Comparison of saliva with healthcare workers- and patient-collected swabs in the diagnosis of COVID-19 in a large cohort

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.

The Delta and Omicron Variants of SARS-CoV-2: What We Know So Far

The world has not yet completely overcome the fear of the havoc brought by SARS-CoV-2. The virus has undergone several mutations since its initial appearance in China in December 2019. Several variations (i.e., B.1.616.1 (Kappa variant), B.1.617.2 (Delta variant), B.1.617.3, and BA.2.75 (Omicron variant)) have emerged throughout the pandemic, altering the virus's capacity to spread, risk profile, and even symptoms. Humanity faces a serious threat as long as the virus keeps adapting and changing its fundamental function to evade the immune system. The Delta variant has two escape alterations, E484Q and L452R, as well as other mutations; the most notable of these is P681R, which is expected to boost infectivity, whereas the Omicron has about 60 mutations with certain deletions and insertions. The Delta variant is 40-60% more contagious in comparison to the Alpha variant. Additionally, the AY.1 lineage, also known as the "Delta plus" variant, surfaced as a result of a mutation in the Delta variant, which was one of the causes of the life-threatening second wave of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Nevertheless, the recent Omicron variants represent a reminder that the COVID-19 epidemic is far from ending. The wave has sparked a fervor of investigation on why the variant initially appeared to propagate so much more rapidly than the other three variants of concerns (VOCs), whether it is more threatening in those other ways, and how its type of mutations, which induce minor changes in its proteins, can wreck trouble. This review sheds light on the pathogenicity, mutations, treatments, and impact on the vaccine efficacy of the Delta and Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2.

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.

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Detection from Saliva Sampling and Oropharyngeal Swab

We examined the detection rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) of side-by-side saliva and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) samples from 639 symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects, of which 47 subjects were found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the OPS or saliva sample or both. It was found that the detection rate (93.6% for both OPS and saliva) as well as the sensitivity and specificity were comparable between the two sampling methods in this cohort. The sensitivity was 0.932 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.818 to 0.977) and the specificity was 0.995 (95% CI, 0.985 to 0.998), both for saliva when OPS sampling was used as the reference and for OPS when saliva was used as the reference. Furthermore, the Cohen's kappa value was 0.926 (95% CI, 0.868 to 0.985), indicating strong agreement between the two sampling methods. In addition, the viral RNA stability in pure saliva and saliva mixed with preservation buffers was examined following storage at room temperature and at 4°C. It was found that pure saliva kept the viral RNA stable for 9 days at both temperatures and that the type of preservation buffer can either enhance or reduce the stability of the RNA. We conclude that self-administered saliva sampling is an attractive alternative to oropharyngeal swabbing for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and it might be useful in large-scale testing. IMPORTANCE It is not inconceivable that we will witness recurring surges of COVID-19 before the pandemic finally recedes. It is therefore still relevant to look for feasible, simple, and flexible screening methods so that schools, workplaces, and communities in general can avoid lockdowns. In this work, we analyzed two different sampling methods: oropharyngeal swabs and saliva collection. Oropharyngeal swabs must be collected by trained health personnel at clinics, whereas self-assisted saliva collection can be performed at any given location. It was found that the two sampling methods were comparable. Saliva sampling is a simple method that allows easy mass testing using minimal resources from the existing health care system, and this method may therefore prove to be an effective tool for containing the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

Isothermal amplification using sequence-specific fluorescence detection of SARS coronavirus 2 and variants in nasal swabs

Coronavirus disease 2019 is a public health challenge requiring rapid testing for the detection of infections and transmission. Nucleic acid amplification tests targeting SARS coronavirus 2 (CoV2) are used to detect CoV2 in clinical samples. Real-time reverse transcription quantitative PCR is the standard nucleic acid amplification test for CoV2, although reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification is used in diagnostics. The authors demonstrate a sequence-specific reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification-based nucleic acid amplification assay that is finished within 30 min using minimally processed clinical nasal swab samples and describe a fluorescence-quenched reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay using labeled primers and a quencher oligonucleotide. This assay can achieve rapid (30 min) and sensitive (1000 plaque-forming units/ml) fluorescence detection of CoV2 (WA1/2020), B.1.1.7 (Alpha) and variants of concern Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron (B.1.1.529) in nasal samples.

The authors describe a sequence-specific nucleic acid amplification assay (fluorescence-quenched reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification) based on a modified reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay that utilizes a fluorescence-labeled reporter primer and a short complementary oligonucleotide quencher to detect SARS coronavirus 2 in minimally processed clinical nasal swab samples. The fluorescence-quenched reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay is completed in 30 min without purifying RNA and achieves reproducible, sensitive and specific (1000 plaque-forming units/ml) detection of SARS coronavirus 2 WA1/2020 and three SARS coronavirus 2 variant viruses while not signaling on three closely related human coronaviruses or two other heterologous human respiratory viruses.