Self-collected mid-nasal swabs and saliva specimens, compared with nasopharyngeal swabs, for SARS-CoV-2 detection in mild COVID-19 patients.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Alemany A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8444446 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Self-collected mid-nasal swabs and saliva specimens, compared with nasopharyngeal swabs, for SARS-CoV-2 detection in mild COVID-19 patients.
Alemany Andrea A Millat-Martinez Pere P Ouchi Dan D Corbacho-Monné Marc M Bordoy Antoni E AE Esteban Cristina C Hernández Águeda Á Casañ Cristina C Gonzalez Victoria V Costes Gèlia G Capdevila-Jáuregui Mar M Torrano-Soler Pamela P San José Alba A Ara Jordi J Prat Núria N Clotet Bonaventura B Bassat Quique Q Gimenez Montserrat M Blanco Ignacio I Baro Bàrbara B Mitjà Oriol O
The Journal of infection 20210916 6
Similar Datasets
Project description:We prospectively compared health care worker-collected nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) to self-collected anterior nasal swabs (ANS) and straight saliva for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in 354 patients. The percent positive agreement between NPS and ANS or saliva was 86.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76.7 to 92.9%) and 93.8% (95% CI, 86.0 to 97.9%), respectively. The percent negative agreement was 99.6% (95% CI, 98.0 to 100.0%) for NPS versus ANS and 97.8% (95% CI, 95.3 to 99.2%) for NPS versus saliva. More cases were detected by the use of NPS (n = 80) and saliva (n = 81) than by the use of ANS (n = 70), but no single specimen type detected all severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections.
| S-EPMC7587122 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Abstract Background Anterior nasal swabs (ANS) are established specimen collection methods for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection detection. While saliva (SA) specimens provide an alternative, few studies have comprehensively characterized the performance of SA specimens in longitudinal studies. Methods We compared SARS-CoV-2 detections between paired self-collected ANS and SA specimens from a household transmission study. Participants recorded symptoms and paired ANS and SA specimens daily for 14 days. Specimens were tested using RT-PCR. We calculated the proportion of detections identified by each specimen type among the detections from both types combined. We computed percent agreement and Kappa statistics to assess concordance in detections. We also computed estimates stratified by presence of symptoms and examined the influence of traditional and inactivating transport media on the performance of ANS. Results We examined 2535 self-collected paired specimens from 216 participants. Among 1238 (49%) paired specimens with detections by either specimen type, ANS identified 77.1% (954; 95% CI, 74.6% to 79.3%) and SA 81.9% (1014; 95% CI, 79.7% to 84.0%), with a difference of 4.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 8.5%). Overall agreement was 80.0%, and Kappa was 0.6 (95% CI, 0.5 to 0.6). Nevertheless, the difference in the proportion of detections identified by ANS and SA using traditional and inactivating transport media was 32.5% (95% CI, 26.8% to 38.0%) and –9.5% (95% CI, −13.7% to –5.2%), respectively. Among participants who remained asymptomatic, the difference in detections between SA and ANS was 51.2% (95% CI, 31.8% to 66.0%) and 26.1% (95% CI, 0% to 48.5%) using traditional and inactivating media, respectively. Conclusions Self-collected saliva specimens provide a noninvasive alternative to nasal swabs, especially to those collected in traditional transport media, for longitudinal field studies that aim to detect both symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections.
| S-EPMC8522395 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionContaining COVID-19 requires broad-scale testing. However, sample collection requires qualified personnel and protective equipment and may cause transmission. We assessed the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2-rtPCR applying three self-sampling techniques as compared to professionally collected oro-nasopharyngeal samples (cOP/NP).MethodsFrom 62 COVID-19 outpatients, we obtained: (i) multi-swab, MS; (ii) saliva sponge combined with nasal vestibula, SN; (iii) gargled water, GW; (iv) professionally collected cOP/NP (standard). We compared ct-values for E-gene and ORF1ab and analysed variables reducing sensitivity of self-collecting procedures.ResultsThe median ct-values for E-gene and ORF1ab obtained in cOP/NP samples were 20.7 and 20.2, in MS samples 22.6 and 21.8, in SN samples 23.3 and 22.3, and in GW samples 30.3 and 29.8, respectively. MS and SN samples showed sensitivities of 95.2% (95%CI, 86.5-99.0) and GW samples of 88.7% (78.1-95.3). Sensitivity was inversely correlated with ct-values, and became <90% for samples obtained more than 8 days after symptom onset. For MS and SN samples, false negativity was associated with language problems, sampling errors, and symptom duration.ConclusionConclusions from this study are limited to the sensitivity of self-sampling in mildly to moderately symptomatic patients. Still, self-collected oral/nasal/saliva samples can facilitate up-scaling of testing in early symptomatic COVID-19 patients if operational errors are minimized.
| S-EPMC8295057 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic control will require widespread access to accurate diagnostics. Salivary sampling circumvents swab supply chain bottlenecks, is amenable to self-collection, and is less likely to create an aerosol during collection compared with the nasopharyngeal swab.MethodsWe compared real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction Abbott m2000 results from matched salivary oral fluid (gingival crevicular fluid collected in an Oracol device) and nasal-oropharyngeal (OP) self-collected specimens in viral transport media from a nonhospitalized, ambulatory cohort of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients at multiple time points. These 2 sentences should be at the beginning of the results.ResultsThere were 171 matched specimen pairs. Compared with nasal-OP swabs, 41.6% of the oral fluid samples were positive. Adding spit to the oral fluid percent collection device increased the percent positive agreement from 37.2% (16 of 43) to 44.6% (29 of 65). The positive percent agreement was highest in the first 5 days after symptoms and decreased thereafter. All of the infectious nasal-OP samples (culture positive on VeroE6 TMPRSS2 cells) had a matched SARS-CoV-2 positive oral fluid sample.ConclusionsIn this study of nonhospitalized SARS-CoV-2-infected persons, we demonstrate lower diagnostic sensitivity of self-collected oral fluid compared with nasal-OP specimens, a difference that was especially prominent more than 5 days from symptom onset. These data do not justify the routine use of oral fluid collection for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 despite the greater ease of collection. It also underscores the importance of considering the method of saliva specimen collection and the time from symptom onset especially in outpatient populations.
| S-EPMC7798743 | biostudies-literature
Project description:It has been revealed that SARS-CoV-2 can be efficiently isolated from clinical specimens such as nasal/nasopharyngeal swabs or saliva in cultured cells. In this study, we examined the efficiency of viral isolation including SARS-CoV-2 mutant strains between nasal/nasopharyngeal swab or saliva specimens. Furthermore, we also examined the comparison of viral isolation rates by sample species using simulated specimens for COVID-19. As a result, it was found that the isolation efficiency of SARS-CoV-2 in the saliva specimens was significantly lower than that in the nasal/nasopharyngeal swab specimens. In order to determine which component of saliva is responsible for the lower isolation rate of saliva specimens, we tested the abilities of lactoferrin, amylase, cathelicidin, and mucin, which are considered to be abundant in saliva, to inhibit the infection of SARS-CoV-2 pseudotyped viruses (SARS-CoV-2pv). Lactoferrin and amylase were found to inhibit SARS-CoV-2pv infection. In conclusion, even if the same number of viral genome copies was detected by the real-time RT-PCR test, infection of SARS-CoV-2 present in saliva is thought to be inhibited by inhibitory factors such as lactoferrin and amylase, compared to nasal/nasopharyngeal swab specimens.
| S-EPMC10233558 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We evaluated the feasibility of asking pregnant women to self-collect and ship respiratory specimens.In a preliminary laboratory study, we compared the RT-PCR cycle threshold (CT) values of influenza A and B viruses incubated at 4 storage temperatures (from 4 to 35°C) for 6 time periods (8, 24, 48, 72, and 168 hours and 30 days), resulting in 24 conditions that were compared to an aliquot tested after standard freezing (-20°C) (baseline condition). In a subsequent pilot study, during January-February, 2014, we delivered respiratory specimen collection kits to 53 pregnant women with a medically attended acute respiratory illness using three delivery methods.CT values were stable after storage at temperatures <27°C for up to 72 hours for influenza A viruses and 48 hours for influenza B viruses. Of 53 women who received kits during the pilot, 89% collected and shipped nasal swabs as requested. However, 30% (14/47) of the women took over 2 days to collect and ship their specimen. The human control gene, ribonuclease P (RNase P), was detected in 100% of nasal swab specimens. However, the mean CT values for RNase P (26.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 26.0-27.1) and for the 8 influenza A virus positives in our pilot (32.2, 95% CI = 28.9-35.5) were significantly higher than the CTs observed in our 2010-2012 study using staff-collected nasal pharyngeal swabs (P-values < 0.01).Self-collection of respiratory specimens is a promising research method, but further research is needed to quantify the sensitivity and specificity of the approach.
| S-EPMC4415700 | biostudies-other
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 aim of this study was to determine whether self-collected pure saliva (SCPS) is comparable to nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs in the quantitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR in asymptomatic, mild patients with confirmed COVID-19. Thirty-one patients aged from 18 to 85 years were included between 9 June and 11 December 2020. A SCPS sample and a NP sample were taken for each patient. Quantitative PCR was performed to detect SARS-CoV-2 viral load. Results of SCPS vs. NP samples testing were compared. Statistical analyses were performed. Viral load was significantly correlated (r = 0.72). The concordance probability was estimated at 73.3%. In symptomatic adults, SCPS performance was similar to that of NP swabs (Percent Agreement = 74.1%; p = 0.11). Thus, the salivary test based on pure oral saliva samples easily obtained by noninvasive techniques has a fair agreement with the nasopharyngeal one in asymptomatic, mild patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8150338 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn British Columbia (BC), self-collected saline gargle (SG) is the only alternative to health care provider (HCP)-collected nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs to detect SARS-CoV-2 in an outpatient setting by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). However, some individuals cannot perform a SG. Our study aimed to assess combined throat-bilateral nares (TN) swabbing as a swab-based alternative.MethodsSymptomatic individuals greater than 12 years of age seeking a COVID-19 PCR test at one of two COVID-19 collection centres in Metro Vancouver were asked to participate in this study. Participants provided a HCP-collected NP sample and a self-collected SG and TN sample for PCR testing, which were either HCP observed or unobserved.ResultsThree-hundred and eleven individuals underwent all three collections. Compared against HCP-NP, SG was 99% sensitive and 98% specific (kappa 0.97) and TN was 99% sensitive and 99% specific (kappa 0.98). Using the final clinical test interpretation as the reference standard, NP was 98% sensitive and 100% specific (kappa 0.98), and both SG and TN were 99% sensitive and 100% specific (both kappa 0.99). Mean cycle threshold values for each viral target were higher in SG specimens compared to the other sample types; however, this did not significantly impact the clinical performance, because the positivity rates were similar. The clinical performance of all specimen types was comparable within the first 7 days of symptom onset, regardless of the observation method. SG self-collections were rated the most acceptable, followed by TN.ConclusionsTN provides another less invasive self-collection modality for symptomatic outpatient SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing.
| S-EPMC10797771 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A nasopharyngeal swab is a sample used for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Saliva is a sample easier to obtain and the risk of contagion for the professional is lower. This study aimed to evaluate the utility of saliva for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This prospective study involved 674 patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. Paired nasopharyngeal and saliva samples were processed by RT-qPCR. Sensitivity, specificity, and kappa coefficient were used to evaluate the results from both samples. We considered the influence of age, symptoms, chronic conditions, and sample processing with lysis buffer. Of the 674 patients, 636 (94.4%) had valid results from both samples. The virus detection in saliva compared to a nasopharyngeal sample (gold standard) was 51.9% (95% CI: 46.3%-57.4%) and increased to 91.6% (95% CI: 86.7%-96.5%) when the cycle threshold (Ct) was ≤ 30. The specificity of the saliva sample was 99.1% (95% CI: 97.0%-99.8%). The concordance between samples was 75% (κ = 0.50; 95% CI: 0.45-0.56). The Ct values were significantly higher in saliva. In conclusion, saliva sample utility is limited for clinical diagnosis, but could be a useful alternative for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in massive screening studies, when the availability of trained professionals for sampling or personal protection equipment is limited.
| S-EPMC7830328 | biostudies-literature