Dataset Information

Comparison of residential dormitory COVID-19 monitoring via weekly saliva testing and sewage monitoring.

ABSTRACT: Wastewater surveillance has been used as tool for outbreak detection for COVID-19 particularly where there was not capability in place for routine and robust individual testing. Given clinical reports that earlier detection is possible following infection from throat/nasal samples compared to fecal samples for COVID-19 patients, the utility of wastewater testing where robust individual testing is possible is less clear. The objective of this study was to compare the results of weekly required COVID-19 saliva tests to weekly wastewater monitoring for residential buildings (i.e., dormitories) located across three college campuses capturing wastewater from 80 to 441 occupants per sampling location. Sampling occurred during the spring semester of the 2021 academic year which captured the third wave of SARS-CoV-2 cases in the study region. Comparison of the saliva and wastewater testing results indicated that the wastewater SARS-CoV-2 concentrations had a strong linear correlation with the previous week's percentage of positive saliva test results and a weak linear correlation with the saliva testing results surrounding the wastewater sampling (four days before and 3 days after). Given that no correlation was observed between the wastewater and the saliva testing from the following week, the weekly saliva testing captured spikes in COVID-19 cases earlier than the weekly wastewater sampling. Interestingly, the N1 gene copy was observed in buildings on all campuses, but N2 was observed in wastewater on only one of the campuses. N1 and N2 were also observed in sewer biofilm. The campus-specific challenges associated with implementation of wastewater surveillance are discussed. Overall, these results can help inform design of surveillance for early detection of SARS-CoV-2 in residential settings informing mitigation strategies to slow or prevent the spread of the virus among residents in congregate living.

SUBMITTER: Fahrenfeld NL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8611854 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Routine testing for SARS-CoV-2 is rare for institutes of higher education due to prohibitive costs and supply chain delays. During spring 2021, we routinely tested all residential students 1 to 2 times per week using pooled, RNA-extraction-free, reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) testing of saliva at a cost of $0.43/sample with same-day results. The limit of detection was 500 copies/ml on individual samples, and analysis indicates 1,000 and 2,500 copies/ml in pools of 5 and 10, respectively, which is orders of magnitude more sensitive than rapid antigen tests. Importantly, saliva testing flagged 83% of semester positives (43,884 tests administered) and was 95.6% concordant with nasopharyngeal diagnostic results (69.0% concordant on the first test when the nucleocapsid gene (N1) cycle threshold (CT) value was >30). Moreover, testing reduced weekly cases by 59.9% in the spring despite far looser restrictions, allowing for more normalcy while eliminating outbreaks. We also coupled our testing with a survey to clarify symptoms and transmissibility among college-age students. While only 8.5% remained asymptomatic throughout, symptoms were disparate and often cold-like (e.g., only 37.3% developed a fever), highlighting the difficulty with relying on symptom monitoring among this demographic. Based on reported symptom progression, we estimate that we removed 348 days of infectious individuals by routine testing. Interestingly, viral load (CT value) at the time of testing did not affect transmissibility (R2 = 0.0085), though those experiencing noticeable symptoms at the time of testing were more likely to spread the virus to close contacts (31.6% versus 14.3%). Together, our findings support routine testing for reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Implementation of cost- and resource-efficient approaches should receive strong consideration in communities that lack herd immunity. IMPORTANCE This study highlights the utility of routine testing for SARS-CoV-2 using pooled saliva while maintaining high sensitivity of detection (under 2,500 copies/ml) and rapid turnaround of high volume (up to 930 samples in 8 h by two technicians and one quantitative PCR [qPCR] machine). This pooled approach allowed us to test all residential students 1 to 2 times per week on our college campus during the spring of 2021 and flagged 83% of our semester positives. Most students were asymptomatic or presented with symptoms mirroring common colds at the time of testing, allowing for removal of infectious individuals before they otherwise would have sought testing. To our knowledge, the total per-sample consumable cost of $0.43 is the lowest to date. With many communities still lagging in vaccination rates, routine testing that is cost-efficient highlights the capacity of the laboratory's role in controlling the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Project description:Although nasopharyngeal samples have been considered the gold standard for COVID-19 testing, variability in viral load across different anatomical sites could cause nasopharyngeal samples to be less sensitive than saliva or nasal samples in certain cases. Self-collected samples have logistical advantages over nasopharyngeal samples, making them amenable to population-scale screening. To evaluate sampling alternatives for population screening, we collected nasopharyngeal, saliva, and nasal samples from two cohorts with varied levels and types of symptoms. In a mixed cohort of 60 symptomatic and asymptomatic participants, we found that saliva had 88% concordance with nasopharyngeal samples when tested in the same testing lab (n = 41) and 68% concordance when tested in different testing labs (n = 19). In a second cohort of 20 participants hospitalized for COVID-19, saliva had 74% concordance with nasopharyngeal samples tested in the same testing lab but detected virus in two participants that tested negative with nasopharyngeal samples on the same day. Medical record review showed that the saliva-based testing sensitivity was related to the timing of symptom onset and disease stage. We find that no sample site will be perfectly sensitive for COVID-19 testing in all situations, and the significance of negative results will always need to be determined in the context of clinical signs and symptoms. Saliva retained high clinical sensitivity for early-stage and presymptomatic COVID-19 while allowing easier collection, minimizing the exposure of health care workers, and need for personal protective equipment and making it a viable option for population-scale testing. IMPORTANCE Methods for COVID-19 detection are necessary for public health efforts to monitor the spread of disease. Nasopharyngeal samples have been considered the best approach for COVID-19 testing. However, alternative samples like self-collected saliva offer advantages for population-scale screening. Meta-analyses of recent studies suggest that saliva is useful for detecting SARS-CoV-2; however, differences in disease prevalence, sample collection, and analysis methods still confound strong conclusions on the utility of saliva compared to nasopharyngeal samples. Here, we find that the sensitivity of saliva testing is related to both the timing of the sample collection relative to symptom onset and the disease stage. Importantly, several clinical vignettes in our cohorts highlight the challenges of medical decision making with limited knowledge of the associations between laboratory test data and the natural biology of infection.

Project description:BackgroundAdults are being vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 worldwide, but the longitudinal protection of these vaccines is uncertain, given the ongoing appearance of SARS-CoV-2 variants. Children remain largely unvaccinated and are susceptible to infection, with studies reporting that they actively transmit the virus even when asymptomatic, thus affecting the community.MethodsWe investigated if saliva is an effective sample for detecting SARS-CoV-2 RNA and antibodies in children, and associated viral RNA levels to infectivity. For that, we used a saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR test, preceded or not by RNA extraction, in 85 children aged 10 years and under, admitted to the hospital regardless of COVID-19 symptomatology. Amongst these, 29 (63.0%) presented at least one COVID-19 symptom, 46 (54.1%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, 28 (32.9%) were under the age of 1, and the mean (SD) age was 3.8 (3.4) years. Saliva samples were collected up to 48 h after a nasopharyngeal swab-RT-qPCR test.ResultsIn children aged 10 years and under, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of saliva-RT-qPCR tests compared to NP swab-RT-qPCR were, respectively, 84.8% (71.8%-92.4%), 100% (91.0%-100%), and 91.8% (84.0%-96.6%) with RNA extraction, and 81.8% (68.0%-90.5%), 100% (91.0%-100%), and 90.4% (82.1%-95.0%) without RNA extraction. Rescue of infectious particles from saliva was limited to CT values below 26. In addition, we found significant IgM positive responses to SARS-CoV-2 in children positive for SARS-CoV-2 by NP swab and negative by saliva compared to other groups, indicating late infection onset (>7-10 days).ConclusionsSaliva is a suitable sample type for diagnosing children aged 10 years and under, including infants aged <1 year, even bypassing RNA extraction methods. Importantly, the detected viral RNA levels were significantly above the infectivity threshold in several samples. Further investigation is required to correlate SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels to viral transmission.

Dataset Information

Comparison of residential dormitory COVID-19 monitoring via weekly saliva testing and sewage monitoring.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets