Saliva is inferior to nose and throat swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection in children.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: von Linstow ML
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8444819 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Mass testing is fundamental to face the pandemic caused by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 discovered at the end of 2019. To this aim, it is necessary to establish reliable, fast, and cheap tools to detect viral particles in biological material so to identify the people capable of spreading the infection. We demonstrate that a colorimetric biosensor based on gold nanoparticle (AuNP) interaction induced by SARS-CoV-2 lends itself as an outstanding tool for detecting viral particles in nasal and throat swabs. The extinction spectrum of a colloidal solution of multiple viral-target gold nanoparticles-AuNPs functionalized with antibodies targeting three surface proteins of SARS-CoV-2 (spike, envelope, and membrane)-is red-shifted in few minutes when mixed with a solution containing the viral particle. The optical density of the mixed solution measured at 560 nm was compared to the threshold cycle (Ct) of a real-time PCR (gold standard for detecting the presence of viruses) finding that the colorimetric method is able to detect very low viral load with a detection limit approaching that of the real-time PCR. Since the method is sensitive to the infecting viral particle rather than to its RNA, the achievements reported here open a new perspective not only in the context of the current and possible future pandemics, but also in microbiology, as the biosensor proves itself to be a powerful though simple tool for measuring the viral particle concentration.
| S-EPMC7534800 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Saliva is an attractive sample for detecting SARS-CoV-2. However, contradictory reports exist concerning the sensitivity of saliva versus nasal swabs. We followed close contacts of COVID-19 cases for up to 14 days from the last exposure and collected self-reported symptoms, midturbinate swabs (MTS), and saliva every 2 or 3 days. Ct values, viral load, and frequency of viral detection by MTS and saliva were compared. Fifty-eight contacts provided 200 saliva-MTS pairs, and 14 contacts (13 with symptoms) had one or more positive samples. Saliva and MTS had similar rates of viral detection (P = 0.78) and substantial agreement (κ = 0.83). However, sensitivity varied significantly with time since symptom onset. Early on (days -3 to 2), saliva had 12 times (95% CI: 1.2, 130) greater likelihood of viral detection and 3.2 times (95% CI: 2.8, 3.8) higher RNA copy numbers compared to MTS. After day 2 of symptoms, there was a nonsignificant trend toward greater sensitivity using MTS. Saliva and MTS demonstrated high agreement making saliva a suitable alternative to MTS for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Saliva was more sensitive early in the infection when the transmission was most likely to occur, suggesting that it may be a superior and cost-effective screening tool for COVID-19. IMPORTANCE The findings of this manuscript are increasingly important with new variants that appear to have shorter incubation periods emerging, which may be more prone to detection in saliva before detection in nasal swabs. Therefore, there is an urgent need to provide the science to support the use of a detection method that is highly sensitive and widely acceptable to the public to improve screening rates and early detection. The manuscript presents the first evidence that saliva-based RT-PCR is more sensitive than MTS-based RT-PCR in detecting SARS-CoV-2 during the presymptomatic period - the critical period for unwitting onward transmission. Considering other advantages of saliva samples, including the lower cost, greater acceptability within the general population, and less risk to health care workers, our findings further supported the use of saliva to identify presymptomatic infection and prevent transmission of the virus.
| S-EPMC9045394 | 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 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:Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs are considered the highest-yield sample for diagnostic testing for respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. The need to increase capacity for SARS-CoV-2 testing in a variety of settings, combined with shortages of sample collection supplies, have motivated a search for alternative sample types with high sensitivity. We systematically reviewed the literature to understand the performance of alternative sample types compared to NP swabs. We systematically searched PubMed, Google Scholar, medRxiv, and bioRxiv (last retrieval 1 October 2020) for comparative studies of alternative specimen types (saliva, oropharyngeal [OP], and nasal [NS] swabs) versus NP swabs for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis using nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). A logistic-normal random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate % positive alternative-specimen, % positive NP, and % dual positives overall and in subgroups. The QUADAS 2 tool was used to assess bias. From 1,253 unique citations, we identified 25 saliva, 11 NS, 6 OP, and 4 OP/NS studies meeting inclusion criteria. Three specimen types captured lower % positives (NS [82%, 95% CI: 73 to 90%], OP [84%, 95% CI: 57 to 100%], and saliva [88%, 95% CI: 81 to 93%]) than NP swabs, while combined OP/NS matched NP performance (97%, 95% CI: 90 to 100%). Absence of RNA extraction (saliva) and utilization of a more sensitive NAAT (NS) substantially decreased alternative-specimen yield of positive samples. NP swabs remain the gold standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, although alternative specimens are promising. Much remains unknown about the impact of variations in specimen collection, processing protocols, and population (pediatric versus adult, late versus early in disease course), such that head-to head studies of sampling strategies are urgently needed.
| S-EPMC8091856 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The processing of swabs for respiratory virus detection involves vortexing while still in the viral transport medium (VTM). The effect of not vortexing swabs prior to analysis has not been studied extensively for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and presents an opportunity to improve pre-analytic laboratory workflow. We aimed to assess the impact of not vortexing nasopharyngeal/throat swabs submitted in VTM for SARS-CoV-2 testing. To assess the impact of not vortexing swabs, 277 swab samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in paired vortexed and non-vortexed aliquots using eight routine nucleic acid amplification assays. We compared the qualitative (positive/negative) and semi-quantitative (cycle threshold, Ct) results. Following discordant analysis, all but one non-vortexed sample had the same qualitative result as the vortexed sample. 27.4% of samples were SARS-CoV-2 positive. Comparison of Ct values revealed an apparent reduction in human cellular nucleic acid in the non-vortexed samples (mean Ct values of 24.0 and 26.5 for vortexed and non-vortexed samples, respectively, p < 0.0001) and increased Ct values for non-vortexed samples using a laboratory-developed SARS-CoV-2 assay (mean Ct values of 4.1 and 4.2 for vortexed and non-vortexed samples, respectively; p < 0.0001), but this was not observed for a more automated commercial SARS-CoV-2 assay (mean Ct values of 15.2 for both vortexed and non-vortexed samples, respectively; p = 0.68). While vortexing swabs appears to improve the recovery of cellular material, it does not have an appreciable impact on the qualitative sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid tests, which may support omission of this step and simplification of front-end sample processing.
| S-EPMC8762992 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8444446 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSaliva sampling is a promising alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing, but acceptability data is lacking. We characterize the acceptability of saliva sampling and nasopharyngeal swabs for primary decision makers and their children after experiencing both testing modalities.MethodsWe administered a cross-sectional survey to participants aged 6-to-17 years and their primary decision makers at an Ottawa community COVID-19 testing centre in March 2021. Included were participants meeting local guidelines for testing. Excluded were those identified prior to participation as having inability to complete the consent, sampling, or survey process. Acceptability in multiple hypothetical scenarios was rated using a 5-point Likert scale. Pain was measured using the Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R). Preference for testing was assessed with direct binary questions.Results48 participants and 48 primary decision makers completed the survey. Nasopharyngeal swab acceptability differed between scenarios, ranging 79% [95%CI: 66, 88] to 100% [95%CI: 95, 100]; saliva sampling acceptability was similar across scenarios, ranging 92% [95%CI: 82, 97] to 98% [95%CI: 89, 99]. 58% of youth described significant pain with nasopharyngeal swabbing, versus none with saliva sampling. 90% of children prefer saliva sampling. 66% of primary decision makers would prefer nasopharyngeal swabbing if it were 10% more sensitive.ConclusionThough youth prefer saliva sampling over nasopharyngeal swabs, primary decision makers present for testing remain highly accepting of both. Acceptance of nasopharyngeal swabs, however, varies with the testing indication and is influenced by perceived test accuracy. Understanding factors that influence sampling acceptance will inform more successful testing strategies.
| S-EPMC9269879 | biostudies-literature
Project description:SARS-CoV-2 was detected from at least 1 buccal specimen in 9 out of 11 COVID-19-infected children (81.8%). The viral loads in buccal specimens were substantially lower than those in nasopharyngeal specimens. Buccal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 are not good as screening specimens for COVID-19 in children.
| S-EPMC7313923 | biostudies-literature