Pooled Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Testing

Development of a simple and highly sensitive virion concentration method to detect SARS-CoV-2 in saliva

Background

Controlling novel coronavirus pandemic infection (COVID-19) is a global challenge, and highly sensitive testing is essential for effective control. The saliva is a promising sample for high-sensitivity testing because it is easier to collect than nasopharyngeal swab samples and allows large-volume testing.

Results

We developed a simple SARS-CoV-2 concentration method from saliva samples that can be completed in less than 60 min. We performed a spike test using 12 ml of saliva samples obtained from healthy volunteer people, and the developed method performance was evaluated by comparison using a combination of automatic nucleic acid extraction followed by RT-qPCR detection. In saliva spike tests using a 10-fold dilution series of SARS-CoV-2, the developed method was consistently 100-fold more sensitive than the conventional method.

Conclusions

The developed method can improve the analytical sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 test using saliva and speed up and save labor in screening tests by pooling many samples. Furthermore, the developed method has the potential to contribute to the highly sensitive detection of various human and animal viral pathogens from the saliva and various clinical samples.

Evaluating and optimizing Acid-pH and Direct Lysis RNA extraction for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in whole saliva

COVID-19 has been a global public health and economic challenge. Screening for the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been a key part of disease mitigation while the world continues to move forward, and lessons learned will benefit disease detection beyond COVID-19. Saliva specimen collection offers a less invasive, time- and cost-effective alternative to standard nasopharyngeal swabs. We optimized two different methods of saliva sample processing for RT-qPCR testing. Two methods were optimized to provide two cost-efficient ways to do testing for a minimum of four samples by pooling in a 2.0 mL tube and decrease the need for more highly trained personnel. Acid-pH-based RNA extraction method can be done without the need for expensive kits. Direct Lysis is a quick one-step reaction that can be applied quickly. Our optimized Acid-pH and Direct Lysis protocols are reliable and reproducible, detecting the beta-2 microglobulin (B2M) mRNA in saliva as an internal control from 97 to 96.7% of samples, respectively. The cycle threshold (Ct) values for B2M were significantly higher in the Direct Lysis protocol than in the Acid-pH protocol. The limit of detection for N1 gene was higher in Direct Lysis at ≤ 5 copies/μL than Acid-pH. Saliva samples collected over the course of several days from two COVID-positive individuals demonstrated Ct values for N1 that were consistently higher from Direct Lysis compared to Acid-pH. Collectively, this work supports that each of these techniques can be used to screen for SARS-CoV-2 in saliva for a cost-effective screening platform.

Double-Negative Results Matter: A Reevaluation of Sensitivities for Detecting SARS-CoV-2 Infection Using Saliva Versus Nasopharyngeal Swabs

In a recent systematic review, Bastos et al. (Ann Intern Med. 2021;174(4):501-510) compared the sensitivities of saliva sampling and nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection by assuming a composite reference standard defined as positive if either test is positive and negative if both tests are negative (double negative). Even under a perfect specificity assumption, this approach ignores the double-negative results and risks overestimating the sensitivities due to residual misclassification. In this article, we first illustrate the impact of double-negative results in the estimation of the sensitivities in a single study, and then propose a 2-step latent class meta-analysis method for reevaluating both sensitivities using the same published data set as that used in Bastos et al. by properly including the observed double-negative results. We also conduct extensive simulation studies to compare the performance of the proposed method with Bastos et al.'s method for varied levels of prevalence and between-study heterogeneity. The results demonstrate that the sensitivities are overestimated noticeably using Bastos et al.'s method, and the proposed method provides a more accurate evaluation with nearly no bias and close-to-nominal coverage probability. In conclusion, double-negative results can significantly impact the estimated sensitivities when a gold standard is absent, and thus they should be properly incorporated.

Development and validation of cost-effective SYBR Green-based RT-qPCR and its evaluation in a sample pooling strategy for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection in the Indonesian setting

A low-cost SYBR Green-based RT-qPCR method to detect SARS-CoV-2 were developed and validated. Primers targeting a conserved and vital region of the N genes of SARS-CoV-2 were designed. In-silico study was performed to analyse the compatibility of the selected primer pair with Indonesian SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences available from the GISAID database. We determined the linearity of our new assay using serial dilution of SARS-CoV-2 RNA from clinical samples with known virus concentration. The assay was then evaluated using clinically relevant samples in comparison to a commercial TaqMan-based test kit. Finally, we applied the assay in sample pooling strategies for SARS-CoV-2 detection. The SYBR Green-based RT-qPCR method was successfully developed with sufficient sensitivity. There is a very low prevalence of genome variation in the selected N primer binding regions, indicating their high conservation. The validation of the assay using clinical samples demonstrated similar performance to the TaqMan method suggesting the SYBR methods is reliable. The pooling strategy by combining 5 RNA samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection using the SYBR RT-qPCR methods is feasible and provides a high diagnostic yield. However, when dealing with samples having a very low viral load, it may increase the risk of missing positive cases.

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load in Human Saliva to Oropharyngeal Swabs, Nasopharyngeal Swabs, and Sputum: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to investigate the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in human saliva and compared it with the loads in oropharyngeal swabs, nasopharyngeal swabs, and sputum. In addition, the salivary viral loads of symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID-19 patients were compared. Searches were conducted using four electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science, for studies published on SARS-CoV-2 loads expressed by CT values or copies/mL RNA. Three reviewers evaluated the included studies to confirm eligibility and assessed the risk of bias. A total of 37 studies were included. Mean CT values in saliva ranged from 21.5 to 39.6 and mean copies/mL RNA ranged from 1.91 × 101 to 6.98 × 1011. Meta-analysis revealed no significant differences in SARS-CoV-2 load in saliva compared to oropharyngeal swabs, nasopharyngeal swabs, and sputum. In addition, no significant differences were observed in the salivary viral load of symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID-19 patients. We conclude that saliva specimen can be used as an alternative for SARS-CoV-2 detection in oropharyngeal swabs, nasopharyngeal swabs, and sputum.

A novel strategy to avoid sensitivity loss in pooled testing for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance: validation using nasopharyngeal swab and saliva samples

At the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, pooled surveillance strategies were employed to alleviate the overwhelming demand for clinical testing facilities. A major drawback of most pooled-testing methods is the dilution of positive samples, which leads to a loss of detection sensitivity and the potential for false negatives. We developed a novel pooling strategy that compensates for the initial dilution with an appropriate concentration during nucleic acid extraction and real-time PCR. We demonstrated the proof of principle using laboratory-created 10-sample pools with one positive and corresponding individual positive samples by spiking a known amount of heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2 into viral transport medium (VTM) or pooled negative saliva. No Ct difference was observed between a 10-sample pool with one positive vs. the corresponding individually analyzed positive sample by this method, suggesting that there is no detectable loss of sensitivity. We further validated this approach by using nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens and showed that there is no loss of sensitivity. Serial dilutions of the virus were spiked into VTM and pooled with negative saliva in simulated 10-sample pools containing one positive to determine the LOD and process efficiency of this pooling methodology. The LOD of this approach was 10 copies/PCR, and the process efficiencies are ~95%-103% for N1 and ~87%-98% for N2 with samples in different matrices and with two different master mixes tested. Relative to TaqPath 1-step master mix, the TaqMan Fast Virus 1-Step master mix showed better sensitivity for the N2 assay, while the N1 assay showed no Ct difference. Our pooled testing strategy can facilitate large-scale, cost-effective SARS-CoV-2 surveillance screening and maintain the same level of sensitivity when analyzed individually or in a pool. This approach is highly relevant for public health surveillance efforts aimed at mitigating SARS-CoV-2 spread.

Pooling of six respiratory samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: A validation and cost study in a cohort in Lima, Peru

Background

The continuous evolution of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has led to a high demand for diagnostic testing and major shortages in testing materials, especially in low- and middle-income countries. As an alternative to testing individual samples, pooling of respiratory samples has been suggested. Previous studies have assessed performance of pooling, mainly using nasopharyngeal samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, but few studies have examined the performance of pooling the more practical nasal swabs or saliva samples.

Objective

To evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and potential cost reduction of pooling of nasal swab (NS) and saliva (SL) samples for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a community-based cohort study in Lima, Peru.

Study design

A prospective cohort study was conducted in a community setting in San Juan de Lurigancho, Lima-Peru. NS and SL samples were collected from 132 participants twice-a-week for a 2-month period. Pools of 2 to 12 samples of the same type, from participants of the same household, were tested by RT-PCR. After pooled testing, all individual samples from positive pools and all individual samples from randomly chosen negative pools were evaluated. For assessment of diagnostic performance, pool testing results were compared with results from individual testing, which served as reference, and concordance in pooled and individual test detections was evaluated. Laboratory costs for both types of samples and testing were compared.

Results

A total of 2008 NS and 2002 SL samples were collected from 132 study participants. We tested 329 NS and 333 SL pools. The mean pool size for NS and SL pools was 6.22 (SD = 0.92) and 6.39 (SD = 1.71), respectively. Using individual testing as reference, NS pooling of 6 had a sensitivity and specificity of 94% and 100%, respectively, with kappa of 0.97 (CI 95%: 0.93-1.00). The corresponding values for SL pooling of 6 were 83%, 100%, and 0.90 (CI 95%: 0.83-0.97). Compared with individual testing, pooling resulted in a cost reduction of 74.8% for NS and 72.4% for SL samples.

Conclusions

Pooling easy-to-collect respiratory samples, especially NS, demonstrated very high diagnostic performance for detection of SARS-CoV-2 with substantial cost savings. This approach could be considered in large population screening programs, especially in LMIC.

Salivary SARS-CoV-2 RNA for diagnosis of COVID-19 patients: a systematic revisew and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy

Accurate, self-collected, and non-invasive diagnostics are critical to perform mass-screening diagnostic tests for COVID-19. This systematic review with meta-analysis evaluated the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of salivary diagnostics for COVID-19 based on SARS-CoV-2 RNA compared with the current reference tests using a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and/or oropharyngeal swab (OPS). An electronic search was performed in seven databases to find COVID-19 diagnostic studies simultaneously using saliva and NPS/OPS tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. The search resulted in 10,902 records, of which 44 studies were considered eligible. The total sample consisted of 14,043 participants from 21 countries. The accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity for saliva compared with the NPS/OPS was 94.3% (95%CI= 92.1;95.9), 96.4% (95%CI= 96.1;96.7), and 89.2% (95%CI= 85.5;92.0), respectively. Besides, the sensitivity of NPS/OPS was 90.3% (95%CI= 86.4;93.2) and saliva was 86.4% (95%CI= 82.1;89.8) compared to the combination of saliva and NPS/OPS as the gold standard. These findings suggest a similarity in SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection between NPS/OPS swabs and saliva, and the association of both testing approaches as a reference standard can increase by 3.6% the SARS-CoV-2 detection compared with NPS/OPS alone. This study supports saliva as an attractive alternative for diagnostic platforms to provide a non-invasive detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Tracing the origin of large respiratory droplets by their deposition characteristics inside the respiratory tract during speech

Origin of differently sized respiratory droplets is fundamental for clarifying their viral loads and the sequential transmission mechanism of SARS-CoV-2 in indoor environments. Transient talking activities characterized by low (0.2 L/s), medium (0.9 L/s), and high (1.6 L/s) airflow rates of monosyllabic and successive syllabic vocalizations were investigated by computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations based on a real human airway model. SST k-ω model was chosen to predict the airflow field, and the discrete phase model (DPM) was used to calculate the trajectories of droplets within the respiratory tract. The results showed that flow field in the respiratory tract during speech is characterized by a significant laryngeal jet, and bronchi, larynx, and pharynx-larynx junction were main deposition sites for droplets released from the lower respiratory tract or around the vocal cords, and among which, over 90% of droplets over 5 µm released from vocal cords deposited at the larynx and pharynx-larynx junction. Generally, droplets' deposition fraction increased with their size, and the maximum size of droplets that were able to escape into external environment decreased with the airflow rate. This threshold size for droplets released from the vocal folds was 10-20 µm, while that for droplets released from the bronchi was 5-20 µm under various airflow rates. Besides, successive syllables pronounced at low airflow rates promoted the escape of small droplets, but do not significantly affect the droplet threshold diameter. This study indicates that droplets larger than 20 µm may entirely originate from the oral cavity, where viral loads are lower; it provides a reference for evaluating the relative importance of large-droplet spray and airborne transmission route of COVID-19 and other respiratory infections.

Accelerating the Laboratory Testing Capacity through Saliva Pooling Prior to Direct RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2 Detection

The testing capacity of the laboratory is paramount for better control of the pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2. The pooling method is promising to increase testing capacity, and the use of direct NAAT-based detection of SARS-CoV-2 on a non-invasive specimen such as saliva will ultimately accelerate the testing capacity. This study aims to validate the pooling-of-four method to quadruple the testing capacity using RNA-extraction-free saliva specimens. In addition, we intend to investigate the preferable stage of pooling, including pre- or post-heating. The compatibility of this approach was also tested on five commercial kits. Saliva specimens stored at -80 °C for several months were proven viable and were used for various tests in this study. Our findings revealed that pooling-of-four specimens had an overall agreement rate of 98.18% with their individual testing. Moreover, we proved that the pooling procedure could be conducted either pre- or post-heating, with no discordance and no significant difference in Ct values generated. When compared to other commercial detection kits, it demonstrated an overall agreement greater than 85%, which exhibits broad compatibility and ensures easy adaptability in clinical settings. This method has been proven reliable and increases the testing capacity up to fourfold.

Validation of SARS-CoV-2 pooled testing for surveillance using the Panther Fusion® system: Impact of pool size, automation, and assay chemistry

Combining diagnostic specimens into pools has been considered as a strategy to augment throughput, decrease turnaround time, and leverage resources. This study utilized a multi-parametric approach to assess optimum pool size, impact of automation, and effect of nucleic acid amplification chemistries on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in pooled samples for surveillance testing on the Hologic Panther Fusion^® System. Dorfman pooled testing was conducted with previously tested SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal samples using Hologic’s Aptima^® and Panther Fusion^® SARS-CoV-2 Emergency Use Authorization assays. A manual workflow was used to generate pool sizes of 5:1 (five samples: one positive, four negative) and 10:1. An automated workflow was used to generate pool sizes of 3:1, 4:1, 5:1, 8:1 and 10:1. The impact of pool size, pooling method, and assay chemistry on sensitivity, specificity, and lower limit of detection (LLOD) was evaluated. Both the Hologic Aptima^® and Panther Fusion^® SARS-CoV-2 assays demonstrated >85% positive percent agreement between neat testing and pool sizes ≤5:1, satisfying FDA recommendation. Discordant results between neat and pooled testing were more frequent for positive samples with C_T>35. Fusion^® C_T (cycle threshold) values for pooled samples increased as expected for pool sizes of 5:1 (C_T increase of 1.92–2.41) and 10:1 (C_T increase of 3.03–3.29). The Fusion^® assay demonstrated lower LLOD than the Aptima^® assay for pooled testing (956 vs 1503 cp/mL, pool size of 5:1). Lowering the cut-off threshold of the Aptima^® assay from 560 kRLU (manufacturer’s setting) to 350 kRLU improved the assay sensitivity to that of the Fusion^® assay for pooled testing. Both Hologic’s SARS-CoV-2 assays met the FDA recommended guidelines for percent positive agreement (>85%) for pool sizes ≤5:1. Automated pooling increased test throughput and enabled automated sample tracking while requiring less labor. The Fusion^® SARS-CoV-2 assay, which demonstrated a lower LLOD, may be more appropriate for surveillance testing.

Surveillance testing using salivary RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 in managed quarantine facilities in Australia: A laboratory validation and implementation study

BACKGROUND

Regular repeat surveillance testing is a strategy to identify asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infections in high-risk work settings to prevent onward community transmission. Saliva sampling is less invasive compared to nasal/oropharyngeal sampling, thus making it suitable for regular testing. In this multi-centre evaluation, we aimed to validate RT-PCR using salivary swab testing of SARS-CoV-2 for large-scale surveillance testing and assess implementation amongst staff working in the hotel quarantine system in Victoria, Australia.

METHODS

A multi-centre laboratory evaluation study was conducted to systematically validate the in vitro and clinical performance of salivary swab RT-PCR for implementation of SARS-CoV-2 surveillance testing. Analytical sensitivity for multiple RT-PCR platforms was assessed using a dilution series of known SARS-CoV-2 viral loads, and assay specificity was examined using a panel of viral pathogens other than SARS-CoV-2. In addition, we tested capacity for large-scale saliva testing using a four-sample pooling approach, where positive pools were subsequently decoupled and retested. Regular, frequent self-collected saliva swab RT-PCR testing was implemented for staff across fourteen quarantine hotels. Samples were tested at three diagnostic laboratories validated in this study, and results were provided back to staff in real-time.

FINDINGS

The agreement of self-collected saliva swabs for RT-PCR was 84.5% (95% CI 68.6 to 93.8) compared to RT-PCR using nasal/oropharyngeal swab samples collected by a healthcare practitioner, when saliva samples were collected within seven days of symptom onset. Between 7th December 2020 and 17th December 2021, almost 500,000 RT-PCR tests were performed on saliva swabs self-collected by 102 staff working in quarantine hotels in Melbourne. Of these, 20 positive saliva swabs were produced by 13 staff (0.004%). The majority of staff that tested positive occurred during periods of community transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant.

INTERPRETATION

Salivary RT-PCR had an acceptable level of agreement compared to standard nasal/oropharyngeal swab RT-PCR within early symptom onset. The scalability, tolerability and ease of self-collection highlights utility for frequent or repeated testing in high-risk settings, such as quarantine or healthcare environments where regular monitoring of staff is critical for public health, and protection of vulnerable populations.

FUNDING

This work was funded by the Victorian Department of Health.

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

Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) is the preferred method to diagnose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Saliva has been suggested as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), but previous systematic reviews were limited by the number and types of studies available. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the diagnostic performance of saliva compared with NPS for COVID-19. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases up to 24 April 2021 for studies that directly compared paired NPS and saliva specimens taken at the time of diagnosis. Meta-analysis was performed using an exact binomial rendition of the bivariate mixed-effects regression model. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Of 2683 records, we included 23 studies with 25 cohorts, comprising 11,582 paired specimens. A wide variety of NAAT assays and collection methods were used. Meta-analysis gave a pooled sensitivity of 87 % (95 % CI = 83-90 %) and specificity of 99 % (95 % CI = 98-99 %). Subgroup analyses showed the highest sensitivity when the suspected individual is tested in an outpatient setting and is symptomatic. Our results support the use of saliva NAAT as an alternative to NPS NAAT for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

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

Almost 2 years ago, the novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was discovered to be the causative agent of the disease COVID-19. Subsequently, SARS-CoV-2 has spread across the world infecting millions of people, resulting in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The current 'gold standard' for COVID-19 diagnosis involves obtaining a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) from the patient and testing for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the specimen using real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR). However, obtaining a NPS specimen is an uncomfortable and invasive procedure for the patient and is limited in its applicability to mass testing. Interest in saliva as an alternative diagnostic specimen is of increasing global research interest due to its malleability to mass testing, greater patient acceptability and overall ease of specimen collection. However, the current literature surrounding the sensitivity of saliva compared to NPS is conflicting. The aim of this review was to analyse the recent literature to assess the viability of saliva in COVID-19 diagnosis. We hypothesize that the discrepancies in the current literature are likely due to the variations in the saliva collection and processing protocols used between studies. The universal adaptation of an optimised protocol could alleviate these discrepancies and see saliva specimens be as sensitive, if not more, than NPS for COVID-19 diagnosis. Whilst saliva specimens are more complimentary to mass-testing, with the possibility of samples being collected from home, the RT-qPCR diagnostic process remains to be the rate-limiting step and therefore interest in salivary rapid antigen tests, which negate the wait-times of RT-qPCR with results available within 15-30 min, may be an answer to this.

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

Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine and the Korea Disease Prevention and Control Agency have announced guidelines for diagnosing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in clinical laboratories in Korea. With the ongoing pandemic, we propose an update of the previous guidelines based on new scientific data. This update includes recommendations for tests that were not included in the previous guidelines, including the rapid molecular test, antigen test, antibody test, and self-collected specimens, and a revision of the previous recommendations. This update will aid clinical laboratories in performing laboratory tests for diagnosing COVID-19.

Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Virus Enrichment and RNA Extraction for Efficient Diagnostic Screening of Pooled Nasopharyngeal or Saliva Samples for Dilutions Up to 1:100

As COVID-19 transmission control measures are gradually being lifted, a sensitive and rapid diagnostic method for large-scale screening could prove essential for monitoring population infection rates. However, many rapid workflows for SARS-CoV-2 detection and diagnosis are not amenable to the analysis of large-volume samples. Previously, our group demonstrated a technique for SARS-CoV-2 nanoparticle-facilitated enrichment and enzymatic lysis from clinical samples in under 10 min. Here, this sample preparation strategy was applied to pooled samples originating from nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs eluted in viral transport medium (VTM) and saliva samples diluted up to 1:100. This preparation method was coupled with conventional RT-PCR on gold-standard instrumentation for proof-of-concept. Additionally, real-time PCR analysis was conducted using an in-house, ultra-rapid real-time microfluidic instrument paired with an experimentally optimized rapid protocol. Following pooling and extraction from clinical samples, average cycle threshold (CT) values from resultant eluates generally increased as the pooling dilution factor increased; further, results from a double-blind study demonstrated 100% concordance with clinical values. In addition, preliminary data obtained from amplification of eluates prepared by this technique and analyzed using our portable, ultra-rapid real-time microfluidic PCR amplification instrument showed progress toward a streamlined method for rapid SARS-CoV-2 analysis from pooled samples.

Sensitivity and Specificity of Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection Using Different Sampling Methods: A Clinical Unicentral Study

Rapid antigen detection of SARS-CoV-2 has been widely used. However, there is no consensus on the best sampling method. This study aimed to determine the level of agreement between SARS-CoV-2 fluorescent detection and a real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), using different swab methods. Fifty COVID-19 and twenty-six healthy patients were confirmed via rRT-PCR, and each patient was sampled via four swab methods: oropharyngeal (O), nasal (N), spit saliva (S), and combined O/N/S swabs. Each swab was analyzed using an immunofluorescent Quidel system. The combined O/N/S swab provided the highest sensitivity (86%; Kappa = 0.8), followed by nasal (76%; Kappa = 0.68), whereas the saliva revealed the lowest sensitivity (66%; kappa = 0.57). Further, when considering positive detection in any of the O, N, and S samples, excellent agreements with rRT-PCR were achieved (Kappa = 0.91 and 0.97, respectively). Finally, among multiple factors, only patient age revealed a significant negative association with antigenic detection in the saliva. It is concluded that immunofluorescent detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen is a reliable method for rapid diagnosis under circumstances where at least two swabs, one nasal and one oropharyngeal, are analyzed. Alternatively, a single combined O/N/S swab would improve the sensitivity in contrast to each site swabbed alone.

Development and implementation of a simple and rapid extraction-free saliva SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP workflow for workplace surveillance

Effective management of the COVID-19 pandemic requires widespread and frequent testing of the population for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Saliva has emerged as an attractive alternative to nasopharyngeal samples for surveillance testing as it does not require specialized personnel or materials for its collection and can be easily provided by the patient. We have developed a simple, fast, and sensitive saliva-based testing workflow that requires minimal sample treatment and equipment. After sample inactivation, RNA is quickly released and stabilized in an optimized buffer, followed by reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and detection of positive samples using a colorimetric and/or fluorescent readout. The workflow was optimized using 1,670 negative samples collected from 172 different individuals over the course of 6 months. Each sample was spiked with 50 copies/μL of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus to monitor the efficiency of viral detection. Using pre-defined clinical samples, the test was determined to be 100% specific and 97% sensitive, with a limit of detection of 39 copies/mL. The method was successfully implemented in a CLIA laboratory setting for workplace surveillance and reporting. From April 2021-February 2022, more than 30,000 self-collected samples from 755 individuals were tested and 85 employees tested positive mainly during December and January, consistent with high infection rates in Massachusetts and nationwide.

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

OBJECTIVES

There remain challenges in using SARS-CoV-2 RNA diagnostic assays in the respiratory tract in a pandemic. More so certain countries such as Hong Kong have already included saliva as part of their mass-testing protocol. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review on the alternate use of saliva as a SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing specimen in the context of mass screening with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction.

METHODS

Our search methodology was modeled after the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist, and the risk of bias of the selected studies was qualitatively assessed. The percentage individual positive and percentage agreement of both index (saliva) and reference (nasopharyngeal swab), in preference to specificity and sensitivity, were estimated using Kappa statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 44 studies met the inclusion criteria. The average percentage positive saliva cases was 72.7% (95% confidence interval), which was lower but not substantially different from the percentage positive NPS of 78.7% (95% confidence interval), and there was an average overall agreement of 89.7% (95% confidence interval).

CONCLUSION

Although the literature supports nasopharyngeal swab as a superior testing specimen, an alternative clinical specimen in saliva may offer potential benefits such that a potentially reduced accuracy may be tolerated, especially in low socioeconomic regions.

Saliva versus Upper Respiratory Swabs: Equivalent for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 University Screening while Saliva Positivity Is Prolonged After Symptom Onset in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hospitalized Patients

Reopening of schools and workplaces during the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic requires affordable and convenient population-wide screening methods. Although upper respiratory swab is considered the preferable specimen for testing, saliva offers several advantages, such as easier collection and lower cost. In this study, we compared the performance of saliva with upper respiratory swab for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection. Paired saliva and anterior nares specimens were collected from a largely asymptomatic cohort of students, faculty, and staff from the University of Pennsylvania. Paired saliva and combined nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal (NP/OP) specimens were also collected from hospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19 following confirmatory testing. All study samples were tested by real-time PCR in the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. In the university cohort, positivity rates were 37 of 2500 for saliva (sensitivity, 86.1%) and 36 of 2500 for anterior nares (sensitivity, 83.7%), with an overall agreement of 99.6%. In the hospital study cohort, positivity rates were 35 of 49 for saliva (sensitivity, 89.3%) and 28 of 49 for NP/OP (sensitivity, 75.8%), with an overall agreement of 75.6%. A larger proportion of saliva than NP/OP samples tested positive after 4 days of symptom onset in hospitalized patients. Our results show that saliva has an acceptable sensitivity and is comparable to upper respiratory swab, supporting the use of saliva for SARS-CoV-2 detection in both symptomatic and asymptomatic populations.

SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostics Based on Nucleic Acids Amplification: From Fundamental Concepts to Applications and Beyond

COVID-19 pandemic ignited the development of countless molecular methods for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 based either on nucleic acid, or protein analysis, with the first establishing as the most used for routine diagnosis. The methods trusted for day to day analysis of nucleic acids rely on amplification, in order to enable specific SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection. This review aims to compile the state-of-the-art in the field of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) used for SARS-CoV-2 detection, either at the clinic level, or at the Point-Of-Care (POC), thus focusing on isothermal and non-isothermal amplification-based diagnostics, while looking carefully at the concerning virology aspects, steps and instruments a test can involve. Following a theme contextualization in introduction, topics about fundamental knowledge on underlying virology aspects, collection and processing of clinical samples pave the way for a detailed assessment of the amplification and detection technologies. In order to address such themes, nucleic acid amplification methods, the different types of molecular reactions used for DNA detection, as well as the instruments requested for executing such routes of analysis are discussed in the subsequent sections. The benchmark of paradigmatic commercial tests further contributes toward discussion, building on technical aspects addressed in the previous sections and other additional information supplied in that part. The last lines are reserved for looking ahead to the future of NAATs and its importance in tackling this pandemic and other identical upcoming challenges.

Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 Viral-Load Curves in Paired Saliva Samples and Nasal Swabs Inform Appropriate Respiratory Sampling Site and Analytical Test Sensitivity Required for Earliest Viral Detection

Early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection is critical to reduce asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission, curb the spread of variants, and maximize treatment efficacy. Low-analytical-sensitivity nasal-swab testing is commonly used for surveillance and symptomatic testing, but the ability of these tests to detect the earliest stages of infection has not been established. In this study, conducted between September 2020 and June 2021 in the greater Los Angeles County, California, area, initially SARS-CoV-2-negative household contacts of individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 prospectively self-collected paired anterior-nares nasal-swab and saliva samples twice daily for viral-load quantification by high-sensitivity reverse-transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) and digital-RT-PCR assays. We captured viral-load profiles from the incidence of infection for seven individuals and compared diagnostic sensitivities between respiratory sites. Among unvaccinated persons, testing saliva with a high-analytical-sensitivity assay detected infection up to 4.5 days before viral loads in nasal swabs reached concentrations detectable by low-analytical-sensitivity nasal-swab tests. For most participants, nasal swabs reached higher peak viral loads than saliva but were undetectable or at lower loads during the first few days of infection. High-analytical-sensitivity saliva testing was most reliable for earliest detection. Our study illustrates the value of acquiring early (within hours after a negative high-sensitivity test) viral-load profiles to guide the appropriate analytical sensitivity and respiratory site for detecting earliest infections. Such data are challenging to acquire but critical to designing optimal testing strategies with emerging variants in the current pandemic and to respond to future viral pandemics.

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

SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has forced frequent testing of populations. It is necessary to identify the most cost-effective strategies for the detection of COVID-19 outbreaks. Nasopharyngeal samples have been used for SARS-CoV-2 detection but require a healthcare professional to collect the sample and cause discomfort and pain to the individual. Saliva has been suggested as an appropriate fluid for the diagnosis of COVID-19. We have investigated the possibility of using pools of saliva samples to detect SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Two hundred and seventy-nine saliva samples were analyzed through RT-PCR of Envelope, Nucleocapsid and Open Reading Frame 1ab genes. Reproducibility assays showed an almost perfect agreement as well as high sensitivity (96.6%), specificity (96.8%), positive predicted value (96.6%), and negative predicted value (96.8%). The average Cycle Threshold of the genes detected was 29.7. No significant differences (p > 0.05) were detected when comparing the cycle threshold average of two consecutive reactions on the same positive saliva samples. Saliva samples have a higher median viral load (32.6) than in nasopharyngeal samples (28.9), although no significant differences were detected (p > 0.05). Saliva-pool samples allowed effective SARS-CoV-2 screening, with a higher sensibility (96.9%) on 10-sample pools than in 20-sample pools (87.5%). Regardless of pools size specificity was high (99.9%) and an almost perfect agreement was observed. Our strategy was successfully applied in population wide testing of more than 2000 individuals, showing that it is possible to use pooled saliva as diagnostic fluid for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Evaluation of Sample Pooling for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Nasopharyngeal Swab and Saliva Samples with the Idylla SARS-CoV-2 Test

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.

Feasibility of Rapid Diagnostic Technology for SARS-CoV-2 Virus Using a Trace Amount of Saliva

Containment of SARS-CoV-2 has become an urgent global issue. To overcome the problems of conventional quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) tests, we verified the usefulness of a mobile qPCR device that utilizes mouthwash to obtain a saliva sample with the aim of developing a rapid diagnostic method for SARS-CoV-2. First, we examined whether anyone could easily operate this device. Then, we examined whether RNA in the mouthwash could be detected in a short time. In addition, we investigated whether it was possible to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection using mouthwash obtained from COVID-19 patients undergoing hospitalization. The results revealed that all subjects were able to complete the operation properly without error. In addition, RNase P was detected in the mouthwash without pretreatment. The average detection time was 18 min, which is significantly shorter than conventional qPCR devices. Furthermore, this device detected SARS-CoV-2 in the mouthwash of a COVID-19 patient undergoing hospitalization. The above findings verified the efficacy of this diagnostic method, which had a low risk of infection, was technically simple, and provided stable results. Therefore, this method is useful for the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Salivary detection of COVID-19: clinical performance of oral sponge sampling for SARS-CoV-2 testing

BACKGROUND

The current diagnostic standard for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing with nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs. The invasiveness and need for trained personnel make the NP technique unsuited for repeated community-based mass screening. We developed a technique to collect saliva in a simple and easy way with the sponges that are usually used for tamponade of epistaxis. This study was carried out to validate the clinical performance of oral sponge (OS) sampling for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing.

METHODS

Over a period of 22 weeks, we collected prospectively 409 paired NP and OS samples from consecutive subjects presenting to a public community-based free screening centre. Subjects were referred by their attending physician because of recent COVID-19 symptoms (n = 147) or by the contact tracing staff of the French public health insurance because they were considered as close contacts of a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 case (n = 262).

RESULTS

In symptomatic subjects, RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 testing with OS showed a 96.5% (95% CI: 89.6-94.8) concordance with NP testing, and a 93.2% (95% CI: 89.1-97.3) sensitivity when using the IdyllaTM platform and a sensitivity of 76.3% (95% CI: 69.4-83.2) on the Synlab Barla laboratory platform. In close contacts the NP-OS concordance (93.8%, 95% CI: 90.9-96.7) and OS sensitivity (71.9%, 95% CI: 66.5-77.3) were slightly lower.

CONCLUSION

These results strongly suggest that OS testing is a straightforward, low-cost and high-throughput sampling method that can be used for frequent RT-PCR testing of COVID-19 patients and mass screening of populations.

Pooled testing for SARS-CoV-2, options for efficiency at scale

Widescale testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is recognized as a key element of surveillance and outbreak control in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The practical challenges, however, have often led to testing only symptomatic individuals and their close contacts. As many countries plan for a cautious relaxation of social restrictions, more effective approaches for widescale testing are increasingly important. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, laboratories in several countries demonstrated the feasibility of detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection by pooled testing, which combines the specimens from several individuals. Since no further testing is needed for individuals in a negative pool, there is potential for greater efficiency of testing. Despite validations of the accuracy of the results and the efficiency in testing specific groups, the benefits of pooling are less acknowledged as a population surveillance strategy that can detect new disease outbreaks without posing restrictions on entire societies. Pooling specimens from natural clusters, such as school classes, sports teams, workplace colleagues and other social networks, would enable timely and cost-effective widescale testing for SARS-CoV-2. The initial result would be readily translatable into action in terms of quarantine and isolation policies. Clusters of uninfected individuals would be quickly identified and immediate local lockdown of positive clusters would be the appropriate and sufficient action while retesting those individuals. By adapting to the social networks of a population, pooled testing offers a cost-efficient surveillance system that is synchronized with quarantine policies that are rational, risk-based and equitable.

Comparison of saliva with oral and nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection on various commercial and laboratory-developed assays

The accurate laboratory detection of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a crucial element in the fight against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction testing on combined oral and nasopharyngeal swab (ONPS) suffers from several limitations, including the need for qualified personnel, the discomfort caused by invasive nasopharyngeal sample collection, and the possibility of swab and transport media shortage. Testing on saliva would represent an advancement. The aim of this study was to compare the concordance between saliva samples and ONPS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 on various commercial and laboratory-developed tests (LDT). Individuals were recruited from eight institutions in Quebec, Canada, if they had SARS-CoV-2 RNA detected on a recently collected ONPS, and accepted to provide another ONPS, paired with saliva. Assays available in the different laboratories (Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2, Cobas® SARS-CoV-2, Simplexa™ COVID-19 Direct, Allplex™ 2019-nCoV, RIDA®GENE SARS-CoV-2, and an LDT preceded by three different extraction methods) were used to determine the concordance between saliva and ONPS results. Overall, 320 tests were run from a total of 125 saliva and ONPS sample pairs. All assays yielded similar sensitivity when saliva was compared to ONPS, with the exception of one LDT (67% vs. 93%). The mean difference in cycle threshold (∆C t ) was generally (but not significantly) in favor of the ONPS for all nucleic acid amplification tests. The maximum mean ∆​​​​​C t was 2.0, while individual ∆C t varied importantly from -17.5 to 12.4. Saliva seems to be associated with sensitivity similar to ONPS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by various assays.

Diagnostic performance of different sampling approaches for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The comparative performance of different clinical sampling methods for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-PCR among populations with suspected infection remains unclear. This meta-analysis aims to systematically compare the diagnostic performance of different clinical specimen collection methods.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, medRxiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, and Research Square from Jan 1, 2000, to Nov 16, 2020. We included original clinical studies that examined the performance of nasopharyngeal swabs and any additional respiratory specimens for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection among individuals presenting in ambulatory care. Studies without data on paired samples, or those that only examined different samples from confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases were not useful for examining diagnostic performance of a test and were excluded. Diagnostic performance, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, was examined using random effects models and double arcsine transformation.

FINDINGS

Of the 5577 studies identified in our search, 23 studies including 7973 participants with 16 762 respiratory samples were included. Respiratory specimens examined in these studies included 7973 nasopharyngeal swabs, 1622 nasal swabs, 6110 saliva samples, 338 throat swabs, and 719 pooled nasal and throat swabs. Using nasopharyngeal swabs as the gold standard, pooled nasal and throat swabs gave the highest sensitivity of 97% (95% CI 93-100), whereas lower sensitivities were achieved by saliva (85%, 75-93) and nasal swabs (86%, 77-93) and a much lower sensitivity by throat swabs (68%, 35-94). A comparably high positive predictive value was obtained by pooled nasal and throat (97%, 90-100) and nasal swabs (96%, 87-100) and a slightly lower positive predictive value by saliva (93%, 88-97). Throat swabs have the lowest positive predictive value of 75% (95% CI 45-96). Comparably high specificities (range 97-99%) and negative predictive value (range 95-99%) were observed among different clinical specimens. Comparison between health-care-worker collection and self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs showed comparable diagnostic performance. No significant heterogeneity was observed in the analysis of pooled nasal and throat swabs and throat swabs, whereas moderate to substantial heterogeneity (I2 ≥30%) was observed in studies on saliva and nasal swabs.

INTERPRETATION

Our review suggests that, compared with the gold standard of nasopharyngeal swabs, pooled nasal and throat swabs offered the best diagnostic performance of the alternative sampling approaches for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in ambulatory care. Saliva and nasal swabs gave comparable and very good diagnostic performance and are clinically acceptable alternative specimen collection methods. Throat swabs gave a much lower sensitivity and positive predictive value and should not be recommended. Self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs was not associated with any significant impairment of diagnostic accuracy. Our results also provide a useful reference framework for the proper interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 testing results using different clinical specimens.

FUNDING

Hong Kong Research Grants Council.

Diagnostic performance of different sampling approaches for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The comparative performance of different clinical sampling methods for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-PCR among populations with suspected infection remains unclear. This meta-analysis aims to systematically compare the diagnostic performance of different clinical specimen collection methods.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, medRxiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, and Research Square from Jan 1, 2000, to Nov 16, 2020. We included original clinical studies that examined the performance of nasopharyngeal swabs and any additional respiratory specimens for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection among individuals presenting in ambulatory care. Studies without data on paired samples, or those that only examined different samples from confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases were not useful for examining diagnostic performance of a test and were excluded. Diagnostic performance, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, was examined using random effects models and double arcsine transformation.

FINDINGS

Of the 5577 studies identified in our search, 23 studies including 7973 participants with 16 762 respiratory samples were included. Respiratory specimens examined in these studies included 7973 nasopharyngeal swabs, 1622 nasal swabs, 6110 saliva samples, 338 throat swabs, and 719 pooled nasal and throat swabs. Using nasopharyngeal swabs as the gold standard, pooled nasal and throat swabs gave the highest sensitivity of 97% (95% CI 93-100), whereas lower sensitivities were achieved by saliva (85%, 75-93) and nasal swabs (86%, 77-93) and a much lower sensitivity by throat swabs (68%, 35-94). A comparably high positive predictive value was obtained by pooled nasal and throat (97%, 90-100) and nasal swabs (96%, 87-100) and a slightly lower positive predictive value by saliva (93%, 88-97). Throat swabs have the lowest positive predictive value of 75% (95% CI 45-96). Comparably high specificities (range 97-99%) and negative predictive value (range 95-99%) were observed among different clinical specimens. Comparison between health-care-worker collection and self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs showed comparable diagnostic performance. No significant heterogeneity was observed in the analysis of pooled nasal and throat swabs and throat swabs, whereas moderate to substantial heterogeneity (I² ≥30%) was observed in studies on saliva and nasal swabs.

INTERPRETATION

Our review suggests that, compared with the gold standard of nasopharyngeal swabs, pooled nasal and throat swabs offered the best diagnostic performance of the alternative sampling approaches for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in ambulatory care. Saliva and nasal swabs gave comparable and very good diagnostic performance and are clinically acceptable alternative specimen collection methods. Throat swabs gave a much lower sensitivity and positive predictive value and should not be recommended. Self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs was not associated with any significant impairment of diagnostic accuracy. Our results also provide a useful reference framework for the proper interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 testing results using different clinical specimens.

FUNDING

Hong Kong Research Grants Council.

Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 viral-load curves in paired saliva and nasal swabs inform appropriate respiratory sampling site and analytical test sensitivity required for earliest viral detection

Early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection is critical to reduce asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission, curb the spread of variants by travelers, and maximize treatment efficacy. Low-sensitivity nasal-swab testing (antigen and some nucleic-acid-amplification tests) is commonly used for surveillance and symptomatic testing, but the ability of low-sensitivity nasal-swab tests to detect the earliest stages of infection has not been established. In this case-ascertained study, initially-SARS-CoV-2-negative household contacts of individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 prospectively self-collected paired anterior-nares nasal-swab and saliva samples twice daily for viral-load quantification by high-sensitivity RT-qPCR and digital-RT-PCR assays. We captured viral-load profiles from the incidence of infection for seven individuals and compared diagnostic sensitivities between respiratory sites. Among unvaccinated persons, high-sensitivity saliva testing detected infection up to 4.5 days before viral loads in nasal swabs reached the limit of detection of low-sensitivity nasal-swab tests. For most participants, nasal swabs reached higher peak viral loads than saliva, but were undetectable or at lower loads during the first few days of infection. High-sensitivity saliva testing was most reliable for earliest detection. Our study illustrates the value of acquiring early (within hours after a negative high-sensitivity test) viral-load profiles to guide the appropriate analytical sensitivity and respiratory site for detecting earliest infections. Such data are challenging to acquire but critical to design optimal testing strategies in the current pandemic and will be required for responding to future viral pandemics. As new variants and viruses emerge, up-to-date data on viral kinetics are necessary to adjust testing strategies for reliable early detection of infections.

Evaluation of Self-Collected Midturbinate Nasal Swabs and Saliva for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA

Rapid and accurate diagnostic testing is essential to bring the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic to an end. As the demand for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing continues to increase amid supply shortages, many laboratories have investigated the use of sources other than nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs. Saliva and midturbinate (MT) nasal swabs are attractive alternatives, as they allow for self-collection and are well accepted by patients. Saliva also requires limited consumables. We compared the performance of health care provider-collected NP swabs, patient-collected MT swabs, and patient-collected saliva specimens for SARS-CoV-2 detection using a laboratory-developed PCR assay that had received Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA. Of 281 total evaluable samples, 33 (11.7%) NP swabs, 33 (11.7%) MT swabs, and 32 (11.4%) saliva specimens were positive for SARS-CoV-2 following resolution of discordant results. Compared to NP swabs, saliva exhibited a sensitivity of 90.9% (30/33) and specificity of 99.2% (246/248), while patient-collected MT swabs exhibited a sensitivity of 93.9% (31/33) and specificity of 99.2% (246/248). When comparing to the consensus standard, the sensitivity was found to be 100% (31/31) for both NP and MT swabs and 96.8% (30/31) for saliva specimens, while specificity was the same in both NP swabs and saliva specimens (98.8% [247/250]) and 99.2% (248/250) for MT swabs. Pretreatment of saliva with proteinase K and heating for 15 min prior to extraction reduced the invalid rate from 26.7% (52/195) to 0% (0/195). These data show that midturbinate nasal swabs and saliva are suitable sources for self-collection in individuals who require routine monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Sensitive extraction-free SARS-CoV-2 RNA virus detection using a chelating resin

Current conventional detection of SARS-CoV-2 involves collection of a patient’s sample with a nasopharyngeal swab, storage of the swab during transport in a viral transport medium, extraction of RNA, and quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR). We developed a simplified preparation method using a chelating resin, Chelex, which obviates RNA extraction during viral testing. Direct detection RT-qPCR and digital droplet PCR were compared to the current conventional method with RNA extraction for simulated samples and patient specimens. The heat treatment in the presence of Chelex markedly improved detection sensitivity as compared to heat alone, and lack of RNA extraction shortens the overall diagnostic workflow. Furthermore, the initial sample heating step inactivates SARS-CoV-2 infectivity, thus improving workflow safety. This fast RNA preparation and detection method is versatile for a variety of samples, safe for testing personnel, and suitable for standard clinical collection and testing on high-throughput platforms.

•

The COVID-19 pandemic caused supply shortages for diagnostic tests

•

Chelex resin preserves SARS-CoV-2 RNA in common buffers allowing direct RT-qPCR

•

The Chelex method presents a safe, economic, and sensitive test for RNA pathogens

Implementation of a pooled surveillance testing program for asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in K-12 schools and universities

BACKGROUND

The negative impact of continued school closures during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic warrants the establishment of cost-effective strategies for surveillance and screening to safely reopen and monitor for potential in-school transmission. Here, we present a novel approach to increase the availability of repetitive and routine COVID-19 testing that may ultimately reduce the overall viral burden in the community.

METHODS

We implemented a testing program using the SalivaClear࣪ pooled surveillance method that included students, faculty and staff from K-12 schools (student age range 5-18 years) and universities (student age range >18 years) across the country (Mirimus Clinical Labs, Brooklyn, NY). The data analysis was performed using descriptive statistics, kappa agreement, and outlier detection analysis.

FINDINGS

From August 27, 2020 until January 13, 2021, 253,406 saliva specimens were self-collected from students, faculty and staff from 93 K-12 schools and 18 universities. Pool sizes of up to 24 samples were tested over a 20-week period. Pooled testing did not significantly alter the sensitivity of the molecular assay in terms of both qualitative (100% detection rate on both pooled and individual samples) and quantitative (comparable cycle threshold (Ct) values between pooled and individual samples) measures. The detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva was comparable to the nasopharyngeal swab. Pooling samples substantially reduced the costs associated with PCR testing and allowed schools to rapidly assess transmission and adjust prevention protocols as necessary. In one instance, in-school transmission of the virus was determined within the main office and led to review and revision of heating, ventilating and air-conditioning systems.

INTERPRETATION

By establishing low-cost, weekly testing of students and faculty, pooled saliva analysis for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 enabled schools to determine whether transmission had occurred, make data-driven decisions, and adjust safety protocols. We provide strong evidence that pooled testing may be a fundamental component to the reopening of schools by minimizing the risk of in-school transmission among students and faculty.

FUNDING

Skoll Foundation generously provided funding to Mobilizing Foundation and Mirimus for these studies.

Implementation of a pooled surveillance testing program for asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in K-12 schools and universities

BACKGROUND

The negative impact of continued school closures during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic warrants the establishment of cost-effective strategies for surveillance and screening to safely reopen and monitor for potential in-school transmission. Here, we present a novel approach to increase the availability of repetitive and routine COVID-19 testing that may ultimately reduce the overall viral burden in the community.

METHODS

We implemented a testing program using the SalivaClear࣪ pooled surveillance method that included students, faculty and staff from K-12 schools (student age range 5-18 years) and universities (student age range >18 years) across the country (Mirimus Clinical Labs, Brooklyn, NY). The data analysis was performed using descriptive statistics, kappa agreement, and outlier detection analysis.

FINDINGS

From August 27, 2020 until January 13, 2021, 253,406 saliva specimens were self-collected from students, faculty and staff from 93 K-12 schools and 18 universities. Pool sizes of up to 24 samples were tested over a 20-week period. Pooled testing did not significantly alter the sensitivity of the molecular assay in terms of both qualitative (100% detection rate on both pooled and individual samples) and quantitative (comparable cycle threshold (Ct) values between pooled and individual samples) measures. The detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva was comparable to the nasopharyngeal swab. Pooling samples substantially reduced the costs associated with PCR testing and allowed schools to rapidly assess transmission and adjust prevention protocols as necessary. In one instance, in-school transmission of the virus was determined within the main office and led to review and revision of heating, ventilating and air-conditioning systems.

INTERPRETATION

By establishing low-cost, weekly testing of students and faculty, pooled saliva analysis for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 enabled schools to determine whether transmission had occurred, make data-driven decisions, and adjust safety protocols. We provide strong evidence that pooled testing may be a fundamental component to the reopening of schools by minimizing the risk of in-school transmission among students and faculty.

FUNDING

Skoll Foundation generously provided funding to Mobilizing Foundation and Mirimus for these studies.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 at the point of care

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the etiologic agent of COVID-19. Testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection is a critical element of the public health response to COVID-19. Point-of-care (POC) tests can drive patient management decisions for infectious diseases, including COVID-19. POC tests are available for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections and include those that detect SARS-CoV-2 antigens as well as amplified RNA sequences. We provide a review of SARS-CoV-2 POC tests including their performance, settings for which they might be used, their impact and future directions. Further optimization and validation, new technologies as well as studies to determine clinical and epidemiological impact of SARS-CoV-2 POC tests are needed.

One-Year Update on Salivary Diagnostic of COVID-19

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global health problem, which is challenging healthcare worldwide. In this critical review, we discussed the advantages and limitations in the implementation of salivary diagnostic platforms of COVID-19. The diagnostic test of COVID-19 by invasive nasopharyngeal collection is uncomfortable for patients and requires specialized training of healthcare professionals in order to obtain an appropriate collection of samples. Additionally, these professionals are in close contact with infected patients or suspected cases of COVID-19, leading to an increased contamination risk for frontline healthcare workers. Although there is a colossal demand for novel diagnostic platforms with non-invasive and self-collection samples of COVID-19, the implementation of the salivary platforms has not been implemented for extensive scale testing. Up to date, several cross-section and clinical trial studies published in the last 12 months support the potential of detecting SARS-CoV-2 RNA in saliva as a biomarker for COVID-19, providing a self-collection, non-invasive, safe, and comfortable procedure. Therefore, the salivary diagnosis is suitable to protect healthcare professionals and other frontline workers and may encourage patients to get tested due to its advantages over the current invasive methods. The detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva was substantial also in patients with a negative nasopharyngeal swab, indicating the presence of false negative results. Furthermore, we expect that salivary diagnostic devices for COVID-19 will continue to be used with austerity without excluding traditional gold standard specimens to detect SARS-CoV-2.

Evaluation of an Automated High-Throughput Liquid-Based RNA Extraction Platform on Pooled Nasopharyngeal or Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR

SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR with pooled specimens has been implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic as a cost- and manpower-saving strategy for large-scale testing. However, there is a paucity of data on the efficiency of different nucleic acid extraction platforms on pooled specimens. This study compared a novel automated high-throughput liquid-based RNA extraction (LRE) platform (PHASIFY™) with a widely used magnetic bead-based total nucleic acid extraction (MBTE) platform (NucliSENS^® easyMAG^®). A total of 60 pools of nasopharyngeal swab and 60 pools of posterior oropharyngeal saliva specimens, each consisting of 1 SARS-CoV-2 positive and 9 SARS-CoV-2 negative specimens, were included for the comparison. Real-time RT-PCR targeting the SARS-CoV-2 RdRp/Hel gene was performed, and GAPDH RT-PCR was used to detect RT-PCR inhibitors. No significant differences were observed in the Ct values and overall RT-PCR positive rates between LRE and MBTE platforms (92.5% (111/120] vs. 90% (108/120]), but there was a slightly higher positive rate for LRE (88.3% (53/60]) than MBTE (81.7% (49/60]) among pooled saliva. The automated LRE method is comparable to a standard MBTE method for the detection of SAR-CoV-2 in pooled specimens, providing a suitable alternative automated extraction platform. Furthermore, LRE may be better suited for pooled saliva specimens due to more efficient removal of RT-PCR inhibitors.

Evaluation of sample pooling for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in nasopharyngeal swabs and salivas on the Roche Cobas 6800

The Roche Cobas SARS-CoV-2 test recently received an Emergency Use Authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration UA for pooling of up to six nasopharyngeal swab samples (NPS). We evaluated the 6-pool approach on both NPS and saliva samples using 564 samples (20 positive NPS and saliva samples each and 262 negative NPS and saliva samples each). The sensitivity of the Roche SARS-CoV-2 RNA test for pooled NPS samples was 100 % (95 %CI: 83.2-100 %) and the sensitivity for pooled saliva samples was 90 % (95 % CI: 68.3-98.8 %). Given the high throughput of the Roche Cobas 6800, pooling of 6 samples has the potential to significantly increase testing capacity without significant loss in sensitivity.

RT-PCR Screening Tests for SARS-CoV-2 with Saliva Samples in Asymptomatic People: Strategy to Maintain Social and Economic Activities while Reducing the Risk of Spreading the Virus

The year 2020 will be remembered for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which continues to affect the whole world. Early and accurate identification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is fundamental to combat the disease. Among the current diagnostic tests, real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is the most reliable and frequently used method. Herein, we discuss the interpretation of RT-qPCR results relative to viral infectivity. Although nasopharyngeal swab samples are often used for RT-qPCR testing, they require collection by trained medical staff. Saliva samples are emerging as an inexpensive and efficient alternative for large-scale screening. Pooled-sample testing of saliva has been applied for mass screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Current policies recommend isolating people with borderline cycle threshold (Ct) values (35<Ct <40), despite these Ct values indicating minimal infection risk. We propose the new concept of a "social cut-off" Ct value and risk stratification based on the correlation of Ct with infectivity. We also describe the experience of RT-qPCR screening of saliva samples at our institution. It is important to implement a scientific approach to minimize viral transmission while allowing economic and social activities to continue.

Diagnosis of SARS-Cov-2 Infection by RT-PCR Using Specimens Other Than Naso- and Oropharyngeal Swabs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The rapid and accurate testing of SARS-CoV-2 infection is still crucial to mitigate, and eventually halt, the spread of this disease. Currently, nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) are the recommended standard sampling techniques, yet, these have some limitations such as the complexity of collection. Hence, several other types of specimens that are easier to obtain are being tested as alternatives to nasal/throat swabs in nucleic acid assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection. This study aims to critically appraise and compare the clinical performance of RT-PCR tests using oral saliva, deep-throat saliva/posterior oropharyngeal saliva (DTS/POS), sputum, urine, feces, and tears/conjunctival swab (CS) against standard specimens (NPS, OPS, or a combination of both). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrial.gov and NIPH Clinical Trial) were searched up to the 30th of December, 2020. Case-control and cohort studies on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 were included. The methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS 2). We identified 1560 entries, 33 of which (1.1%) met all required criteria and were included for the quantitative data analysis. Saliva presented the higher accuracy, 92.1% (95% CI: 70.0-98.3), with an estimated sensitivity of 83.9% (95% CI: 77.4-88.8) and specificity of 96.4% (95% CI: 89.5-98.8). DTS/POS samples had an overall accuracy of 79.7% (95% CI: 43.3-95.3), with an estimated sensitivity of 90.1% (95% CI: 83.3-96.9) and specificity of 63.1% (95% CI: 36.8-89.3). The remaining index specimens could not be adequately assessed given the lack of studies available. Our meta-analysis shows that saliva samples from the oral region provide a high sensitivity and specificity; therefore, these appear to be the best candidates for alternative specimens to NPS/OPS in SARS-CoV-2 detection, with suitable protocols for swab-free sample collection to be determined and validated in the future. The distinction between oral and extra-oral salivary samples will be crucial, since DTS/POS samples may induce a higher rate of false positives. Urine, feces, tears/CS and sputum seem unreliable for diagnosis. Saliva testing may increase testing capacity, ultimately promoting the implementation of truly deployable COVID-19 tests, which could either work at the point-of-care (e.g. hospitals, clinics) or at outbreak control spots (e.g., schools, airports, and nursing homes).

Sensitive extraction-free SARS-CoV-2 RNA virus detection using a novel RNA preparation method

Current conventional detection of SARS-CoV-2 involves collection of a patient sample with a nasopharyngeal swab, storage of the swab during transport in a viral transport medium, extraction of RNA, and quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR). We developed a simplified and novel preparation method using a Chelex resin that obviates RNA extraction during viral testing. Direct detection RT-qPCR and digital-droplet PCR was compared to the current conventional method with RNA extraction for simulated samples and patient specimens. The heat-treatment in the presence of Chelex markedly improved detection sensitivity as compared to heat alone, and lack of RNA extraction shortens the overall diagnostic workflow. Furthermore, the initial sample heating step inactivates SARS-CoV-2 infectivity, thus improving workflow safety. This fast RNA preparation and detection method is versatile for a variety of samples, safe for testing personnel, and suitable for standard clinical collection and testing on high throughput platforms.

Self-Collected Oral Fluid Saliva Is Insensitive Compared With Nasal-Oropharyngeal Swabs in the Detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Outpatients

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic control will require widespread access to accurate diagnostics. Salivary sampling circumvents swab supply chain bottlenecks, is amenable to self-collection, and is less likely to create an aerosol during collection compared with the nasopharyngeal swab.

METHODS

We compared real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction Abbott m2000 results from matched salivary oral fluid (gingival crevicular fluid collected in an Oracol device) and nasal-oropharyngeal (OP) self-collected specimens in viral transport media from a nonhospitalized, ambulatory cohort of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients at multiple time points. These 2 sentences should be at the beginning of the results.

RESULTS

There were 171 matched specimen pairs. Compared with nasal-OP swabs, 41.6% of the oral fluid samples were positive. Adding spit to the oral fluid percent collection device increased the percent positive agreement from 37.2% (16 of 43) to 44.6% (29 of 65). The positive percent agreement was highest in the first 5 days after symptoms and decreased thereafter. All of the infectious nasal-OP samples (culture positive on VeroE6 TMPRSS2 cells) had a matched SARS-CoV-2 positive oral fluid sample.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of nonhospitalized SARS-CoV-2-infected persons, we demonstrate lower diagnostic sensitivity of self-collected oral fluid compared with nasal-OP specimens, a difference that was especially prominent more than 5 days from symptom onset. These data do not justify the routine use of oral fluid collection for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 despite the greater ease of collection. It also underscores the importance of considering the method of saliva specimen collection and the time from symptom onset especially in outpatient populations.