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

Use of dried blood spots in the detection of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 disease continues to be a global health concern. The current protocol for detecting SARS-CoV-2 requires healthcare professionals to draw blood from patients. Recent studies showed that dried blood spot (DBS) is a valuable sampling procedure that can collect a low blood volume without the need for the presence of medical practitioners. This study synthesized the available literature on using DBS as a blood collection tool to diagnose COVID-19 disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive search utilizing OVID, CINAHL, and Scopus databases was done from inception to March 2023. Five reviewers collected, extracted and organized the study data.

RESULTS

This systematic review included 57 articles. DBS was commonly prepared by finger pricking. Most studies showed more favorable results and longer sample stability (more than 1080 days) with lower storage temperature conditions for the DBS. DBS samples were mostly used for serological assays for COVID-19 disease detection. ELISA was the most used detection method (43.66 %). Diagnostic performance of laboratory tests for COVID-19 using DBS sample showed high sensitivity of up to 100 % for immunoassay tests and 100 % specificity in agglutination, PCR, and DELFIA assays.

CONCLUSION

DBS sampling coupled with serological testing can be an alternative method for collecting blood and detecting COVID-19 disease. These tests using DBS samples showed excellent diagnostic performance across various geographic locations and demographics.

Saliva Is a Sensitive and Accessible Sample Both for SARS-CoV-2 Detection and for the Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness in Follow-Up Studies

Despite emerging evidence indicating that molecular SARS-CoV-2 tests performed on saliva have diagnostic sensitivity and specificity comparable to those observed with nasopharyngeal swabs (NPSs), most in vivo follow-up studies on the efficacy of drugs against SARS-CoV-2 have been performed on NPSs, not considering saliva as a possible alternative matrix. For this reason, in this study, we used, in parallel, saliva and NPS samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by real-time RT-PCR in patients receiving Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab, Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, or Sotrovimab as a treatment against SARS-CoV-2. Our results showed a good correlation between the NPS and saliva samples for each drug; moreover, comparable changes in the cycle threshold (Ct) levels in saliva and NPSs were observed both 7 days and 30 days after treatment, thus confirming that the saliva represents a good matrix for in vivo follow-up studies verifying the effectiveness of treatments against SARS-CoV-2.

Kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 infection biomarkers in a household transmission study

SARS-CoV-2 is the causative agent of COVID-19. Timely and accurate diagnostic testing is vital to contain the spread of infection, reduce delays in treatment and care, and inform patient management. Optimal specimen type (e.g. nasal swabs or saliva), timing of sampling, viral marker assayed (RNA or antigen), and correlation with viral infectivity and COVID-19 symptoms severity remain incompletely defined. We conducted a field study to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 viral marker kinetics starting from very early times after infection. We measured RNA and antigen levels in nasal swabs and saliva, virus outgrowth in cell culture from nasal swabs, and antibody levels in blood in a cohort of 30 households. Nine household contacts (HHC) became infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the study. Viral RNA was detected in saliva specimens approximately 1-2 days before nasal swabs in six HHC. Detection of RNA was more sensitive than of antigen, but antigen detection was better correlated with culture positivity, a proxy for contagiousness. Anti-nucleocapsid antibodies peaked one to three weeks post-infection. Viral RNA and antigen levels were higher in specimens yielding replication competent virus in cell culture. This study provides important data that can inform how to optimally interpret SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test results.

Saliva as a Biological Fluid in SARS-CoV-2 Detection

BACKGROUND

The polymerase chain reaction of upper respiratory tract swab samples was established as the gold standard procedure for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID pandemic. However, saliva collection has attracted attention as an alternative diagnostic collection method. The goal of this study was to compare the use of saliva and nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

Ninety-nine paired samples were evaluated for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by saliva and swab for a qualitative diagnosis and quantitative comparison of viral particles. Furthermore, the detection limits for each sample collection technique were determined. The cycle threshold (CT) values of the saliva samples, the vaccination status, and the financial costs associated with each collection technique were compared.

RESULTS

The results showed qualitative equivalence in diagnosis (96.96%) comparing saliva and swab collection, although there was low quantitative agreement. Furthermore, the detection limit test demonstrated equivalence for both collection methods. We did not observe a statistically significant association between CT values and vaccination status, indicating that the vaccine had no influence on viral load at diagnosis. Finally, we observed that the use of saliva incurs lower financial costs and requires less use of plastic materials, making it more sustainable.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support the adoption of saliva collection as a feasible and sustainable alternative to the diagnosis of COVID-19.

SalivaDirect: an alternative to a conventional RNA extraction protocol for molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a clinical setting

IMPORTANCE

Affordable and accessible tests for COVID-19 allow for timely disease treatment and pandemic management. SalivaDirect is a faster and easier method to implement than NPS sampling. Patients can self-collect saliva samples at home or in other non-clinical settings without the help of a healthcare professional. Sample processing in SalivaDirect is less complex and more adaptable than in conventional nucleic acid extraction methods. We found that SalivaDirect has good diagnostic performance and is ideal for large-scale testing in settings where supplies may be limited or trained healthcare professionals are unavailable.

The potential of saliva as an accessible and sensitive sample type for the detection of respiratory pathogens and host immunity

Despite its prominence in early scientific records, the usefulness of saliva as a respiratory specimen has been de-emphasised over the past century. However, due to its low cost and reliance on specific supply chains and the non-invasive nature of its collection, its benefits over swab-based specimens are again becoming increasingly recognised. These benefits were highlighted over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, where saliva emerged as a more practical, clinically non-inferior sample type for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 and saw numerous saliva-based diagnostic tests approved for clinical use. Looking forward, as saliva uniquely contains both respiratory secretions and immunological components, it has potentially wide applications, ranging from clinical diagnostics to post-vaccine disease burden and immunity surveillance. This Personal View seeks to summarise the existing evidence for the use of saliva in detecting respiratory pathogens, beyond SARS-CoV-2, as well as detailing methodological factors that can influence sample quality and thus, clinical utility.

Oral manifestations of COVID-19 in unvaccinated patients: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Early studies have highlighted the possible development of dysgeusia and anosmia in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, and these manifestations should be considered a potential indication of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). As potential contributors to these symptoms, dentists should perform careful oral and oropharyngeal examinations and document suspicious oral lesions in patients with COVID-19, especially in those who complain of loss of taste and smell. The study's objective was to assess the prevalence of oral manifestations among ambulatory unvaccinated symptomatic patients with suspected COVID-19 during the acute phase of the disease.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study evaluated oral manifestations in adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with suspected and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used to compare data between the groups (rRT-PCR-positive and rRT-PCR-negative patients).

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-six participants were included. Most were female (n = 79; 58.1%), with a mean age of 39.53 (± 14.17) years. Of these, 54 (39.7%) had a positive rRT-PCR test, and 82 (60.3%) had negative rRT-PCR results. Oral manifestations were observed in 40 participants (74.1%) in the rRT-PCR-positive group and 67 participants (81.7%) in the rRT-PCR-negative group. The most common oral manifestations were xerostomia (n = 85; 62.5%) and dysgeusia/ageusia (n = 57; 41.9%). Different rates of gingivitis (n = 12; 22.2% vs. n = 5; 6.1%; p = 0.005) and halitosis (n = 7; 13.0% vs. n = 1; 1.2%; p = 0.007) were observed between the rRT-PCR-positive and -negative groups, respectively. Mouth ulcers, glossitis, tongue coating, and petechiae were reported in both groups without significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

A high prevalence of oral manifestations was observed in symptomatic patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study highlights the importance of routine oral examinations by dentists as part of the multidisciplinary care of COVID-19 patients.

Rapid RT-PCR identification of SARS-CoV-2 in screening donors of fecal microbiota transplantation

Since its first appearance in late 2019 in Wuhan, China, severe acute respiratory syndrome caused by Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has had a major impact on healthcare facilities around the world. Although in the past year, mass vaccination and the development of monoclonal antibody treatments have reduced the number of deaths and severe cases, the circulation of SARS-CoV-2 remains high. Over the past two years, diagnostics have played a crucial role in virus containment both in health care facilities and at the community level. For SARS-CoV-2 detection, the commonly used specimen type is the nasopharyngeal swab, although the virus can be identified in other matrices such as feces. Since fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) assumes significant importance in the treatment of chronic gut infections and that feces may be a potential vehicle for transmission of SARS-CoV-2, in this study we have evaluated the performance of the rapid cartridge-based RT-PCR test STANDARD™ M10 SARS-CoV-2 (SD Biosensor Inc., Suwon, South Korea) using fecal samples. The results obtained indicates that STANDARD™ M10 SARS-CoV-2 can detect SARS-CoV-2 in stool samples even at low concentration. For this reason, STANDARD™ M10 SARS-CoV-2 could be used as reliable methods for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in fecal samples and for the screening of FMT donors.

Saliva as alternative to naso-oropharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-qPCR: a multicenter cross-sectional diagnostic validation study

Saliva has been demonstrated as feasible alternative to naso-oropharyngeal swab (NOS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection through reverse transcription quantitative/real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). This study compared the diagnostic agreement of conventional NOS, saliva with RNA extraction (SE) and saliva without RNA extraction (SalivaDirect) processing for RT-qPCR in identifying SARS-CoV-2. All techniques were also compared, as separate index tests, to a composite reference standard (CRS) where positive and negative results were defined as SARS-CoV-2 detection in either one or no sample, respectively. Of 517 paired samples, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 150 (29.01%) NOS and 151 (29.21%) saliva specimens. The saliva-based tests were noted to have a sensitivity, specificity and accuracy (95% confidence interval) of 92.67% (87.26%, 96.28%), 97.55% (95.40%, 98.87%) and 96.13% (94.09%, 97.62%), respectively, for SE RT-qPCR and 91.33% (85.64%, 95.30%), 98.91% (97.23%, 99.70%) and 96.71% (94.79%, 98.07%), respectively, for SalivaDirect RT-qPCR compared to NOS RT-qPCR. Compared to CRS, all platforms demonstrated statistically similar diagnostic performance. These findings suggest that both conventional and streamlined saliva RT-qPCR are at least non-inferior to conventional NOS RT-qPCR in detecting SARS-CoV-2.