Saliva or Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens for Detection of SARS-CoV-2.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wyllie AL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7484747 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Saliva or Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens for Detection of SARS-CoV-2.
Wyllie Anne L AL Fournier John J Casanovas-Massana Arnau A Campbell Melissa M Tokuyama Maria M Vijayakumar Pavithra P Warren Joshua L JL Geng Bertie B Muenker M Catherine MC Moore Adam J AJ Vogels Chantal B F CBF Petrone Mary E ME Ott Isabel M IM Lu Peiwen P Venkataraman Arvind A Lu-Culligan Alice A Klein Jonathan J Earnest Rebecca R Simonov Michael M Datta Rupak R Handoko Ryan R Naushad Nida N Sewanan Lorenzo R LR Valdez Jordan J White Elizabeth B EB Lapidus Sarah S Kalinich Chaney C CC Jiang Xiaodong X Kim Daniel J DJ Kudo Eriko E Linehan Melissa M Mao Tianyang T Moriyama Miyu M Oh Ji E JE Park Annsea A Silva Julio J Song Eric E Takahashi Takehiro T Taura Manabu M Weizman Orr-El OE Wong Patrick P Yang Yexin Y Bermejo Santos S Odio Camila D CD Omer Saad B SB Dela Cruz Charles S CS Farhadian Shelli S Martinello Richard A RA Iwasaki Akiko A Grubaugh Nathan D ND Ko Albert I AI
The New England journal of medicine 20200828 13
Similar Datasets
Project description:Saliva is a promising alternative for a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) in specimen collection to detect SARS-CoV-2. We compared the diagnostic performance and tolerability of saliva collection versus NPS in a clinical setting. Paired NPS and saliva specimens were collected sequentially from participants (n = 250) at the Turku University Hospital drive-in coronavirus testing station in the spring of 2022, with Omicron BA.2 as the dominant SARS-CoV-2 variant. Discomfort and preference for the sampling method were assessed. The specimens were analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 using real-time multiplex reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) with a laboratory-developed test (LDT) and two commercial kits (PerkinElmer SARS-CoV-2 and PerkinElmer SARS-CoV-2 Plus) for several target genes. Among the 250 participants, 246 had respiratory symptoms. With LDT, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 135 and 134 participants from NPS and saliva, respectively. Of the 250 specimens, 11 gave a discordant outcome, resulting in excellent agreement between the specimen types (Cohen's kappa coefficient of 0.911; P = 0.763). The cycle threshold (CT) values of LDT and commercial kit target genes were significantly lower from NPS than from saliva. A total of 172 (69%) participants assessed saliva sampling as more tolerable than NPS (P < 0.0001). Our findings present saliva as an applicable alternative for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. However, the lower CT values obtained from NPS indicate that NPS may be a slightly more sensitive specimen type. Participants preferred saliva sampling, although delivering an adequate volume of saliva was challenging for some participants. IMPORTANCE The extensive testing of SARS-CoV-2 is vital in controlling the spread of COVID-19. The reference standard for specimen collection is a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS). However, the discomfort of NPS sampling, the risk of nosocomial infections, and global material shortages have accelerated the development of alternative testing methods. Our study demonstrates that patients tolerate saliva sampling better than NPS. Of importance, although the RT-PCR qualitative test results seem to correspond between NPS and saliva, we show significantly lower CT values for NPS, compared to saliva, thus contradicting the suggested superiority of the saliva specimen over NPS in the detection of the Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2. Future research is still required to enable individual planning for specimen collection and to determine the effects of different SARS-CoV-2 variants on the sensitivity of the saliva matrix.
| S-EPMC10269602 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Public health experts emphasize the need for quick, point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 detection as an effective strategy for controlling virus spread. To this end, many "antigen" detection devices were developed and commercialized. These devices are mostly based on detecting SARS-CoV-2's nucleocapsid protein. Recently, alerts issued by both the FDA and the CDC raised concerns regarding the devices' tendency to exhibit false positive results. In this work, we developed a novel alternative spike-based antigen assay, comprising four high-affinity, specific monoclonal antibodies, directed against different epitopes on the spike's S1 subunit. The assay's performance was evaluated for COVID-19 detection from nasopharyngeal swabs, compared to an in-house nucleocapsid-based assay, composed of novel antibodies directed against the nucleocapsid. Detection of COVID-19 was carried out in a cohort of 284 qRT-PCR positive and negative nasopharyngeal swab samples. The time resolved fluorescence (TRF) ELISA spike assay displayed very high specificity (99%) accompanied with a somewhat lower sensitivity (66% for Ct < 25), compared to the nucleocapsid ELISA assay which was more sensitive (85% for Ct < 25) while less specific (87% specificity). Despite being outperformed by qRT-PCR, we suggest that there is room for such tests in the clinical setting, as cheap and rapid pre-screening tools. Our results further suggest that when applying antigen detection, one must consider its intended application (sensitivity vs specificity), taking into consideration that the nucleocapsid might not be the optimal target. In this regard, we propose that a combination of both antigens might contribute to the validity of the results. Schematic representation of sample collection and analysis. The figure was created using BioRender.com.
| S-EPMC7993413 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC8908569 | 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: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: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:To compare the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant in nasopharyngeal-swab (NPS) and oral saliva samples. 255 samples were obtained from 85 Omicron-infected patients. SARS-CoV-2 load was measured in the NPS and saliva samples by using Simplexa™ COVID-19 direct and Alinity m SARS-CoV-2 AMP assays. Results obtained with the two diagnostic platforms showed very good inter-assay concordance (91.4 and 82.4% for saliva and NPS samples, respectively) and a significant correlation among cycle threshold (Ct) values. Both platforms revealed a highly significant correlation among Ct obtained in the two matrices. Although the median Ct value was lower in NPS than in saliva samples, the Ct drop was comparable in size for both types of samples after 7 days of antiviral treatment of the Omicron-infected patients. Our result demonstrates that the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant is not influenced by the type of sample used for PCR analysis, and that saliva can be used as an alternative specimen for detection and follow-up of Omicron-infected patients.
| S-EPMC10003189 | 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: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
Project description:Diagnostic methods based on SARS-CoV-2 antigens detection are a promising alternative to SARS-CoV-2 RNA amplification. We evaluated the automated chemiluminescence-based Lumipulse® G SARS-CoV-2 Ag assay on saliva samples, using Simplexa™ COVID-19 Direct assay as a reference test. Analytical performance was established on a pool of healthy donors' saliva samples spiked with the 2019-nCoV/Italy-INMI1 isolate, whereas clinical performance was assessed on fresh saliva specimens collected from hospitalized patients with suspect or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. The limit of detection (LOD) was 0.65 Log TCID50/mL, corresponding to 18,197 copies/mL of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Antigen concentrations and SARS-CoV-2 RNA were highly correlated (r = 0.99; p < 0.0001). Substantial agreement (80.3%) and significant correlation (r = -0.675; p = 0.0006) were observed between Lumipulse® G assay results and Ct values on clinical samples, with 52.4% sensitivity and specificity 94.1%. Sensitivity exceeded 90.0% when calculated on samples with Ct < 25, and specificity was 100% when excluding samples from recovered patients with previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Overall, chemiluminescence-based antigen assay may be reliably applied to saliva samples to identify individuals with high viral loads, more likely to transmit the virus. However, the low positive predictive value in a context of low SARS-CoV-2 prevalence underscores the need for confirmatory testing in SARS-CoV-2 antigen-positive cases.
| S-EPMC8038133 | biostudies-literature