Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Gargle, Spit, and Sputum Specimens

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.

Prospective, clinical comparison of self-collected throat-bilateral nares swabs and saline gargle compared to health care provider collected nasopharyngeal swabs among symptomatic outpatients with potential SARS-CoV-2 infection

Background

In British Columbia (BC), self-collected saline gargle (SG) is the only alternative to health care provider (HCP)-collected nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs to detect SARS-CoV-2 in an outpatient setting by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). However, some individuals cannot perform a SG. Our study aimed to assess combined throat-bilateral nares (TN) swabbing as a swab-based alternative.

Methods

Symptomatic individuals greater than 12 years of age seeking a COVID-19 PCR test at one of two COVID-19 collection centres in Metro Vancouver were asked to participate in this study. Participants provided a HCP-collected NP sample and a self-collected SG and TN sample for PCR testing, which were either HCP observed or unobserved.

Results

Three-hundred and eleven individuals underwent all three collections. Compared against HCP-NP, SG was 99% sensitive and 98% specific (kappa 0.97) and TN was 99% sensitive and 99% specific (kappa 0.98). Using the final clinical test interpretation as the reference standard, NP was 98% sensitive and 100% specific (kappa 0.98), and both SG and TN were 99% sensitive and 100% specific (both kappa 0.99). Mean cycle threshold values for each viral target were higher in SG specimens compared to the other sample types; however, this did not significantly impact the clinical performance, because the positivity rates were similar. The clinical performance of all specimen types was comparable within the first 7 days of symptom onset, regardless of the observation method. SG self-collections were rated the most acceptable, followed by TN.

Conclusions

TN provides another less invasive self-collection modality for symptomatic outpatient SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing.

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.

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.

Evaluation of saliva and nasopharyngeal swab sampling for genomic detection of SARS-CoV-2 in children accessing a pediatric emergency department during the second pandemic wave

SARS-CoV-2 infection is mainly detected by multiplex real-time RT-PCR from upper respiratory specimens, which is considered the gold-standard technique for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis. A nasopharyngeal (NP) swab represents the clinical sample of choice, but NP swabbing can be uncomfortable to the patients, especially for pediatric-age participants, requires trained healthcare personnel, and may generate an aerosol, increasing the intrinsic exposure risk of healthcare workers. The objective of this study was to compare paired NP and saliva samples (SS) collected from pediatric patients to evaluate whether the saliva collection procedure may be considered a valuable alternative to the classical NP swab (NPS) sampling in children. In this study, we describe a SARS-CoV-2 multiplex real-time RT-PCR protocol for SS, comparing the results with the paired NPS specimens from 256 pediatric patients (mean age 4.24 ± 4.40 years) admitted to the hospital emergency room of Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata (AOUI), Verona, and randomly enrolled between September 2020 and December 2020. The saliva sampling demonstrated consistent results when compared to NPS use. The SARS-CoV-2 genome was detected in 16 out of 256 (6.25%) NP samples, among which 13 (5.07%) were positive even when paired SS were analyzed. Moreover, SARS-CoV-2-negative NPS and SS were consistent, and the overall concordances between NPS and SS were detected in 253 out of 256 samples (98.83%). Our results suggest that saliva samples may be considered a valuable alternative to NPS for SARS-CoV-2 direct diagnosis with multiplex real-time RT-PCR in pediatric patients.

Verification of the efficiency of saline gargle sampling for detection of the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2, a pilot study

A saline gargle (SG) has proven to be an efficient method of sampling to detect SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this pilot study was to verify the efficiency of SG sampling in detecting the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. Subjects were a total of 68 patients with COVID-19 (Omicron variant), and 167 pairs of samples were collected. A conventional oropharyngeal swab (OPS) was obtained and SG sampling was performed immediately afterward; both were subjected to RT-qPCR. A subgroup analysis of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients was performed. Results revealed no significant differences in the distribution of patients and cycle threshold (CT) values between the SG and OPS in overall data and data on days 1-3, 4-7, and 8-14. The subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences between the SG and OPS results in symptomatic patients. In asymptomatic patients, the CT values for the SG were significantly lower than those for the OPS, implying that SG sampling had better sensitivity in the context of the Omicron variant. These data indicate that the SG had satisfactory efficiency (vs. the OPS). An SG is a simple and less invasive method of sampling that is suited to mass, frequent, and repeated sampling to detect SARS-CoV-2.

Performance of saline and water gargling for SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase PCR testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The performance of gargling for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR testing has not been previously reviewed. This review systematically assessed the performance of saline and water gargling for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing in the settings of diagnosing and monitoring viral shedding.We included original studies comparing the performance of gargling and (oropharyngeal-)nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing. Studies conducted in either suspected individuals or confirmed cases were included and analysed separately. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were examined using random-effects models.Gargles achieved a high overall sensitivity (91%), specificity (97%), PPV (95%) and NPV (91%) for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing. Studies using saline gargle and water gargle have an overall sensitivity of 97% and 86%, respectively. The sensitivity values were largely maintained for saline and water gargling on stratified analysis, for both diagnosis (96% and 92%) and viral shedding monitoring (98% and 78%). A higher sensitivity was also reported by studies using sterile saline (100%), a smaller amount of gargling solution (92% versus 87%) and a longer gargling duration (95% versus 86%).Our results supported the use of gargling as a sampling approach for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing, which achieved a high sensitivity for both diagnosis and viral shedding monitoring purposes. Further investigation on the comparative performance of different gargling mediums is needed to draw a definitive conclusion.

Saliva as a sample type for SARS-CoV-2 detection: implementation successes and opportunities around the globe

INTRODUCTION

Symptomatic testing and asymptomatic screening for SARS-CoV-2 continue to be essential tools for mitigating virus transmission. Though COVID-19 diagnostics initially defaulted to oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal sampling, the worldwide urgency to expand testing efforts spurred innovative approaches and increased diversity of detection methods. Strengthening innovation and facilitating widespread testing remains critical for global health, especially as additional variants emerge and other mitigation strategies are recalibrated.

AREAS COVERED

A growing body of evidence reflects the need to expand testing efforts and further investigate the efficiency, sensitivity, and acceptability of saliva samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Countries have made pandemic response decisions based on resources, costs, procedures, and regional acceptability - the adoption and integration of saliva-based testing among them. Saliva has demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity while being less invasive relative to nasopharyngeal swabs, securing saliva's position as a more acceptable sample type.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the accessibility and utility of saliva sampling, global implementation remains low compared to swab-based approaches. In some cases, countries have validated saliva-based methods but face challenges with testing implementation or expansion. Here, we review the localities that have demonstrated success with saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 testing approaches and can serve as models for transforming concepts into globally-implemented best practices.

Direct comparison of Altona-SARS-CoV-2 dual target RT-qPCR assay with commercial LAMP assay using throat washes in health care staff testing

Background

Rapid molecular diagnostics by PCR has a crucial role in handling the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. As diagnoses are time-sensitive and global supply chains are susceptible to various factors alternative detection methods would be an important backup.

Objectives

During the study the performance of a commercially available isothermal LAMP method for SARS-CoV-2 detection was compared to a IVD RT-PCR Assays using throat wash specimens that were routinely taken in our hospital setting.

Study design

Throat wash specimens of hospital staff (n = 174) previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by the Altona Diagnostics RealStar SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR (Altona Diagnostics, Hamburg, Germany) was tested for SARS-CoV-2 also by the SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Colorimetric LAMP Assay (NEB Germany GmbH, Frankfurt a.M., Germany).

Results

The sensitivity of the colorimetric LAMP Assay compared to RT-qPCR was 78.74%, and the specificity was determined to 88.24% with a positive predictive value of 0.986 and a negative predicitve value of 0.882. The positive and negative likelihood ratio for LAMP was 6.693 and 0.241, respectively, while the diagnostic odds ratio was 27.77.

Conclusions

In times of limited PCR test ressources and in settings with limited PCR capacities, the colorimetric LAMP Assay could serve as an alternative, if a calculable loss of sensitivity is acceptable from the Public Health perspective in certain settings.

Saliva as a diagnostic specimen for SARS-CoV-2 detection: a scoping review

Objectives

This scoping review aims to summarize the diagnostic value of saliva assessed from current studies that (1) compare its performance in reverse transcriptase‐polymerase chain reaction testing to nasopharyngeal swabs, (2) evaluate its performance in rapid and point‐of‐care COVID‐19 diagnostic tests, and (3) explore its use as a specimen for detecting anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies.

Materials and Methods

A systematic search was performed on the following databases: Medline and Embase (Ovid), World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Global Health (Ovid) from January 2019 to September 2021. Of the 657 publications identified from the searches, n = 146 articles were included in the final scoping review.

Results

Our findings showcase that salivary samples exceed nasopharyngeal swabs in detecting SARS‐CoV‐2 using reverse transcriptase‐polymerase chain reaction testing in several studies. A select number of rapid antigen and point‐of‐care tests from the literature were also identified capable of high detection rates using saliva. Moreover, anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies have been shown to be detectable in saliva through biochemical assays.

Conclusion

We highlight the potential of saliva as an all‐rounded specimen in detecting SARS‐CoV‐2. However, future large‐scale clinical studies will be needed to support its widespread use as a non‐invasive clinical specimen for COVID‐19 testing.