acid extraction-free method for detecting SARS-CoV2 in saliva specimens. Studies evaluating the concordance of gold standard NPS and newly developed SalivaDirect protocols are limited. The aim of our study was to to assess SalivaDirect as an alternative method for COVID-19 testing. Methods: Matching NPS and saliva samples were analysed from a cohort of symptomatic (n=127) and asymptomatic (n=181) participants recruited from hospital and university settings, respectively. RNA was extracted from NPS while saliva samples were subjected to the SalivaDirect protocol before RT-qPCR analysis. The presence of SARS-Cov-2 was assessed using RdRP and N1 gene targets in NPS and saliva, respectively. Results: Overall we observed 94.3% sensitivity (95% CI 87.2-97.5%), and 95.9% specificity (95% CI 92.4-97.8%) in saliva when compared to matching NPS samples. Analysis of concordance demonstrated 95.5% accuracy overall for the saliva test relative to NPS, and a very high level of agreement (κ coefficient = 0.889, 95% CI 0.833-0.946) between the two sets of specimens. Fourteen of 308 samples were discordant, all from symptomatic patients. Ct values were >30 in 13/14 and >35 in 6/14 samples. No significant difference was found in the Ct values of matching NPS and saliva sample ( p=0.860). A highly significant correlation (r = 0.475, p<0.0001) was also found between the Ct values of the concordant positive saliva and NPS specimens. Conclusions: Use of saliva processed according to the SalivaDirect protocol represents a valid method to detect SARS-CoV-2. Accurate and less invasive saliva screening is an attractive alternative to current testing methods based on NPS and would afford greater capacity to test asymptomatic populations especially in the context of frequent testing.

SUBMITTER: De Santi C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8408542 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundNasopharyngeal swabs are the primary sampling method used for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but they require a trained health care professional and extensive personal protective equipment.PurposeTo determine the difference in sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection between nasopharyngeal swabs and saliva and estimate the incremental cost per additional SARS-CoV-2 infection detected with nasopharyngeal swabs.Data sourcesEmbase, Medline, medRxiv, and bioRxiv were searched from 1 January to 1 November 2020. Cost inputs were from nationally representative sources in Canada and were converted to 2020 U.S. dollars.Study selectionStudies including at least 5 paired nasopharyngeal swab and saliva samples and reporting diagnostic accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 detection.Data extractionData were independently extracted using standardized forms, and study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2).Data synthesisThirty-seven studies with 7332 paired samples were included. Against a reference standard of a positive result on either sample, the sensitivity of saliva was 3.4 percentage points lower (95% CI, 9.9 percentage points lower to 3.1 percentage points higher) than that of nasopharyngeal swabs. Among persons with previously confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, saliva's sensitivity was 1.5 percentage points higher (CI, 7.3 percentage points lower to 10.3 percentage points higher) than that of nasopharyngeal swabs. Among persons without a previous SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, saliva was 7.9 percentage points less (CI, 14.7 percentage points less to 0.8 percentage point more) sensitive. In this subgroup, if testing 100 000 persons with a SARS-CoV-2 prevalence of 1%, nasopharyngeal swabs would detect 79 more (95% uncertainty interval, 5 fewer to 166 more) persons with SARS-CoV-2 than saliva, but with an incremental cost per additional infection detected of $8093.LimitationThe reference standard was imperfect, and saliva collection procedures varied.ConclusionSaliva sampling seems to be a similarly sensitive and less costly alternative that could replace nasopharyngeal swabs for collection of clinical samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing.Primary funding sourceMcGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity. (PROSPERO: CRD42020203415).

Dataset Information

Concordance between PCR-based extraction-free saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets