Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection in nasopharyngeal swab, saliva, and gargle samples.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Genelhoud G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8908569 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection in nasopharyngeal swab, saliva, and gargle samples.
Genelhoud Gustavo G Adamoski Douglas D Spalanzani Regiane Nogueira RN Bochnia-Bueno Lucas L de Oliveira Jaqueline Carvalho JC Gradia Daniela Fiori DF Bonatto Ana Cláudia AC Wassem Roseli R Raboni Sonia Mara SM Nogueira Meri Bordignon MB de Araujo-Souza Patricia Savio PS
Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease 20220310 2
The nasopharyngeal swab is a gold standard for detecting SARS-CoV-2. However, the inconvenience of this method compelled us to compare its efficiency with saliva and gargle samples, which we collected sequentially from 229 individuals. Saliva outperformed gargle samples, constituting a reliable RNA viral source with similar performance to nasopharyngeal samples. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Testing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by RT-PCR is a vital public health tool in the pandemic. Self-collected samples are increasingly used as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs. Several studies suggested that they are sufficiently sensitive to be a useful alternative. However, there are limited data directly comparing several different types of self-collected materials to determine which material is preferable. A total of 102 predominantly symptomatic adults with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection self-collected native saliva, a tongue swab, a mid-turbinate nasal swab, saliva obtained by chewing a cotton pad and gargle lavage, within 48 h of initial diagnosis. Sample collection was unsupervised. Both native saliva and gargling with tap water had high diagnostic sensitivity of 92.8% and 89.1%, respectively. Nasal swabs had a sensitivity of 85.1%, which was not significantly inferior to saliva (p = 0.092), but 16.6% of participants reported they had difficult in self-collection of this sample. A tongue swab and saliva obtained by chewing a cotton pad had a significantly lower sensitivity of 74.2% and 70.2%, respectively. Diagnostic sensitivity was not related to the presence of clinical symptoms or to age. When comparing self-collected specimens from different material, saliva, gargle lavage or mid-turbinate nasal swabs may be considered for most symptomatic patients. However, complementary experiments are required to verify that differences in performance observed among the five sampling modes were not attributed to collection impairment.
| S-EPMC8709431 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe current gold standard in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) diagnostics is the real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA in nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples. Alternatively, nasal swab (NS) or saliva swab (SS) specimens are used, although available data on test accuracy are limited. We examined the diagnostic accuracy of NPS/NS/SS samples for this purpose.MethodsTen patients were included after being tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR in NPS samples according to the National Institute of Infectious Disease guidelines. In comparison with this conventional diagnostic method, NPS/NS/SS samples were tested using the cobas 6800 systems RT-PCR device. To investigate the usefulness of the cobas method and the difference among sample types, the agreement and sensitivity were calculated. Five to six samples were collected over a total period of 5-6 d from each patient.ResultsFifty-seven sets of NPS/NS/SS samples were collected, of which 40 tested positive for COVID-19 by the conventional method. Overall, the concordance rates using the conventional method were 86.0%/70.2%/54.4% for NPS/NS/SS samples (cobas); however, for samples collected up to and including on Day 9 after disease onset (22 negative and one positive specimens), the corresponding rates were 95.7%/87.0%/65.2%. The overall sensitivity estimates were 100.0%/67.5%/37.5% for NPS/NS/SS samples (cobas). For samples up to 9 d after onset, the corresponding values were 100.0%/86.4%/63.6%.ConclusionsNS samples are more reliable than SS samples and can be an alternative to NPS samples. They can be a useful diagnostic method in the future.
| S-EPMC8006266 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7484747 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRapid diagnosis of COVID-19 is essential in order to restrict the spread of the pandemic, and different approaches for SARS-CoV-2 testing have been proposed as cost-effective and less time-consuming alternatives. For virus detection, the real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) technique is still the "gold standard" for accuracy and reliability, but its performance is affected by the efficiency of nucleic acid extraction methods.ObjectiveIn order to improve the SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic workflow, we compared a "standard" commercially available kit, based on viral RNA extraction from human swab samples by magnetic beads, with its technological evolution. The two methods differ mainly in their time consumption (9 vs. 35 min).MethodsWe adopted the MAGABIO PLUS VIRUS DNA/RNA PURIFICATION KIT II (BIOER), defined as "standard", with the automatic extractor BIOER (GenePure Pro fully automatic nucleic acid purification system) to isolate RNA from nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. We tested this kit with a new faster version of the first one, defined as "rapid" (MAGABIO PLUS VIRUS RNA PURIFICATION KIT II).Results and conclusionThe two evaluated procedures provided similar analytical results, but the faster method proved to be a more suitable tool for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 from nasopharyngeal swabs, due to a more rapid availability of results, which may contribute to improving both clinical decision making and patient safety.
| S-EPMC9317615 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGargle samples have been proposed as a noninvasive method for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The clinical performance of gargle specimens diluted in Cobas® PCR Media and in Cobas® Omni Lysis Reagent was compared to oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal swab (ONPS) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA.Study designParticipants were recruited prospectively in two COVID-19 screening clinics. In addition to the ONPS, participants gargled with 5 ml of natural spring water split in the laboratory as follows: 1 ml was added to 4.3 ml of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) media and 400 μl was added to 200 μl of lysis buffer. Testing was performed with the Cobas® SARS-CoV-2 test on the Cobas® 6800 or 8800 platforms.ResultsOverall, 134/647 (20.7%) participants were considered infected because the ONPS or at least one gargle test was positive. ONPS had, respectively, a sensitivity of 96.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 91.3-98.5); both gargle processing methods were slightly less but equally sensitive (90.3% [95% CI: 83.9-94.3]). When ONPS and gargle specimens were both positive, the mean cycle threshold (Ct ) was significantly higher for gargles, suggesting lower viral loads.ConclusionGargle specimens directly added in PCR Media provide a similar clinical sensitivity to chemical lysis, both having a slightly, not significantly, lower sensitivity to ONPS.
| S-EPMC8426914 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Due to increased demand for testing, as well as restricted supply chain resources, testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection continues to face many hurdles. Pooling several samples has been proposed as an alternative approach to address these issues. We investigated the feasibility of pooling nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) or saliva samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing with a commercial assay (Idylla SARS-CoV-2 test; Biocartis). We evaluated the 10-pool and 20-pool approaches for 149 subjects, with 30 positive samples and 119 negative samples. The 10-pool approach had sensitivity of 78.95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 54.43% to 93.95%) and specificity of 100% (95% CI, 71.51% to 100%), whereas the 20-pool approach had sensitivity of 55.56% (95% CI, 21.20% to 86.30%) and specificity of 100% (95% CI, 25% to 100%). No significant difference was observed between the results obtained with pooled NPS and saliva samples. Given the rapidity, full automation, and practical advantages of the Idylla SARS-CoV-2 assay, pooling of 10 samples has the potential to significantly increase testing capacity for both NPS and saliva samples, with good sensitivity. IMPORTANCE To control outbreaks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to avoid reagent shortages, testing strategies must be adapted and maintained for the foreseeable future. We analyzed the feasibility of pooling NPS and saliva samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing with the Idylla SARS-CoV-2 test, and we found that sensitivity was dependent on the pool size. The SARS-CoV-2 testing capacity with both NPS and saliva samples could be significantly expanded by pooling 10 samples; however, pooling 20 samples resulted in lower sensitivity.
| S-EPMC8579845 | biostudies-literature
Project description:During the COVID-19 pandemic, a certified laboratory of Tamaulipas, Mexico has processed over 100,000 samples of COVID-19 suspected patients, working a minimum of 100 tests daily. Thus, it would be beneficial for such certified laboratories nationwide to reduce the time and cost involved in performing the diagnosis of COVID-19, from sample collection, transportation to local lab, processing of samples, and data acquisition. Here, 30 nasopharyngeal swab and saliva samples from the same COVID-19 individuals were assessed by a standard nucleic acid extraction protocol, including protein lysis with proteinase K followed by binding to column, washing, and elution, and by the SalivaDirect protocol based on protein lysis, skipping the other steps to reduce processing time and costs. The genomic RNA was amplified using a SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time PCR kit. A variation (P > 0.05) in the 95% CIs = 72.6%-96.7% was noted by using the SalivaDirect protocol and saliva samples (sensitivity of 88.2%) in comparison to those of standard protocol with oropharyngeal swab samples (95% CIs = 97.5%-100%; sensitivity of 100%) as reported elsewhere. However, when using nasopharyngeal swab samples in the SalivaDirect protocol (sensitivity of 93.6%; 95% CIs = 79.2%-99.2%), it was in concordance (P < 0.05) with those of the standard one. The logical explanation to this was that two samples with Ct values of 38, and 40 cycles for gene E produced two false negatives in the SalivaDirect protocol in relation to the standard one; thus, there was a reduction of the sensitivity of 6.4% in the overall assay performance.
| S-EPMC8040950 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionRapid antigen detection (RAD) tests are convenient tools for detecting the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in clinics, and testing using saliva samples could decrease the risk of infection during sample collection. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of the SARS-CoV-2 RAD for testing of nasopharyngeal swab specimens and saliva samples in comparison with the RT-PCR tests and viral culture for detecting viable virus.MethodsOne hundred seventeen nasopharyngeal swab specimens and 73 saliva samples with positive results on RT-PCR were used. Residual samples were assayed using a commercially available RAD test immediately, and its positivity was determined at various time points during the clinical course. The concordance between 54 nasopharyngeal swab samples and saliva samples that were collected simultaneously was determined. Viral culture was performed on 117 samples and compared with the results of the RAD test.ResultsThe positive rate of RAD test using saliva samples was low throughout the clinical course. Poor concordance was observed between nasopharyngeal swab specimens and saliva samples (75.9%, kappa coefficient 0.310). However, a substantially high concordance between the RAD test and viral culture was observed in both nasopharyngeal swab specimens (86.8%, kappa coefficient 0.680) and saliva samples (95.1%, kappa coefficient 0.643).ConclusionsThe sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 RAD test was insufficient, particularly for saliva samples. However, a substantially high concordance with viral culture suggests its potential utility as an auxiliary test for estimating SARS-CoV-2 viability.
| S-EPMC8052479 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9604035 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in shortages of nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) and viral transport media, necessitating the search for alternate diagnostic specimens, such as saliva. We directly compared matched saliva and NPS specimens from symptomatic patients suspected of having COVID-19. An enhanced saliva specimen (i.e., strong sniff, elicited cough, and collection of saliva/secretions) was collected without transport medium prior to collection of NPS from 224 patients with symptoms deemed consistent with COVID-19. Both specimens were tested with the CDC 2019 nCoV real-time RT-PCR diagnostic panel (4 February 2020 version), with the NPS result used as the reference standard. For the 216 patients included in the final analysis, there was 100% positive agreement (38/38 positive specimens) and 99.4% negative agreement (177/178 negative specimens). The one discrepant specimen had the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) confirmed in the saliva specimen using an alternate FDA EUA assay. The overall mean difference in cycle threshold (CT ) values for the positive NPS and saliva specimens was -3.61 (95% confidence interval [CI], -5.78 to -1.44; P = 0.002). An enhanced saliva specimen performed as well as NPS for the qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic patients, although the overall mean viral load in saliva was lower.
| S-EPMC7587117 | biostudies-literature