Oropharyngeal Secretion as Alternative for SARS-CoV-2 Detection

SARS-CoV-2 Burden in Wastewater and its Elimination Using Disinfection

Background

Pathogenic viruses have been abundant and diverse in wastewater, reflecting the pattern of infection in humans. Human feces, urine, and perhaps other washouts that frequently circulate in sewage systems may contaminate wastewater with SARS-CoV-2. It's crucial to effectively disinfect wastewater since poorly handled wastewater could put the population at risk of infection.

Aims

To emphasize the presence and spread of SARS-CoV-2 in sewage (wastewater) through viral shedding from the patients to detect the virus in the population using wastewater-based epidemiology. Also, to effectively manage the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and reduce the spread of the virus in the population using disinfectants is highlighted.

Methods

We evaluated articles from December 2019 to August 2022 that addressed SARS-CoV-2 shedding in wastewater and surveillance through wastewater-based epidemiology. We included the papers on wastewater disinfection for the elimination of SARS-CoV-2. Google Scholar, PubMed, and Research4Life are the three electronic databases from which all of the papers were retrieved.

Results

It is possible for viral shedding to get into the wastewater. The enumeration of viral RNA from it can be used to monitor virus circulation in the human community. SARS-CoV-2 can be removed from wastewater by using modern disinfection techniques such as sodium hypochlorite, liquid chlorine, chlorine dioxide, peracetic acid, and ultraviolet light.

Conclusion

SARS-CoV-2 burden estimates at the population level can be obtained via longitudinal examination of wastewater, and SARS-CoV-2 can be removed from the wastewater through disinfection.

In vivo evaluation of the virucidal efficacy of chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine mouthwashes against salivary SARS-CoV-2. A randomized-controlled clinical trial

Objectives

The oral cavity is potentially high-risk transmitter of COVID-19. Antimicrobial mouthrinses are used in many clinical preprocedural situations for decreasing the risk of cross-contamination in the dental setting. It is important to investigate the efficacy of mouthwash solutions against salivary SARS-CoV-2 in order to reduce the exposure of the dental team during dental procedures.

Aims

The aim of this in vivo study was to evaluate the efficacy of 2 preprocedural mouthrinses in the reduction of salivary SARS-CoV-2 viral load and to compare the results of the mouthwashes to a control group.

Materials and Methods

In this randomized-controlled clinical trial, studied group comprised laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 positive patients through nasopharyngeal swabs. Participants were divided into 3 groups. For 30 s, the control group mouthrinsed with distilled water, the Chlorhexidine group mouthrinsed with 0.2% Chlorhexidine and the Povidone-iodine group gargled with 1% Povidone-iodine. Saliva samples were collected before and 5 min after mouthwash. SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR was then performed for each sample. Evaluation of the efficacy was based on difference in cycle threshold (Ct) value. The analysis of data was carried out using GraphPad Prism version 5 for Windows. Kristal wullis and Paired t-test were used. A probability value of less than 0.05 was regarded as statistically significant.

Results

Sixty-one compliant participants (36 female and 25 male) with a mean age 45.3 ± 16.7 years-old were enrolled. A significant difference was noted between the delta Ct of distilled water wash and each of the 2 solutions Chlorhexidine 0.2% (P = .0024) and 1% Povidone-iodine (P = .012). No significant difference was found between the delta Ct of patients using Chlorhexidine 0.2% and 1% Povidone-iodine solutions (P = .24). A significant mean Ct value difference (P < .0001) between the paired samples in Chlorhexidine group (n = 27) and also in Povidone-iodine group (n = 25) (P < .0001) was found. In contrast, no significant difference (P = .566) existed before and after the experiment in the control group (n = 9).

Conclusion

Chlorhexidine 0.2% and 1% Povidone-iodine oral solutions are effective preprocedural mouthwashes against salivary SARS-CoV-2 in dental treatments. Their use as a preventive strategy to reduce the spread of COVID-19 during dental practice should be considered.

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

Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs are considered the highest-yield sample for diagnostic testing for respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. The need to increase capacity for SARS-CoV-2 testing in a variety of settings, combined with shortages of sample collection supplies, have motivated a search for alternative sample types with high sensitivity. We systematically reviewed the literature to understand the performance of alternative sample types compared to NP swabs. We systematically searched PubMed, Google Scholar, medRxiv, and bioRxiv (last retrieval 1 October 2020) for comparative studies of alternative specimen types (saliva, oropharyngeal [OP], and nasal [NS] swabs) versus NP swabs for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis using nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). A logistic-normal random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate % positive alternative-specimen, % positive NP, and % dual positives overall and in subgroups. The QUADAS 2 tool was used to assess bias. From 1,253 unique citations, we identified 25 saliva, 11 NS, 6 OP, and 4 OP/NS studies meeting inclusion criteria. Three specimen types captured lower % positives (NS [82%, 95% CI: 73 to 90%], OP [84%, 95% CI: 57 to 100%], and saliva [88%, 95% CI: 81 to 93%]) than NP swabs, while combined OP/NS matched NP performance (97%, 95% CI: 90 to 100%). Absence of RNA extraction (saliva) and utilization of a more sensitive NAAT (NS) substantially decreased alternative-specimen yield of positive samples. NP swabs remain the gold standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, although alternative specimens are promising. Much remains unknown about the impact of variations in specimen collection, processing protocols, and population (pediatric versus adult, late versus early in disease course), such that head-to head studies of sampling strategies are urgently needed.

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

Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs are considered the highest-yield sample for diagnostic testing for respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. The need to increase capacity for SARS-CoV-2 testing in a variety of settings, combined with shortages of sample collection supplies, have motivated a search for alternative sample types with high sensitivity. We systematically reviewed the literature to understand the performance of alternative sample types compared to NP swabs. We systematically searched PubMed, Google Scholar, medRxiv, and bioRxiv (last retrieval 1 October 2020) for comparative studies of alternative specimen types (saliva, oropharyngeal [OP], and nasal [NS] swabs) versus NP swabs for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis using nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). A logistic-normal random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate % positive alternative-specimen, % positive NP, and % dual positives overall and in subgroups. The QUADAS 2 tool was used to assess bias. From 1,253 unique citations, we identified 25 saliva, 11 NS, 6 OP, and 4 OP/NS studies meeting inclusion criteria. Three specimen types captured lower % positives (NS [82%, 95% CI: 73 to 90%], OP [84%, 95% CI: 57 to 100%], and saliva [88%, 95% CI: 81 to 93%]) than NP swabs, while combined OP/NS matched NP performance (97%, 95% CI: 90 to 100%). Absence of RNA extraction (saliva) and utilization of a more sensitive NAAT (NS) substantially decreased alternative-specimen yield of positive samples. NP swabs remain the gold standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, although alternative specimens are promising. Much remains unknown about the impact of variations in specimen collection, processing protocols, and population (pediatric versus adult, late versus early in disease course), such that head-to head studies of sampling strategies are urgently needed.

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

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

A prospective clinical pilot study on the effects of a hydrogen peroxide mouthrinse on the intraoral viral load of SARS-CoV-2

Objectives

SARS-CoV-2 is mainly transmitted by inhalation of droplets and aerosols. This puts healthcare professionals from specialties with close patient contact at high risk of nosocomial infections with SARS-CoV-2. In this context, preprocedural mouthrinses with hydrogen peroxide have been recommended before conducting intraoral procedures. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the effects of a 1% hydrogen peroxide mouthrinse on reducing the intraoral SARS-CoV-2 load.

Methods

Twelve out of 98 initially screened hospitalized SARS-CoV-2-positive patients were included in this study. Intraoral viral load was determined by RT-PCR at baseline, whereupon patients had to gargle mouth and throat with 20 mL of 1% hydrogen peroxide for 30 s. After 30 min, a second examination of intraoral viral load was performed by RT-PCR. Furthermore, virus culture was performed for specimens exhibiting viral load of at least 10³ RNA copies/mL at baseline.

Results

Ten out of the 12 initially included SARS-CoV-2-positive patients completed the study. The hydrogen peroxide mouthrinse led to no significant reduction of intraoral viral load. Replicating virus could only be determined from one baseline specimen.

Conclusion

A 1% hydrogen peroxide mouthrinse does not reduce the intraoral viral load in SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects. However, virus culture did not yield any indication on the effects of the mouthrinse on the infectivity of the detected RNA copies.

Clinical relevance

The recommendation of a preprocedural mouthrinse with hydrogen peroxide before intraoral procedures is questionable and thus should not be supported any longer, but strict infection prevention regimens are of paramount importance.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register (ref. DRKS00022484)