Dataset Information

Adding saliva testing to oropharyngeal and deep nasal swab testing increases PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 in primary care and children.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the concordance and acceptability of saliva testing with standard-of-care oropharyngeal and bilateral deep nasal swab testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in children and in general practice.

Design

Prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study.

Setting

Royal Children's Hospital, and two general practices (cohealth, West Melbourne; Cirqit Health, Altona North) in Melbourne, July-October 2020.

Participants

1050 people who provided paired saliva and oropharyngeal-nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing.

Main outcome measures

Numbers of cases in which SARS-CoV-2 was detected in either specimen type by real-time polymerase chain reaction; concordance of results for paired specimens; positive percent agreement (PPA) for virus detection, by specimen type.

Results

SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 54 of 1050 people with assessable specimens (5%), including 19 cases (35%) in which both specimens were positive. The overall PPA was 72% (95% CI, 58-84%) for saliva and 63% (95% CI, 49-76%) for oropharyngeal-nasal swabs. For the 35 positive specimens from people aged 10 years or more, PPA was 86% (95% CI, 70-95%) for saliva and 63% (95% CI, 45-79%) for oropharyngeal-nasal swabs. Adding saliva testing to standard-of-care oropharyngeal-nasal swab testing increased overall case detection by 59% (95% CI, 29-95%). Providing saliva was preferred to an oropharyngeal-nasal swab by most participants (75%), including 141 of 153 children under 10 years of age (92%).

Conclusion

In children over 10 years of age and adults, saliva testing alone may be suitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection, while for children under 10, saliva testing may be suitable as an adjunct to oropharyngeal-nasal swab testing for increasing case detection.

SUBMITTER: Oliver J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8447377 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionNearly all existing respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) incidence estimates are based on real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing of nasal or nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs. Adding testing of additional specimen types to NP swab RT-PCR increases RSV detection. However, prior studies only made pairwise comparisons and the synergistic effect of adding multiple specimen types has not been quantified. We compared RSV diagnosis by NP swab RT-PCR alone versus NP swab plus saliva, sputum, and serology.MethodsThis was a prospective cohort study over two study periods (27 December 2021 to 1 April 2022 and 22 August 2022 to 11 November 2022) of patients aged ≥ 40 years hospitalized for acute respiratory illness (ARI) in Louisville, KY. NP swab, saliva, and sputum specimens were collected at enrollment and PCR tested (Luminex ARIES platform). Serology specimens were obtained at acute and convalescent timepoints (enrollment and 30-60-day visit). RSV detection rate was calculated for NP swab alone and for NP swab plus all other specimen type/test.ResultsAmong 1766 patients enrolled, 100% had NP swab, 99% saliva, 34% sputum, and 21% paired serology specimens. RSV was diagnosed in 56 (3.2%) patients by NP swab alone, and in 109 (6.2%) patients by NP swab plus additional specimens, corresponding to a 1.95 times higher rate [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.62, 2.34]. Limiting the comparison to the 150 subjects with all four specimen types available (i.e., NP swab, saliva, sputum, and serology), there was a 2.60-fold increase (95% CI 1.31, 5.17) compared to NP swab alone (3.3% versus 8.7%). Sensitivities by specimen type were: NP swab 51%, saliva 70%, sputum 72%, and serology 79%.ConclusionsDiagnosis of RSV in adults was several-fold greater when additional specimen types were added to NP swab, even with a relatively low percentage of subjects with sputum and serology results available. Hospitalized RSV ARI burden estimates in adults based solely on NP swab RT-PCR should be adjusted for underestimation.

Project description:We examined the detection rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) of side-by-side saliva and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) samples from 639 symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects, of which 47 subjects were found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the OPS or saliva sample or both. It was found that the detection rate (93.6% for both OPS and saliva) as well as the sensitivity and specificity were comparable between the two sampling methods in this cohort. The sensitivity was 0.932 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.818 to 0.977) and the specificity was 0.995 (95% CI, 0.985 to 0.998), both for saliva when OPS sampling was used as the reference and for OPS when saliva was used as the reference. Furthermore, the Cohen's kappa value was 0.926 (95% CI, 0.868 to 0.985), indicating strong agreement between the two sampling methods. In addition, the viral RNA stability in pure saliva and saliva mixed with preservation buffers was examined following storage at room temperature and at 4°C. It was found that pure saliva kept the viral RNA stable for 9 days at both temperatures and that the type of preservation buffer can either enhance or reduce the stability of the RNA. We conclude that self-administered saliva sampling is an attractive alternative to oropharyngeal swabbing for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and it might be useful in large-scale testing. IMPORTANCE It is not inconceivable that we will witness recurring surges of COVID-19 before the pandemic finally recedes. It is therefore still relevant to look for feasible, simple, and flexible screening methods so that schools, workplaces, and communities in general can avoid lockdowns. In this work, we analyzed two different sampling methods: oropharyngeal swabs and saliva collection. Oropharyngeal swabs must be collected by trained health personnel at clinics, whereas self-assisted saliva collection can be performed at any given location. It was found that the two sampling methods were comparable. Saliva sampling is a simple method that allows easy mass testing using minimal resources from the existing health care system, and this method may therefore prove to be an effective tool for containing the COVID-19 pandemic.

Project description:Accurate and early diagnoses are prerequisites for prompt treatment. For coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), it is even more crucial. Currently, choice of methods include rapid diagnostic tests and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) using samples mostly of respiratory origin and sometimes saliva. We evaluated two rapid diagnostic tests with three specimen types using viral transport medium (VTM) containing naso-oropharyngeal (NOP) swabs, direct nasal and direct nasopharyngeal (NP) samples from 428 prospective patients. We also performed RT-PCR for 428 NOP VTM and 316 saliva samples to compare results. The sensitivity of the SD Biosensor Standard Q COVID-19 antigen (Ag) test kit drastically raised from an average of 65.55% (NOP VTM) to 85.25% (direct nasal samples), while RT-PCR was the gold standard. For the CareStart kit, the sensitivity was almost similar for direct NP swabs; the average was 84.57%. The specificities were ≥95% for both SD Biosensor Standard Q and CareStart COVID-19 Ag tests in all platforms. The kits were also able to detect patients with different variants as well. Alternatively, RT-PCR results from saliva and NOP VTM samples showed high sensitivities of 96.45% and 95.48% with respect to each other as standard. The overall results demonstrated high performance of the rapid tests, indicating the suitability for regular surveillance at clinical facilities when using direct nasal or direct NP samples rather than NOP VTM. Additionally, the analysis also signifies not showed that RT-PCR of saliva can be used as an choice of method to RT-PCR of NOP VTM, providing an easier, non-invasive sample collection method. IMPORTANCE There are several methods for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and the choice of methods depends mostly on the resources and level of sensitivity required by the user and health care providers. Still, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has been chosen as the best method using direct naso-oropharyngeal swabs. There are also other methods of fast detection, such as rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), which offer result within 15 to 20 min and have become quite popular for self-testing and in the clinical setting. The major drawback of the currently used RT-PCR method is compliance, as it may cause irritation, and patients often refuse to test in such a way. RDTs, although inexpensive, suffer from low sensitivity due to technical issues. In this article, we propose saliva as a noninvasive source for RT-PCR samples and evaluate various specimen types at different times after infection for the best possible output from COVID-19 rapid tests.