Literature DB >> 33708779

Prospective Comparison of Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Swab Sampling for Mass Screening for COVID-19.

Mathieu Nacher1,2, Mayka Mergeay-Fabre1, Denis Blanchet3, Orelie Benoit4, Tristan Pozl4, Pauline Mesphoule4, Vincent Sainte-Rose3, Véronique Vialette3, Bruno Toulet3, Aurélie Moua3, Mona Saout5, Stéphane Simon3, Manon Guidarelli1, Muriel Galindo1, Barbara Biche1, William Faurous1, Laurie Chaizemartin6, Aniza Fahrasmane1, Devi Rochemont1, Nicolas Vignier1, Astrid Vabret7, Magalie Demar3,5.   

Abstract

Current testing for COVID-19 relies on reverse-traene">nscriptase polymerase chain reaction from a nasopharyngeal swab specimen. Saliva samples have advaene">ntages regarding ease aene">nd painlessness of collection, which does not require trained stn class="Disease">aff and may allow self-sampling. We enrolled 776 persons at various field-testing sites and collected nasopharyngeal and pooled saliva samples. One hundred sixty two had a positive COVID-19 RT-PCR, 61% were mildly symptomatic and 39% asymptomatic. The sensitivity of RT-PCR on saliva samples vs. nasopharygeal swabs varied depending on the patient groups considered or on Ct thresholds. There were 10 (6.2%) patients with a positive saliva sample and a negative nasopharyngeal swab, all of whom had Ct values <25 for three genes. For symptomatic patients for whom the interval between symptoms onset and sampling was <10 days sensitivity was 77% but when excluding persons with isolated N gene positivity (54/162), sensitivity was 90%. In asymptomatic patients, the sensitivity was only 24%. When we looked at patients with Cts <30, sensitivity was 83 or 88.9% when considering two genes. The relatively good performance for patients with low Cts suggests that Saliva testing could be a useful and acceptable tool to identify infectious persons in mass screening contexts, a strategically important task for contact tracing and isolation in the community.
Copyright © 2021 Nacher, Mergeay-Fabre, Blanchet, Benoit, Pozl, Mesphoule, Sainte-Rose, Vialette, Toulet, Moua, Saout, Simon, Guidarelli, Galindo, Biche, Faurous, Chaizemartin, Fahrasmane, Rochemont, Vignier, Vabret and Demar.

Entities:  

Keywords:  COVID-19; PCR; nasopharyngeal; saliva; sensitivity

Year:  2021        PMID: 33708779      PMCID: PMC7940378          DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.621160

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)        ISSN: 2296-858X


  11 in total

1.  SARS-CoV-2 saliva testing using RT-PCR: a systematic review.

Authors:  Eyituoyo Okoturo; Mary Amure
Journal:  Int J Infect Dis       Date:  2022-05-13       Impact factor: 12.074

2.  Detection and Stability of SARS-CoV-2 in Three Self-Collected Specimen Types: Flocked Midturbinate Swab (MTS) in Viral Transport Media, Foam MTS, and Saliva.

Authors:  Vic Veguilla; Ashley L Fowlkes; Adam Bissonnette; Shawn Beitel; Manjusha Gaglani; Christina A Porucznik; Melissa S Stockwell; Harmony L Tyner; Allison L Naleway; Sarang K Yoon; Alberto J Caban-Martinez; Meredith G Wesley; Jazmin Duque; Zuha Jeddy; Joseph B Stanford; Michael Daugherty; Ashton Dixon; Jefferey L Burgess; Marilyn Odean; Holly C Groom; Andrew L Phillips; Natasha Schaefer-Solle; Peenaz Mistry; Melissa A Rolfes; Mark Thompson; Fatimah S Dawood; Jennifer Meece
Journal:  Microbiol Spectr       Date:  2022-06-06

3.  The Coronavirus Disease 2019 Spatial Care Path: Home, Community, and Emergency Diagnostic Portals.

Authors:  Gerald J Kost
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-12

4.  Change in Saliva RT-PCR Sensitivity Over the Course of SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Authors:  Zion Congrave-Wilson; Yesun Lee; Jaycee Jumarang; Stephanie Perez; Jeffrey M Bender; Jennifer Dien Bard; Pia S Pannaraj
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2021-09-21       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 5.  Saliva as a diagnostic specimen for SARS-CoV-2 detection: A scoping review.

Authors:  Yifei Wang; Akshaya Upadhyay; Sangeeth Pillai; Parisa Khayambashi; Simon D Tran
Journal:  Oral Dis       Date:  2022-04-21       Impact factor: 4.068

6.  Population wide testing pooling strategy for SARS-CoV-2 detection using saliva.

Authors:  Eduardo Esteves; Ana Karina Mendes; Marlene Barros; Cátia Figueiredo; Joana Andrade; Joana Capelo; António Novais; Carla Rebelo; Rita Soares; Ana Nunes; André Ferreira; Joana Lemos; Ana Sofia Duarte; Raquel M Silva; Liliana Inácio Bernardino; Maria José Correia; Ana Cristina Esteves; Nuno Rosa
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-01-28       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Update of Guidelines for Laboratory Diagnosis of COVID-19 in Korea.

Authors:  Ki Ho Hong; Gab Jung Kim; Kyoung Ho Roh; Heungsup Sung; Jaehyeon Lee; So Yeon Kim; Taek Soo Kim; Jae-Sun Park; Hee Jae Huh; Younhee Park; Jae-Seok Kim; Hyun Soo Kim; Moon-Woo Seong; Nam Hee Ryoo; Sang Hoon Song; Hyukmin Lee; Gye Cheol Kwon; Cheon Kwon Yoo
Journal:  Ann Lab Med       Date:  2022-07-01       Impact factor: 4.941

8.  Mixed-methods process evaluation of a residence-based SARS-CoV-2 testing participation pilot on a UK university campus during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  H Blake; S Carlisle; L Fothergill; J Hassard; A Favier; J Corner; J K Ball; C Denning
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2022-08-02       Impact factor: 4.135

9.  Performance of saliva compared with nasopharyngeal swab for diagnosis of COVID-19 by NAAT in cross-sectional studies: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Donald Brody Duncan; Katharine Mackett; Muhammad Usman Ali; Deborah Yamamura; Cynthia Balion
Journal:  Clin Biochem       Date:  2022-08-08       Impact factor: 3.625

Review 10.  Saliva as an alternative specimen to nasopharyngeal swabs for COVID-19 diagnosis: Review.

Authors:  Leah McPhillips; John MacSharry
Journal:  Access Microbiol       Date:  2022-05-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.