Performance of Saliva, Oropharyngeal Swabs, and Nasal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of an RT-PCR test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Saliva has been proposed as a potential more convenient, cost-effective, and easier sample for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infections, but there is limited knowledge of the impact of saliva volumes and stages of infection on its sensitivity and specificity.

METHODS

In this study, we assessed the performance of SARS-CoV-2 testing in 171 saliva samples from 52 mostly mildly symptomatic patients (aged 18 to 70 years) with a positive reference standard result at screening. The samples were collected at different volumes (50, 100, 300, and 500 µl of saliva) and at different stages of the disease (at enrollment, day 7, 14, and 28 post SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis). Imperfect nasopharyngeal (NP) swab nucleic acid amplification testing was used as a reference. We used a logistic regression with generalized estimating equations to estimate sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV, accounting for the correlation between repeated observations.

RESULTS

The sensitivity and specificity values were consistent across saliva volumes. The sensitivity of saliva samples ranged from 70.2% (95% CI, 49.3-85.0%) for 100 μl to 81.0% (95% CI, 51.9-94.4%) for 300 μl of saliva collected. The specificity values ranged between 75.8% (95% CI, 55.0-88.9%) for 50 μl and 78.8% (95% CI, 63.2-88.9%) for 100 μl saliva compared to NP swab samples. The overall percentage of positive results in NP swabs and saliva specimens remained comparable throughout the study visits. We observed no significant difference in cycle number values between saliva and NP swab specimens, irrespective of saliva volume tested.

CONCLUSIONS

The saliva collection offers a promising approach for population-based testing.

Evaluation and comparison of one-step real-time PCR and one-step RT-LAMP methods for detection of SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND

There is an increasing disease trend for SARS-COV-2, so need a quick and affordable diagnostic method. It should be highly accurate and save costs compared to other methods. The purpose of this research is to achieve these goals.

METHODS

This study analyzed 342 samples using TaqMan One-Step RT-qPCR and fast One-Step RT-LAMP (Reverse Transcriptase Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification). The One-Step LAMP assay was conducted to assess the sensitivity and specificity.

RESULTS

The research reported positive samples using two different methods. In the RT-LAMP method, saliva had 92 positive samples (26.9%) and 250 negative samples (73.09%) and nasopharynx had 94 positive samples (27.4%) and 248 negative samples (72.51%). In the RT-qPCR method, saliva had 86 positive samples (25.1%) and 256 negative samples (74.8%) and nasopharynx had 93 positive samples (27.1%) and 249 negative samples (72.8%). The agreement between the two tests in saliva and nasopharynx samples was 93% and 94% respectively, based on Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ) (P < 0.001). The rate of sensitivity in this technique was reported at a dilution of 1 × 101 and 100% specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of the study the One-Step LAMP assay has multiple advantages. These include simplicity, cost-effectiveness, high sensitivity, and specificity. The One-Step LAMP assay shows promise as a diagnostic tool. It can help manage disease outbreaks, ensure prompt treatment, and safeguard public health by providing rapid, easy-to-use testing.

SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in wildlife 2020-2022: a worldwide systematic review and meta-analysis

The widespread transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in humans poses a serious threat to public health security, and a growing number of studies have discovered that SARS-CoV-2 infection in wildlife and mutate over time. This article mainly reports the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in wildlife. The pooled prevalence of the 29 included articles was calculated by us using a random effects model (22.9%) with a high heterogeneity (I2 = 98.7%, p = 0.00). Subgroup analysis and univariate regression analysis found potential risk factors contributing to heterogeneity were country, wildlife species, sample type, longitude, and precipitation. In addition, the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in wildlife increased gradually over time. Consequently, it is necessary to comprehensively analyze the risk factors of SARS-CoV-2 infection in wildlife and develop effective control policies, as well as to monitor the mutation of SARS-CoV-2 in wildlife at all times to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission among different species.

Pooling of samples to optimise SARS-CoV-2 detection in nasopharyngeal swabs and gargle lavage self-samples for covid-19 diagnostics and surveillance

BACKGROUND

Testing of pooled samples is an effective strategy for increasing testing capacity while saving resources and time. This study aimed to validate pooled testing and gather real-life data on its use for Covid-19 surveillance with a gargle lavage (GL) self-sampling strategy.

METHODS

Two-stage pooled testing with pools of 6 and 12 samples was used for preventive testing of an asymptomatic population and Covid-19 surveillance in Czech schools. Both GL and nasopharyngeal swabs were used for sampling.

RESULTS

In total, 61,111 samples were tested. The use of pooled testing for large-scale Covid-19 surveillance reduced consumable costs by almost 75% and increased testing capacity up to 3.8-fold compared to standard methods. RT-PCR experiments revealed a minimal loss of sensitivity (0-2.2%) when using pooled samples, enabling the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) genes with Ct values >35. The minor loss of sensitivity was counterbalanced by a significantly increased throughput and the ability to substantially increase testing frequencies.

CONCLUSIONS

Pooled testing is considerably more cost-effective and less time-consuming than standard testing for large-scale Covid-19 surveillance even when the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 is fluctuating. Gargle lavage self-sampling is a non-invasive technique suitable for sample collection without a healthcare worker's assistance.

ct2vl: A Robust Public Resource for Converting SARS-CoV-2 Ct Values to Viral Loads

The amount of SARS-CoV-2 in a sample is often measured using Ct values. However, the same Ct value may correspond to different viral loads on different platforms and assays, making them difficult to compare from study to study. To address this problem, we developed ct2vl, a Python package that converts Ct values to viral loads for any RT-qPCR assay/platform. The method is novel in that it is based on determining the maximum PCR replication efficiency, as opposed to fitting a sigmoid (S-shaped) curve relating signal to cycle number. We calibrated ct2vl on two FDA-approved platforms and validated its performance using reference-standard material, including sensitivity analysis. We found that ct2vl-predicted viral loads were highly accurate across five orders of magnitude, with 1.6-fold median error (for comparison, viral loads in clinical samples vary over 10 orders of magnitude). The package has 100% test coverage. We describe installation and usage both from the Unix command-line and from interactive Python environments. ct2vl is freely available via the Python Package Index (PyPI). It facilitates conversion of Ct values to viral loads for clinical investigators, basic researchers, and test developers for any RT-qPCR platform. It thus facilitates comparison among the many quantitative studies of SARS-CoV-2 by helping render observations in a natural, universal unit of measure.

Testing for SARS-CoV-2: lessons learned and current use cases

SUMMARYThe emergence and worldwide dissemination of SARS-CoV-2 required both urgent development of new diagnostic tests and expansion of diagnostic testing capacity on an unprecedented scale. The rapid evolution of technologies that allowed testing to move out of traditional laboratories and into point-of-care testing centers and the home transformed the diagnostic landscape. Four years later, with the end of the formal public health emergency but continued global circulation of the virus, it is important to take a fresh look at available SARS-CoV-2 testing technologies and consider how they should be used going forward. This review considers current use case scenarios for SARS-CoV-2 antigen, nucleic acid amplification, and immunologic tests, incorporating the latest evidence for analytical/clinical performance characteristics and advantages/limitations for each test type to inform current debates about how tests should or should not be used.

Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2 From Throat Swabs Performed With or Without Specimen Collection From the Tonsils: Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Testing for SARS-CoV-2 is essential to provide early COVID-19 treatment for people at high risk of severe illness and to limit the spread of infection in society. Proper upper respiratory specimen collection is the most critical step in the diagnosis of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in public settings, and throat swabs were the preferred specimens used for mass testing in many countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is still a discussion about whether throat swabs have a high enough sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing, as previous studies have reported a large variability in the sensitivity from 52% to 100%. Many previous studies exploring the diagnostic accuracy of throat swabs lack a detailed description of the sampling technique, which makes it difficult to compare the different diagnostic accuracy results. Some studies perform a throat swab by only collecting specimens from the posterior oropharyngeal wall, while others also include a swab of the palatine tonsils for SARS-CoV-2 testing. However, studies suggest that the palatine tonsils could have a tissue tropism for SARS-CoV-2 that may improve the SARS-CoV-2 detection during sampling. This may explain the variation of sensitivity reported, but no clinical studies have yet explored the differences in sensitivity and patient discomfort whether the palatine tonsils are included during the throat swab or not.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to examine the sensitivity and patient discomfort of a throat swab including the palatine tonsils compared to only swabbing the posterior oropharyngeal wall in molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

We will conduct a randomized controlled study to compare the molecular detection rate of SARS-CoV-2 by a throat swab performed from the posterior oropharyngeal wall and the palatine tonsils (intervention group) or the posterior oropharyngeal wall only (control group). Participants will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio. All participants fill out a baseline questionnaire upon enrollment in the trial, examining their reason for being tested, symptoms, and previous tonsillectomy. A follow-up questionnaire will be sent to participants to explore the development of symptoms after testing.

RESULTS

A total of 2315 participants were enrolled in this study between November 10, 2022, and December 22, 2022. The results from the follow-up questionnaire are expected to be completed at the beginning of 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

This randomized clinical trial will provide us with information about whether throat swabs including specimens from the palatine tonsils will improve the diagnostic sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection. These results can, therefore, be used to improve future testing recommendations and provide additional information about tissue tropism for SARS-CoV-2.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05611203; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05611203.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/47446.

Clinical performance of the Roche Cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2 & influenza A/B assay: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Respiratory tract infections caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and influenza viruses are persistent and critical. The Cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2 & influenza A/B assay (Multiplex Liat), the FDA-authorized point-of-care reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay, has a turnaround time of 20 min and high accuracy. This study evaluates the pooled performance of this assay to provide practical information. This meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42023467579). A systematic literature search was conducted within PubMed, Ovid-EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for articles evaluating the accuracy of the Multiplex Liat assay through September 2023. A random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled diagnostic values with real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR) as a reference test. A total of 4,705 samples from eight studies were included in the primary meta-analysis. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of Multiplex Liat were 100.0 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] = 96.7 %-100.0 %) and 99.7 % (95 % CI = 98.7 %-99.9 %), respectively. The presence of variants of concern or in-house rRT-PCR assays as reference standards did not significantly affect the pooled diagnostic performance of the Multiplex Liat. When 5,333 samples from nine studies were assessed for sensitivity, the pooled sensitivity was 100.0 % (95 % CI = 85.8 %-100.0 %) without a significant difference. This meta-analysis demonstrates the usefulness of Multiplex Liat for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 based on pooled diagnostic values. These practical findings may facilitate appropriate settings for the diagnosis and management of patients with respiratory tract infections.

Clinical Performance of Self-Collected Purified Water Gargle for Detection of Influenza a Virus Infection by Real-Time RT-PCR

Purpose

Self-collected specimens are increasingly being used as alternatives to swab-based methods for the detection of respiratory viruses. While saliva is well accepted, gargle specimens are a potential alternative with characteristics that are more favorable for laboratory handling. This study assessed the performance of gargle specimens in the detection of influenza A viruses (IAVs).

Patients and Methods

We performed a prospective head-to-head comparison between combined nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs (NPS&OPS) and purified water gargle (PWG) among adult outpatients with febrile respiratory symptoms to detect IAVs using real-time RT-PCR during two influenza seasons.

Results

During study periods 1 (July 13 to 26, 2022, H3N2 predominated) and 2 (February 25 to March 10, 2023, H1N1 pdm09 predominated), a total of 459 patients were recruited. The overall agreement between the NPS&OPS and PWG was 85.0% (390/459, κ = 0.697), with 88.0% in period 1 and 82.6% in period 2. The detection rate of IAVs in PWG (51.6%, 237/459) was lower than that in NPS&OPS (62.3%, 286/459) (p < 0.0001). The overall sensitivity and specificity were 96.6% (93.7-98.3%) and 100% (97.1-100%) in NPS&OPS and were 80.1% (75.0-84.4%) and 100% (97.1-100%) in PWG, respectively. Among the 227 pairs of concordant positive specimens, cycle threshold (Ct) values were significantly lower in NPS&OPS than in PWG (median Ct values: 24.2, 28.2, p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Although self-collected PWG specimens offer acceptable performance for IAVs molecular testing, NPS&OPS remain a reliable option. Given the convenience of collection, nonviscous gargles are recommended for viral detection during emergencies or under specific conditions.

Comparative Performance of COVID-19 Test Methods in Healthcare Workers during the Omicron Wave

The COVID-19 pandemic presents unique requirements for accessible, reliable testing, and many testing platforms and sampling techniques have been developed over the course of the pandemic. Not all test methods have been systematically compared to each other or a common gold standard, and the performance of tests developed in the early epidemic have not been consistently re-evaluated in the context of new variants. We conducted a repeated measures study with adult healthcare workers presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing. Participants were tested using seven testing modalities. Test sensitivity was compared using any positive PCR test as the gold standard. A total of 325 individuals participated in the study. PCR tests were the most sensitive (saliva PCR 0.957 ± 0.048, nasopharyngeal PCR 0.877 ± 0.075, oropharyngeal PCR 0.849 ± 0.082). Standard nasal rapid antigen tests were less sensitive but roughly equivalent (BinaxNOW 0.613 ± 0.110, iHealth 0.627 ± 0.109). Oropharyngeal rapid antigen tests were the least sensitive (BinaxNOW 0.400 ± 0.111, iHealth brands 0.311 ± 0.105). PCR remains the most sensitive testing modality for the diagnosis of COVID-19 and saliva PCR is significantly more sensitive than oropharyngeal PCR and equivalent to nasopharyngeal PCR. Nasal AgRDTs are less sensitive than PCR but have benefits in convenience and accessibility. Saliva-based PCR testing is a viable alternative to traditional swab-based PCR testing for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

Comparison of RT-PCR and antigen test sensitivity across nasopharyngeal, nares, and oropharyngeal swab, and saliva sample types during the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant

Limited data highlight the need to understand differences in SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) variant viral load between the gold standard nasopharyngeal (NP) swab, mid-turbinate (MT)/anterior nasal swabs, oropharyngeal (OP) swabs, and saliva. MT, OP, and saliva samples from symptomatic individuals in Atlanta, GA, in January 2022 and longitudinal samples from a small familial cohort were tested by both RT-PCR and ultrasensitive antigen assays. Higher concentrations in the nares were observed in the familial cohort, but a dominant sample type was not found among 39 cases in the cross-sectional cohort. The composite of positive MT or OP assay for both RT-PCR and antigen assay trended toward higher diagnostic yield but did not achieve significant difference. Our data did not identify a singular preferred sample type for SARS-CoV-2 testing, but higher levels of saliva nucleocapsid, a trend toward higher yield of composite OP/MT result, and association of apparent MT or OP predominance with symptoms warrant further study.

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.

The effect of video informing adolescents having Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) test on anxiety during the Coronavirüs (COVID-19) pandemic: A randomized controlled study

AIM

This study aimed to determine if video information on Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) testing reduces anxiety in adolescents.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A randomized controlled experimental study with a parallel-group design was conducted. The sample size was determined by G*Power analysis, and 136 adolescents were included in each group accordingly. The data were collected using the Child/Parent Information Form, State and Trait Anxiety Inventory, and Coronavirus Anxiety Scale. Chi-square, Independent Sample t-test, and Paired Sample t-test were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

It was determined that adolescents experienced moderate anxiety before the procedure. It was found that the majority of adolescents did not have a COVID-19 positive patient in their relatives (83.1%) or in the same house (82.7%). It was determined that they had COVID-19 positive friends at school (56.2%) but not in class (61.4%) and had no contact with positive friends (69.1%). While the post-operative state anxiety level of the adolescents informed by video was 38.76 ± 10.77, the anxiety level of the adolescents in the control group was 41.68 ± 11.92. Informing with video significantly decreased the anxiety level of adolescents (p = 0.035).

CONCLUSION

Video information reduces state anxiety after the procedure.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

It is recommended that video information before rRT-PCR test should be implemented in all hospitals, tablets, televisions, or phones should be used to provide information against the risk of contamination, and other studies should be conducted to show the effectiveness of video information.

Analytical performance of the Abbott ID NOW 2.0 assay for SARS-CoV-2 detection in clinical samples from symptomatic patients

We evaluated the analytical performance of ID NOW™ COVID-19 2.0 assay versus conventional real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) using a total of 792 clinical samples from nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs, stored in frozen universal transport medium samples. Positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement of ID NOW were 97.6 % and 100 %, respectively. The overall percent agreement between ID NOW and RT-PCR was 99.5 %. The PPA of ID NOW in detecting SARS-CoV-2 in 164 RT-PCR positive patients, all of whom had symptoms related COVID-19, was 97.1 % within 8 days since symptom onset, 97.9 % from 8 to 14 days since symptom onset, and 97.6 % after 14 days since symptom onset, with no significant difference between the days since symptom onset. The ID NOW assay demonstrated good performance, providing a rapid and randomly accessible alternative to conventional RT-PCR for timely SARS-CoV-2 detection, particularly in situations requiring rapid results for patient care.

Comparative evaluation of assay performance for SARS-CoV-2 detection in animal oral samples, lung homogenates, and phosphate-buffered saline using the TaqPath COVID-19 Combo kit

A One Health approach has been key to monitoring the COVID-19 pandemic, as human and veterinary medical professionals jointly met the demands for an extraordinary testing effort for SARS-CoV-2. Veterinary diagnostic laboratories continue to monitor SARS-CoV-2 infection in animals, furthering the understanding of zoonotic transmission dynamics between humans and animals. A RT-PCR assay is a primary animal screening tool established within validation and verification guidelines provided by the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians (AAVLD), World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). However, differences in sample matrices, RNA extraction methods, instrument platforms, gene targets, and cutoff values may affect test outcomes. Therefore, targeted validation for a new sample matrix used in any PCR assay is critical. We evaluated a COVID-19 assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in feline and canine lung homogenates and oral swab samples. We used the commercial Applied Biosystems MagMAX Viral/Pathogen II (MVP II) nucleic acid isolation kit and TaqPath COVID-19 Combo kit, which are validated for a variety of human samples, including nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab samples. Our masked test showed a high detection rate and no false-positive or false-negative results, supporting sample extension to include feline oral swab samples. Our study is a prime example of One Health, illustrating how a COVID-19 assay designed for human testing can be adapted and used to detect SARS-CoV-2 in oral swab samples from cats and likely dogs, but not lung homogenates.

SARS-CoV-2 viral dynamics in a placebo-controlled phase 2 study of patients infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant and treated with pomotrelvir

Current guidelines recommend that individuals with moderate COVID-19 disease isolate for 5 days after the first appearance of symptoms or a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. It would be useful to understand the time course of infectious virus production and its correlation with virus detection using a rapid antigen test (RAT) or quantitative reverse transcriptase (qRT)-PCR. In a phase 2 study, 242 vaccinated patients with COVID-19 and at low risk for progression to severe disease initiated 5 days of treatment with pomotrelvir (PBI-0451, a SARS-CoV-2 main protease inhibitor) or placebo within 5 days after symptom onset. The primary endpoint, the proportion of subjects with SARS-CoV-2 viral titers below the limit of detection on Day 3 of treatment in the pomotrelvir versus placebo groups, was not met. No between-group differences in SARS-CoV-2 clearance or symptom resolution or alleviation were observed. Additional analyses evaluated the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 replication in mid-turbinate nasal swabs and saliva samples using infectious virus assay (IVA), RAT, and qRT-PCR. SARS-CoV-2 cleared rapidly, with negative results first determined by IVA (TCID50 below the limit of detection), followed by the RAT (negative for SARS-CoV-2 N antigen), and qRT-PCR (RNA below the limit of detection), which suggests that delayed initiation of treatment (up to 5 days after symptom onset) may have contributed to the lack of treatment response. Symptom resolution lagged behind viral clearance assessed by IVA and RAT. These data support reliance on a negative RAT to determine when an individual is no longer producing infectious virus and may end isolation.IMPORTANCEA phase 2 double-blind, placebo-controlled study was performed evaluating pomotrelvir, a SARS-CoV-2 Mpro inhibitor, compared with placebo in 242 non-hospitalized, vaccinated, symptomatic adults with COVID-19 (Omicron). No improvement in the decrease of viral replication or relief of symptoms was observed between the two groups when treatment was initiated ≥3 days after symptom onset. These results suggest that future COVID-19 antiviral studies using a similar patient population may need to initiate treatment earlier, like influenza studies. This is the first study to prospectively evaluate SARS-CoV-2 viral dynamics and the time to viral clearance in a significant number of patients using concurrently obtained results from an infectious virus assay, a rapid antigen test (RAT), and a qRT-PCR assay over a 15-day time course. These results suggest that a negative RAT assay is a good indicator of loss of infectious virus and the ability to return to normal activities.

Evaluation of a New Standardized Nasal Sampling Method for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA via RT-PCR

The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of nasal sampling using a novel anterior nasal swab (ANS) (Rhinoswab) versus combined oro-nasopharyngeal (OP/NP) sampling in COVID-19 suspected patients. This prospective observational study was performed from 11 November to 2 December 2021 (part 1), and from 16 January to 22 February 2022 (part 2). Adult patients who attended the emergency room with suspected COVID-19 were asked to participate. One ANS and one OP/NP sample were consecutively collected, and both were analyzed via reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The result of the OP/NP sample was considered to be the reference standard. A total of 412 patients were included, of whom 171 (41.5%) had a positive RT-PCR of the OP/NP swab, whereas 139 (33.7%) were positive on the ANS sample. The overall diagnostic accuracy for ANS sampling in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value was 80.7% (95% CI 73.8-86.2), 99.6% (95% CI 97.3-100), 99.3% (95% CI 95.5-100), and 87.9% (95% CI 83.3-91.4), respectively. In conclusion, ANS sampling with the Rhinoswab identified 80.7% of all presented COVID-19 patients in an emergency department. Future studies should investigate if nasal Rhinoswab self-sampling is suitable for reliable diagnosis of COVID-19 in an outpatient setting.

A Comparative Analysis of Molecular Biological Methods for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 and Testing the In Vitro Infectivity of the Virus

The virus discovered in 2019 in the city of Wuhan, China, which was later identified as SARS-CoV-2 and which spread to the level of a pandemic, put diagnostic methods to the test. Early in the pandemic, we developed a nested PCR assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, which we validated and applied to detect the virus in feline samples. The present study describes the application of the nested PCR test in parallel with LAMP for the detection of the virus in 427 nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal human samples taken between October 2020 and January 2022. Of the swabs tested, there were 43 positives, accounting for 10.1% of all samples tested, with the negatives numbering 382, i.e., 89.5%, and there were 2 (0.4%) invalid ones. The nPCR results confirmed those obtained by using LAMP, with results concordant in both methods. Nasal swabs tested using nPCR confirmed the results of oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swab samples tested using LAMP and nPCR. The focus of the discussion is on the two techniques: the actual practical application of the laboratory-developed assays and the diagnostic value of nasal samples. The nPCR used is a reliable and sensitive technique for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal, oropharyngeal, and nasal swab samples. However, it has some disadvantages related to the duration of the entire process, as well as a risk of contamination. Experiments were performed to demonstrate the infectivity of the virus from the positive isolates in vitro. A discrepancy was reported between direct and indirect methods of testing the virus and accounting for its ability to cause infection in vitro.

Immunoglobulin A response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and immunity

The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and its infamous "Variants" of the etiological agent termed Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has proven to be a global health concern. The three antibodies, IgA, IgM, and IgG, perform their dedicated role as main workhorses of the host adaptive immune system in virus neutralization. Immunoglobulin-A (IgA), also known as "Mucosal Immunoglobulin", has been under keen interest throughout the viral infection cycle. Its importance lies because IgA is predominant mucosal antibody and SARS family viruses primarily infect the mucosal surfaces of human respiratory tract. Therefore, IgA can be considered a diagnostic and prognostic marker and an active infection biomarker for SARS CoV-2 infection. Along with molecular analyses, serological tests, including IgA detection tests, are gaining ground in application as an early detectable marker and as a minimally invasive detection strategy. In the current review, it was emphasized the role of IgA response in diagnosis, host defense strategies, treatment, and prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The data analysis was performed through almost 100 published peer-reviewed research reports and comprehended the importance of IgA in antiviral immunity against SARS-CoV-2 and other related respiratory viruses. Taken together, it is concluded that secretory IgA- Abs can serve as a promising detection tool for respiratory viral diagnosis and treatment parallel to IgG-based therapeutics and diagnostics. Vaccine candidates that target and trigger mucosal immune response may also be employed in future dimensions of research against other respiratory viruses.

Improving the detection capability and efficiency of SARS-CoV-2 RNA specimens by the specimen turn-around process with multi-department cooperation

Objective

Improving the detection capability and efficiency of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA specimens is very important for the prevention and control of the outbreak of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this study, we evaluated the detection capability and efficiency of two outbreaks of COVID-19 before and after the process re-engineering in April and July 2022.

Methods

This retrospective cross-sectional study involved 359,845 SARS-CoV-2 RNA specimens 2 weeks before and 2 weeks after the two outbreaks of COVID-19 in April and July. The number, transportation time and detection time of specimens, and the number of reports of more than 24 h were analyzed by SPSS software.

Results

While 16.84% of people chose nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) specimens, 83.16% chose oropharyngeal swabs (OPS) specimens to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA. There were significant upward trends in the percentage of 10 sample pooling (P-10) from April before process re-engineering to July after process re-engineering (p < 0.001). Compared with April, the number of specimens in July increased significantly not only 2 weeks before but also 2 weeks after the outbreak of COVID-19, with an increase of 35.46 and 93.94%, respectively. After the process re-engineering, the number of reports more than 24 h in the 2 weeks before and after the outbreak of COVID-19 in July was significantly lower than that in April before process re-engineering (0% vs. 0.06% and 0 vs. 0.89%, both p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The present study shows that strengthening the cooperation of multi-departments in process re-engineering, especially using the P-10 strategy and whole process informatization can improve the detection capability and efficiency of SARS-CoV-2 RNA specimens.

The swab site of the upper airways influences the diagnostic sensitivity for the omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2

The cycle-threshold-value (CT -value) is a quantitative value of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which represents the gold standard for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV 2). The CT -value can be used to indicate the viral load in swabs of the airways. The collection of a specimen is the only part of the testing process, which is performed manually and carries, therefore, a high potential for increasing measurement variability. The comparison of different PCR results is often difficult since the exact swabbing technique of each test and how do swabs relate in a direct comparison is unknown. For these reasons, the infection course in a patient can be hard infer even after multiple swabs. As the Omicron variant spread from 06/2022 to 08/2022, all common modalities of the upper airway swabs (nasopharyngeal, oropharyngeal, combined naso-oropharyngeal, nasal orifice swabs as well as swabs of the buccal mucosa), which were performed on patients with a suspected infection with SARS CoV 2. RT-PCR was used for SARS CoV 2 RNA detection and the sample comparison was based on the CT -values obtained. Viral loads can vary significantly depending on the swab sites of the upper airways. For the maximum clinical sensitivity, a combined naso-oropharyngeal swab should be considered. In case a single point and single sample measurement is the norm, a nasopharyngeal swab can deliver the highest viral load at the presumed beginning of the infection. Furthermore, the findings of this study can be valuable to correctly interpret results of different PCR with different sampling techniques.

Monkeypox Diagnosis in Clinical Settings: A Comprehensive Review of Best Laboratory Practices

An outbreak of monkeypox (Mpox) was reported in more than 40 countries in early 2022. Accurate diagnosis of Mpox can be challenging, but history, clinical findings, and laboratory diagnosis can establish the diagnosis. The pre-analytic phase of testing includes collecting, storing, and transporting specimens. It is advised to swab the lesion site with virus transport medium (VTM) containing Dacron or polyester flock swabs from two different sites. Blood, urine, and semen samples may also be used. Timely sampling is necessary to obtain a sufficient amount of virus or antibodies. The analytical phase of infectious disease control involves diagnostic tools to determine the presence of the virus. While polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is the gold standard for detecting Mpox, genome sequencing is for identifying new or modified viruses. As a complement to these methods, isothermal amplification methods have been designed. ELISA assays are also available for the determination of antibodies. Electron microscopy is another effective diagnostic method for tissue identification of the virus. Wastewater fingerprinting provides some of the most effective diagnostic methods for virus identification at the community level. The advantages and disadvantages of these methods are further discussed. Post-analytic phase requires proper interpretation of test results and the preparation of accurate patient reports that include relevant medical history, clinical guidelines, and recommendations for follow-up testing or treatment.

COVID-19 on Oral Health: A New Bilateral Connection for the Pandemic

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and transmission are generally known to be produced by respiratory droplets and aerosols from the oral cavity (O.C.) of infected subjects, as stated by the World Health Organization. Saliva also retains the viral particles and aids in the spread of COVID-19. Angiotensin-converting enzyme Type 2 (ACE2) and transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2) are two of the numerous factors that promote SARS-CoV-2 infection, expressed by O.C. structures, various mucosa types, and the epithelia of salivary glands. A systemic SARS-CoV-2 infection might result from viral replication in O.C. cells. On the other hand, cellular damage of different subtypes in the O.C. might be associated with various clinical signs and symptoms. Factors interfering with SARS-CoV-2 infection potential might represent fertile ground for possible local pharmacotherapeutic interventions, which may confine SARS-CoV-2 virus entry and transmission in the O.C., finally representing a way to reduce COVID-19 incidence and severity.

Serum HCoV-spike specific antibodies do not protect against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection in children and adolescents

SARS-CoV-2 infections in children are generally asymptomatic or mild and rarely progress to severe disease and hospitalization. Why this is so remains unclear. Here we explore the potential for protection due to pre-existing cross-reactive seasonal coronavirus antibodies and compare the rate of antibody decline for nucleocapsid and spike protein in serum and oral fluid against SARS-CoV-2 within the pediatric population. No differences in seasonal coronaviruses antibody concentrations were found at baseline between cases and controls, suggesting no protective effect from pre-existing immunity against seasonal coronaviruses. Antibodies against seasonal betacoronaviruses were boosted in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. In serum, anti-nucleocapsid antibodies fell below the threshold of positivity more quickly than anti-spike protein antibodies. These findings add to our understanding of protection against infection with SARS-CoV-2 within the pediatric population, which is important when considering pediatric SARS-CoV-2 immunization policies.

Longitudinal monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 viral load in self-collected saliva from health care workers during breakthrough infections to spare working days

IMPORTANCE

Real-time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) on nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) has been used as the standard method for detecting and monitoring SARS-CoV-2 infection during the pandemic. However, NPS collection often causes discomfort and poses a higher risk of transmission to health care workers (HCW). Furthermore, RT-qPCR only provides relative quantification and does not allow distinguishing those samples with residual, no longer active infection, whereas droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) allows for precise quantification of viral load, offering greater sensitivity and reproducibility. This study highlights the effectiveness of using self-collected saliva as a convenient and reliable sampling method. By utilizing ddPCR to measure the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in saliva samples, individuals with low or undetectable viral loads can be quickly identified. This approach is particularly advantageous for surveillance programs targeting HCW, as it enables the early identification and release of uninfected personnel, minimizing lost workdays. Additionally, analyzing viral load in saliva samples by ddPCR is valuable in determining virus shedding duration across different SARS-CoV-2 variants, informing transmission and disease control. Finally, testing saliva could overcome the detection of historic cases due to prolonged RNA swabbing past-infection and the unnecessary exclusion of those individuals from the workplace.

Correlations of Myeloperoxidase (MPO), Adenosine deaminase (ADA), C-C motif chemokine 22 (CCL22), Tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) and Interleukin-6 (IL-6) mRNA expression in the nasopharyngeal specimens with the diagnosis and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infections

Cytokine dynamics in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been studied in blood but seldomly in respiratory specimens. We studied different cell markers and cytokines in fresh nasopharyngeal swab specimens for the diagnosis and for stratifying the severity of COVID-19. This was a retrospective case-control study comparing Myeloperoxidase (MPO), Adenosine deaminase (ADA), C-C motif chemokine ligand 22 (CCL22), Tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) and Interleukin-6 (IL-6) mRNA expression in 490 (327 patients and 163 control) nasopharyngeal specimens from 317 (154 COVID-19 and 163 control) hospitalized patients. Of the 154 COVID-19 cases, 46 died. Both total and normalized MPO, ADA, CCL22, TNFα, and IL-6 mRNA expression levels were significantly higher in the nasopharyngeal specimens of infected patients when compared with controls, with ADA showing better performance (OR 5.703, 95% CI 3.424-9.500, p < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve showed that the cut-off value of normalized ADA mRNA level at 2.37 × 10^-3 had a sensitivity of 81.8% and specificity of 83.4%. While patients with severe COVID-19 had more respiratory symptoms, and elevated lactate dehydrogenase, multivariate analysis showed that severe COVID-19 patients had lower CCL22 mRNA (OR 0.211, 95% CI 0.060-0.746, p = 0.016) in nasopharyngeal specimens, while lymphocyte count, C-reactive protein, and viral load in nasopharyngeal specimens did not correlate with disease severity. In summary, ADA appears to be a better biomarker to differentiate between infected and uninfected patients, while CCL22 has the potential in stratifying the severity of COVID-19.

Multiplexed detection of viral antigen and RNA using nanopore sensing and encoded molecular probes

We report on single-molecule nanopore sensing combined with position-encoded DNA molecular probes, with chemistry tuned to simultaneously identify various antigen proteins and multiple RNA gene fragments of SARS-CoV-2 with high sensitivity and selectivity. We show that this sensing strategy can directly detect spike (S) and nucleocapsid (N) proteins in unprocessed human saliva. Moreover, our approach enables the identification of RNA fragments from patient samples using nasal/throat swabs, enabling the identification of critical mutations such as D614G, G446S, or Y144del among viral variants. In particular, it can detect and discriminate between SARS-CoV-2 lineages of wild-type B.1.1.7 (Alpha), B.1.617.2 (Delta), and B.1.1.539 (Omicron) within a single measurement without the need for nucleic acid sequencing. The sensing strategy of the molecular probes is easily adaptable to other viral targets and diseases and can be expanded depending on the application required.

Performance of different rapid antigen testing strategies for SARS-CoV-2: A living rapid review

BACKGROUND

Rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) for SARS-CoV-2 testing offer several advantages over molecular tests, but there is little evidence supporting an ideal testing algorithm. We aimed to examine the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) and the effectiveness of different RADT SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies.

METHODS

Following PRISMA DTA guidance, we carried out a living rapid review and meta-analysis. Searches were conducted in Ovid MEDLINE® ALL, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL electronic databases until February 2022. Results were visualized using forest plots and included in random-effects univariate meta-analyses, where eligible.

RESULTS

After screening 8010 records, 18 studies were included. Only one study provided data on incidence outcomes. Seventeen studies were DTA reports with direct comparisons of RADT strategies, using RT-PCR as the reference standard. Testing settings varied, corresponding to original SARS-CoV-2 or early variants. Strategies included differences in serial testing, the individual collecting swabs and swab sample locations. Overall, specificity remained high (>98%) across strategies. Although results were heterogeneous, the sensitivity for healthcare worker-collected samples was greater than for self-collected samples. Nasal samples had comparable sensitivity when compared to paired RADTs with nasopharyngeal samples, but sensitivity was much lower for saliva samples. The limited evidence for serial testing suggested higher sensitivity if RADTs were administered every 3 days compared to less frequent testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional high-quality research is needed to confirm our findings; all studies were judged to be at risk of bias, with significant heterogeneity in sensitivity estimates. Evaluations of testing algorithms in real-world settings are recommended, especially for transmission and incidence outcomes.

Higher SARS-CoV-2 detection of oropharyngeal compared with nasopharyngeal or saliva specimen for molecular testing: a multicentre randomised comparative accuracy study

BACKGROUND

Testing is critical for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection, but the best sampling method remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), oropharyngeal swab (OPS) or saliva specimen collection has the highest detection rate for SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing.

METHODS

We conducted a randomised clinical trial at two COVID-19 outpatient test centres where NPS, OPS and saliva specimens were collected by healthcare workers in different orders for reverse transcriptase PCR testing. The SARS-CoV-2 detection rate was calculated as the number positive by a specific sampling method divided by the number in which any of the three sampling methods was positive. As secondary outcomes, test-related discomfort was measured with an 11-point numeric scale and cost-effectiveness was calculated.

RESULTS

Among 23 102 adults completing the trial, 381 (1.65%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive. The SARS-CoV-2 detection rate was higher for OPSs, 78.7% (95% CI 74.3 to 82.7), compared with NPSs, 72.7% (95% CI 67.9 to 77.1) (p=0.049) and compared with saliva sampling, 61.9% (95% CI 56.9 to 66.8) (p<0.001). The discomfort score was highest for NPSs, at 5.76 (SD, 2.52), followed by OPSs, at 3.16 (SD 3.16) and saliva samples, at 1.03 (SD 18.8), p<0.001 between all measurements. Saliva specimens were associated with the lowest cost, and the incremental costs per detected SARS-CoV-2 infection for NPSs and OPSs were US$3258 and US$1832, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

OPSs were associated with higher SARS-CoV-2 detection and lower test-related discomfort than NPSs for SARS-CoV-2 testing. Saliva sampling had the lowest SARS-CoV-2 detection but was the least costly strategy for mass testing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04715607.

Nasopharyngeal Swabs in Pediatric Patients With Thrombocytopenia and Anticoagulant Use

BACKGROUND

Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabbing is a technique that is commonly used to test pediatric patients for viral infections with increased use during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Complications from NP swabbing are rare and seem to occur more frequently in patients at risk of bleeding. Little is known about institutional or individual practices and experiences with NP swab testing in pediatric patients with risk factors for bleeding.

METHODS

We conducted a survey study of pediatric hematology/oncology (PHO) attending physicians to assess practices and experiences with NP swab testing in pediatric patients with thrombocytopenia and/or on anticoagulation.

RESULTS

There were 130 total respondents (5.6%, n = 130/2327) from 6 countries. Relatively few respondents (n = 17/130, 13.1%) reported that their institution had a policy specifying a lower-level platelet cutoff for patients undergoing NP swabbing. The median platelet cutoff below which NP swabs are not performed according to existing policies is 30,000×10(9)/L (interquartile range: 20,000 to 40,000). The median cutoff based on the opinion of the respondents was 10,000 (interquartile range: 10,000 to 20,000). There were 24 episodes of epistaxis among PHO patients that were NP swabbed; many adverse events (56.5%, n = 13/23) were described as persistent, severe, and/or required intervention. Three reported cases of epistaxis with anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy occurred in patients with concomitant thrombocytopenia. Only 1 respondent (n = 1/130, 0.7%) reported an institutional policy for limiting NP swabs in patients on anticoagulant therapy. NP (66.9%) and nares (33.1%) were the most common sources of coronavirus disease 2019 testing that were reported.

CONCLUSION

A small percentage of institutions in this survey have a policy restricting NP swabs in PHO patients. The discrepancy between lower platelet cutoffs proposed by experts and institutional policy suggests that existing policies may be too conservative. Expert guidelines are needed on this topic. Other bleeding risk factors (eg, aspirin use and von Willebrand disease) should be considered in policies and guidelines.

Comparison of the safety, effectiveness, and usability of swab robot vs. manual nasopharyngeal specimen collection

Background

Healthcare workers face a risk of infection during aerosol-generating procedures, such as nasal swabbing. Robot-assisted nasopharyngeal sampling aims to minimize this risk and reduce stress for healthcare providers. However, its effectiveness and safety require validation.

Methods

We conducted a controlled trial with 80 subjects at two teaching hospitals and compared robot-collected vs manually-collected nasopharyngeal swabs. The primary outcomes included specimen quality and success rate of nasopharyngeal swab collection. We also recorded the pain index, duration of the collection, and psychological stress using a post-collection questionnaire.

Results

During the study period, from September 23 to October 27, 2020, 40 subjects were enrolled in both the robotic and manual groups. The cycle threshold (Ct) value for nasopharyngeal specimens was statistically higher in the robotic group compared to the manual group (30.9 vs 28.0, p < 0.01). Both groups had Ct values under 35, indicating good quality specimens. In the robotic group, 3 out of 40 subjects required a second attempt at specimen collection, resulting in a success rate of 92.5 %. Further, although the pain levels were lower in the robotic group, the difference was not statistically significant (2.8 vs 3.6, p = 0.07). The manual group had a shorter sampling time, which was 29 s (201 vs 29, p < 0.05). However, when factoring in the time needed to put on personal protective equipment, the average time for the manual group increased to 251 s (201 vs 251, p < 0.05). Participants' questionnaire results show comparable psychological stress in both groups. Medical staff expressed that using a robot would reduce their psychological stress.

Conclusions

We propose a safe and effective robotic technology for collecting nasopharyngeal specimens without face-to-face contact, which may reduce the stress of physicians and nurses. This technology can also be optimized for efficiency, making it useful in situations where droplet-transmitted infectious diseases are a concern.

The Diagnostic Performance of Various Clinical Specimens for the Detection of COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis of RT-PCR Studies

BACKGROUND

The diagnostic performance of numerous clinical specimens to diagnose COVID-19 through RT-PCR techniques is very important, and the test result outcome is still unclear. This review aimed to analyze the diagnostic performance of clinical samples for COVID-19 detection by RT-PCR through a systematic literature review process.

METHODOLOGY

A compressive literature search was performed in PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to November 2022. A snowball search on Google, Google Scholar, Research Gate, and MedRxiv, as well as bibliographic research, was performed to identify any other relevant articles. Observational studies that assessed the clinical usefulness of the RT-PCR technique in different human samples for the detection or screening of COVID-19 among patients or patient samples were considered for this review. The primary outcomes considered were sensitivity and specificity, while parameters such as positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and kappa coefficient were considered secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 85 studies out of 10,213 non-duplicate records were included for the systematic review, of which 69 articles were considered for the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis indicated better pooled sensitivity with the nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) than saliva (91.06% vs. 76.70%) and was comparable with the combined NPS/oropharyngeal swab (OPS; 92%). Nevertheless, specificity was observed to be better with saliva (98.27%) than the combined NPS/OPS (98.08%) and NPS (95.57%). The other parameters were comparable among different samples. The respiratory samples and throat samples showed a promising result relative to other specimens. The sensitivity and specificity of samples such as nasopharyngeal swabs, saliva, combined nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal, respiratory, sputum, broncho aspirate, throat swab, gargle, serum, and the mixed sample were found to be 91.06%, 76.70%, 92.00%, 99.44%, 86%, 96%, 94.4%, 95.3%, 73.63%, and above 98; and 95.57%, 98.27%, 98.08%, 100%, 37%, 100%, 100%, 97.6%, and above 97, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

NPS was observed to have relatively better sensitivity, but not specificity when compared with other clinical specimens. Head-to-head comparisons between the different samples and the time of sample collection are warranted to strengthen this evidence.

Comparative study on Saliva and Nasopharyngeal swabs and the outcome of RT-PCR test in patients with mild symptoms of SARS-CoV-2

AIM

A simple and reliable method for diagnosing COVID 19 infections is the needed. The role of saliva in the transmission of the infection has already been established.

METHOD

Saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs from patients suspected to have COVID 19 infections were taken simultaneously, and the results of the RT-PCR were compared.

RESULT

Total 405 samples were collected, of which 250 males and 155 females. In the 391 samples included for analysis, 370 (94.63%) samples were found to have concordance results, and 21 (5.37%) samples had discordant results.

CONCLUSION

The use of saliva to diagnose COVID 19 infection is reliable, and its use can be recommended.

Validating saliva as a biological sample for cost-effective, rapid and routine screening for SARS-CoV-2

PURPOSE

Compared to nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs (N/OPS-VTM), non-invasive saliva samples have enormous potential for scalability and routine population screening of SARS-CoV-2. In this study, we investigate the efficacy of saliva samples relative to N/OPS-VTM for use as a direct source for RT-PCR based SARS-CoV-2 detection.

METHODS

We collected paired nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs and saliva samples from suspected positive SARS-CoV-2 patients and tested using RT-PCR. We used generalized linear models to investigate factors that explain result agreement. Further, we used simulations to evaluate the effectiveness of saliva-based screening in restricting the spread of infection in a large campus such as an educational institution.

RESULTS

We observed a 75.4% agreement between saliva and N/OPS-VTM, that increased drastically to 83% in samples stored for less than three days. Such samples processed within two days of collection showed 74.5% test sensitivity. Our simulations suggest that a test with 75% sensitivity, but high daily capacity can be very effective in limiting the size of infection clusters in a workspace. Guided by these results, we successfully implemented a saliva-based screening in the Bangalore Life Sciences Cluster (BLiSC) campus.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that saliva may be a viable alternate source for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance if samples are processed immediately. Although saliva shows slightly lower sensitivity levels when compared to N/OPS-VTM, saliva collection is logistically advantageous. We strongly recommend the implementation of saliva-based screening strategies for large workplaces and in schools, as well as for population-level screening and routine surveillance as we learn to live with the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Daily SARS-CoV-2 Nasal Antigen Tests Miss Infected and Presumably Infectious People Due to Viral Load Differences among Specimen Types

In a recent household transmission study of SARS-CoV-2, we found extreme differences in SARS-CoV-2 viral loads among paired saliva, anterior nares swab (ANS), and oropharyngeal swab specimens collected from the same time point. We hypothesized these differences may hinder low-analytical-sensitivity assays (including antigen rapid diagnostic tests [Ag-RDTs]) by using a single specimen type (e.g., ANS) from reliably detecting infected and infectious individuals. We evaluated daily at-home ANS Ag-RDTs (Quidel QuickVue) in a cross-sectional analysis of 228 individuals and a longitudinal analysis (throughout infection) of 17 individuals enrolled early in the course of infection. Ag-RDT results were compared to reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) results and high, presumably infectious viral loads (in each, or any, specimen type). The ANS Ag-RDT correctly detected only 44% of time points from infected individuals on cross-sectional analysis, and this population had an inferred limit of detection of 7.6 × 106 copies/mL. From the longitudinal cohort, daily Ag-RDT clinical sensitivity was very low (<3%) during the early, preinfectious period of the infection. Further, the Ag-RDT detected ≤63% of presumably infectious time points. The poor observed clinical sensitivity of the Ag-RDT was similar to what was predicted based on quantitative ANS viral loads and the inferred limit of detection of the ANS Ag-RDT being evaluated, indicating high-quality self-sampling. Nasal Ag-RDTs, even when used daily, can miss individuals infected with the Omicron variant and even those presumably infectious. Evaluations of Ag-RDTs for detection of infected or infectious individuals should be compared with a composite (multispecimen) infection status to correctly assess performance. IMPORTANCE We reveal three findings from a longitudinal study of daily nasal antigen rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) evaluated against SARS-CoV-2 viral load quantification in three specimen types (saliva, nasal swab, and throat swab) in participants enrolled at the incidence of infection. First, the evaluated Ag-RDT showed low (44%) clinical sensitivity for detecting infected persons at all infection stages. Second, the Ag-RDT poorly detected (≤63%) time points that participants had high and presumably infectious viral loads in at least one specimen type. This poor clinical sensitivity to detect infectious individuals is inconsistent with the commonly held view that daily Ag-RDTs have near-perfect detection of infectious individuals. Third, use of a combination nasal-throat specimen type was inferred by viral loads to significantly improve Ag-RDT performance to detect infectious individuals.

The role of SARS-CoV-2 N protein in diagnosis and vaccination in the context of emerging variants: present status and prospects

Despite many countries rapidly revising their strategies to prevent contagions, the number of people infected with Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to surge. The emergent variants that can evade the immune response significantly affect the effectiveness of mainstream vaccines and diagnostic products based on the original spike protein. Therefore, it is essential to focus on the highly conserved nature of the nucleocapsid protein as a potential target in the field of vaccines and diagnostics. In this regard, our review initially discusses the structure, function, and mechanism of action of N protein. Based on this discussion, we summarize the relevant research on the in-depth development and application of diagnostic methods and vaccines based on N protein, such as serology and nucleic acid detection. Such valuable information can aid in designing more efficient diagnostic and vaccine tools that could help end the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Saliva diagnostics: Salivaomics, saliva exosomics, and saliva liquid biopsy

BACKGROUND

Each day, humans produce approximately 0.5 through 1.5 liters of saliva, a biofluid that is rich in biological omic constituents. Our lack of understanding how omic biomarkers migrate from diseased tissue to the saliva has impeded the clinical translation of saliva testing. Although such biomarkers must be conveyed via the vascular and lymphatic systems to the salivary glands, the molecular mechanisms that underlie this transport remain unclear. Although COVID-19 highlighted the need for rapid and reliable testing for infectious diseases, it represents only one of the many health conditions that potentially can be diagnosed using a saliva sample.

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The authors discuss salivaomics, saliva exosomics, and the mechanisms on which saliva diagnostics are based and introduce a novel electrochemical sensing technology that may be exploited for saliva liquid biopsy.

RESULTS

The utility of saliva for screening for lung cancer is under investigation. Saliva testing may be used to stratify patients, monitor treatment response, and detect disease recurrence. The authors also highlight the landscapes of saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 testing and ultrashort cell-free DNA and outline how these fields are likely to evolve in the near future.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Breakthroughs in the study of saliva research, therefore, will facilitate clinical deployment of saliva-based testing.

Nasal discharge: A unique enhanced alternative for the detection of respiratory pathogens in adults

Upper respiratory tract infections are a significant cause of social- and disease burden worldwide. Currently, invasive and uncomfortable molecular detection methods are used for respiratory pathogen detection. We aimed to assess the ability and bearability of a rhinorrhea swab (RS) to detect respiratory pathogens in comparison to the combined nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab (NP/OP). This study was performed at a Public Health Service severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing facility between November and December 2022 in the Netherlands. Adults aged 16 years and older, being subjected to a standard of care NP/OP swab with nasal discharge, were included and received an additional RS. Respiratory pathogen detection was evaluated using SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) PCR. Bearability was evaluated using visual analog scale (VAS) scores and a questionnaire. A total of 100 adults with a mean age ± SD of 46 ± 16 years were included. The NP/OP swab detected 104 pathogens, the RS 83 pathogens (p < 0.001), and in total 108 respiratory pathogens were identified in 89 adults (89%). The ability to detect respiratory pathogens compared between the RS and the combined NP/OP swab revealed a sensitivity of 82% (95% CI 73%-89%) and specificity of 100% (95% CI 72%-100%). RS were significantly more bearable than the combined NP/OP swab (p value < 0.001). Therefore, nasal discharge found in adults can be used as an adequate reliable medium for respiratory pathogen detection using SARS-CoV-2 PCR and MLPA PCR.

Recent advances in RNA sample preparation techniques for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva and gargle

Molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 in gargle and saliva complements the standard analysis of nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) specimens. Although gargle and saliva specimens can be readily obtained non-invasively, appropriate collection and processing of gargle and saliva specimens are critical to the accuracy and sensitivity of the overall analytical method. This review highlights challenges and recent advances in the treatment of gargle and saliva samples for subsequent analysis using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and isothermal amplification techniques. Important considerations include appropriate collection of gargle and saliva samples, on-site inactivation of viruses in the sample, preservation of viral RNA, extraction and concentration of viral RNA, removal of substances that inhibit nucleic acid amplification reactions, and the compatibility of sample treatment protocols with the subsequent nucleic acid amplification and detection techniques. The principles and approaches discussed in this review are applicable to molecular detection of other microbial pathogens.

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.

Diagnostic Performance and Tolerability of Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens in the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR

Saliva is a promising alternative for a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) in specimen collection to detect SARS-CoV-2. We compared the diagnostic performance and tolerability of saliva collection versus NPS in a clinical setting. Paired NPS and saliva specimens were collected sequentially from participants (n = 250) at the Turku University Hospital drive-in coronavirus testing station in the spring of 2022, with Omicron BA.2 as the dominant SARS-CoV-2 variant. Discomfort and preference for the sampling method were assessed. The specimens were analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 using real-time multiplex reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) with a laboratory-developed test (LDT) and two commercial kits (PerkinElmer SARS-CoV-2 and PerkinElmer SARS-CoV-2 Plus) for several target genes. Among the 250 participants, 246 had respiratory symptoms. With LDT, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 135 and 134 participants from NPS and saliva, respectively. Of the 250 specimens, 11 gave a discordant outcome, resulting in excellent agreement between the specimen types (Cohen's kappa coefficient of 0.911; P = 0.763). The cycle threshold (CT) values of LDT and commercial kit target genes were significantly lower from NPS than from saliva. A total of 172 (69%) participants assessed saliva sampling as more tolerable than NPS (P < 0.0001). Our findings present saliva as an applicable alternative for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. However, the lower CT values obtained from NPS indicate that NPS may be a slightly more sensitive specimen type. Participants preferred saliva sampling, although delivering an adequate volume of saliva was challenging for some participants. IMPORTANCE The extensive testing of SARS-CoV-2 is vital in controlling the spread of COVID-19. The reference standard for specimen collection is a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS). However, the discomfort of NPS sampling, the risk of nosocomial infections, and global material shortages have accelerated the development of alternative testing methods. Our study demonstrates that patients tolerate saliva sampling better than NPS. Of importance, although the RT-PCR qualitative test results seem to correspond between NPS and saliva, we show significantly lower CT values for NPS, compared to saliva, thus contradicting the suggested superiority of the saliva specimen over NPS in the detection of the Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2. Future research is still required to enable individual planning for specimen collection and to determine the effects of different SARS-CoV-2 variants on the sensitivity of the saliva matrix.

Saliva and wastewater surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 during school reopening amid COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand

Objectives

School closure during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in a negative impact on children. Serial testing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been proposed as a measure for safety school reopening. We aimed to study the usefulness of SARS-CoV-2 surveillance by saliva testing and performing wastewater surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 in a day school in a resource-limited setting.

Methods

We conducted a cluster randomized study to investigate the potential use of saliva antigen testing compared to saliva pooling for nucleic acid detection in a primary school in Thailand from December 2021 to March 2022. Wastewater surveillance in the school was also performed.

Results

A total of 484 participants attended the study. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in two participants from the tests provided by the study (one in the pool nucleic acid test arm, and another in the quantitative antigen test arm). Additional ten participants reported positive results on an additional rapid antigen test (RAT) performed by nasal swab when they had symptoms or household contact. There was no difference among arms in viral detection by intention-to-treat and per protocol analysis (p = 0.304 and 0.894, respectively). We also investigated the feasibility of wastewater surveillance to detect the virus in this setting. However, wastewater surveillance could not detect the virus.

Conclusions

In a low COVID-19 prevalence, serial saliva testing and wastewater surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 rarely detected the virus in a day school setting. Performing RAT on nasal swabs when students, teachers or staff have symptoms or household contact might be more reasonable.

Evaluation of the performance of Abbott Panbio™ COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic test for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 at Harar, Eastern Ethiopia

Background

Rapid antigen tests can help in the effective isolation of symptomatic cases and the systematic tracing of close contacts. However, their reliability must be validated before implementing them widely.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted on 236 COVID-19-suspected patients visiting four different health institutions in Harari Regional State, Harar, Eastern Ethiopia, from June to July 2021. Two nasopharyngeal samples were collected and processed by the Panbio™ Ag-RDT kit and qRT-PCR. The collected data were analyzed using SPSS version 25.0.

Results

The Panbio tests had a sensitivity of 77.5% (95% CI: 61.6-89.2%) and a specificity of 98.5% (95% CI: 95.6-99.7%). It also had a positive predictive value of 91.2% (95% CI: 76.9-96.9%), a negative predictive value of 95.5% (95% CI: 92.3-97.4%), and a kappa of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.7-0.9). The test had a sensitivity of 94.4%, 100%, 100%, and 90% in the samples collected from patients within the 1-5 days post-onset of COVID-19 signs and symptoms, of age group ≤18 years old, with cycle threshold values of <20, and with household contact, respectively.

Conclusion

This test can be used as point-of-care testing for the diagnosis of symptomatic patients with short clinical courses and contact with patients in households.

Comparison between Nasopharyngeal and Saliva Samples for the Detection of Respiratory Viruses in Children with Acute Lower Respiratory Tract Infections: A Pilot Study

PURPOSE

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of salivary swabs (SS) to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been implemented and widely studied in adults and children. However, the role of SS in detecting other common respiratory viruses in children is poorly investigated.

METHODS

Children younger than 18 years of age admitted with respiratory signs and symptoms underwent both nasopharyngeal and SS procedures. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of SS were calculated, considering the nasopharyngeal swab result as the gold standard.

RESULTS

A total of 83 patients (44 females, 53%) underwent both nasopharyngeal and SS procedures. Overall, the sensitivity of SS was 49.4%. Sensitivity according to different respiratory viruses ranged from 0% to 71.43%, while the specificity ranged from 96% to 100%. Negative predictive value ranged from 68.06% to 98.8%, while positive predictive value ranged from 0 to 100%. SS sensitivity in patients younger than 12 months of age was 39.47%, while in patients older than or equal to 12 months of age it was 57.78%. Patients with negative SS had a significantly lower median age (8.5 months (15.25) vs. 23 months (34), p = 0.001) and a significantly lower quantity of median saliva collected for salivary analysis (0 μL (213) vs. 300 μL (100), p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

SS has a relatively low sensitivity in detecting common respiratory viruses in children with LRTI, with a lower probability in younger children (and in particular those younger than 6 months of age) or those from whom we have collected lesser amounts of saliva. New strategies to improve saliva collection are needed for testing on a larger study population.

A review of current effective COVID-19 testing methods and quality control

COVID-19 is a highly infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which primarily affects the respiratory system and can lead to severe illness. The virus is extremely contagious, early and accurate diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 is crucial to contain its spread, to provide prompt treatment, and to prevent complications. Currently, the reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is considered to be the gold standard for detecting COVID-19 in its early stages. In addition, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LMAP), clustering rule interval short palindromic repeats (CRISPR), colloidal gold immunochromatographic assay (GICA), computed tomography (CT), and electrochemical sensors are also common tests. However, these different methods vary greatly in terms of their detection efficiency, specificity, accuracy, sensitivity, cost, and throughput. Besides, most of the current detection methods are conducted in central hospitals and laboratories, which is a great challenge for remote and underdeveloped areas. Therefore, it is essential to review the advantages and disadvantages of different COVID-19 detection methods, as well as the technology that can enhance detection efficiency and improve detection quality in greater details.

SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection by saliva; an alternative to nasopharyngeal specimen: A cross-sectional study

Background and Aims

Saliva samples are less invasive and more convenient for patients than naso- and/or oropharynx swabs (NOS). However, there is no US Food and Drug Administration-approved severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rapid antigen test kit, which can be useful in a prolonged pandemic to reduce transmission by allowing suspected individuals to self-sampling. We evaluated the performances of High sensitive AQ⁺ Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test (AQ⁺ kit) using nasopharyngeal swabs (NPs) and saliva specimens from the same patients in laboratory conditions.

Methods

The real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) test result was used for screening the inrolled individuals and compared as the gold standard. NP and saliva samples were collected from 100 rRT-PCR positives and 100 negative individuals and tested with an AQ⁺ kit.

Results

The AQ⁺ kit showed good performances in both NP and saliva samples with an overall accuracy of 98.5% and 94.0%, and sensitivity of 97.0% and 88.0%, respectively. In both cases, specificity was 100%. AQ⁺ kit performance with saliva was in the range of the World Health Organization recommended value.

Conclusion

xOur findings indicate that the saliva specimen can be used as an alternative and less invasive to NPs for quick and reliable SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection.

SARS-CoV-2 Testing Strategies in the Diagnosis and Management of COVID-19 Patients in Low-Income Countries: A Scoping Review

The accuracy of diagnostic laboratory tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can impact downstream clinical procedures in managing and controlling the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To assess the effectiveness of laboratory tools for managing COVID-19 patients in low-income countries (LICs), we systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, Scopus and CINHAL databases for reports published between January 2020 and June 2022. We found that 22 of 1303 articles reported the performance of various SARS-CoV-2 detection tools across 10 LICs. These tools were (1) real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR); (2) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP); (3) rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs); (4) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); and (5) dot-blot immunoassay. The detection of COVID-19 is largely divided into two main streams-direct virus (antigen) detection and serology (immunoglobulin)-based detection. Point-of-care testing using antigen-based RDTs is preferred in LICs because of cost effectiveness and simplicity in the test procedures. The nucleic acid amplification technology (RT-PCR and RT-LAMP) has the highest diagnostic performance among the available tests, but it is not broadly used in this context due to costs and shortage of facilities/trained staff. The serology-based test method is affected by antibody interferences and varying amounts of SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulins expressed at different stages of disease onset. We further discuss the effectiveness and shortcomings of each of these tools in the diagnosis and management of COVID-19. Using the LICs as the study model, our findings highlight ways to improve the quality and turnaround time of COVID-19 testing in resource-constrained settings, notably through local/international collaborative efforts to refine the molecular-based or immunoassay-based testing technologies.

A novel anterior nasal swab to detect respiratory viruses: a prospective study of diagnostic accuracy

Detection of respiratory viruses requires testing of the upper respiratory tract to obtain specimens for analysis. However, nasal and throat swabs can cause discomfort and procedural anxiety in children. Respiratory sampling methods which are accurate and less invasive are needed. We aim to determine the positive and negative percentage agreement of a novel anterior nasal swab (ANS) compared with the combined throat and anterior nasal swab (CTN), the reference standard, for detection of respiratory viruses. Children 5 - 18 years of age presenting to a tertiary paediatric hospital with respiratory symptoms were tested with both swabs in randomised order. Respiratory samples were tested on a multiplex RT-PCR panel. Viral detections, RT-PCR cycle-threshold values and child/parent/clinician experience of the swab were recorded. There were 157 viral detections from 249 participant CTN swabs. In comparison with the CTN, the overall positive and negative percentage agreement of ANS for detection of respiratory viruses was 96.2% (95% CI, 91.8-98.3%) and 99.8% (95% CI, 99.6-99.9%), respectively. The ANS was "extremely comfortable", or only a "little uncomfortable" for 90% of children compared with 48% for CTN. 202 children (84%) rated the ANS as the preferred swab, and 208 (87%) indicated they would prefer ANS for future testing. The ANS required additional laboratory handling processes compared to the CTN. The ANS has high positive percentage agreement and is comparable to the current standard of care. The high acceptability from the less invasive ANS provides a more comfortable method for respiratory virus testing in children.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05043623.