Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 testing for rapid diagnosis of COVID-19 during the initial stages of a global pandemic

The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection

BACKGROUND

Sample collection is a key driver of accuracy in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Viral load may vary at different anatomical sampling sites and accuracy may be compromised by difficulties obtaining specimens and the expertise of the person taking the sample. It is important to optimise sampling accuracy within cost, safety and accessibility constraints.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the sensitivity of different sampling collection sites and methods for the detection of current SARS-CoV-2 infection with any molecular or antigen-based test.

SEARCH METHODS

Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 22 February 2022. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies of symptomatic or asymptomatic people with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection undergoing testing. We included studies of any design that compared results from different sample types (anatomical location, operator, collection device) collected from the same participant within a 24-hour period.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Within a sample pair, we defined a reference sample and an index sample collected from the same participant within the same clinical encounter (within 24 hours). Where the sample comparison was different anatomical sites, the reference standard was defined as a nasopharyngeal or combined naso/oropharyngeal sample collected into the same sample container and the index sample as the alternative anatomical site. Where the sample comparison was concerned with differences in the sample collection method from the same site, we defined the reference sample as that closest to standard practice for that sample type. Where the sample pair comparison was concerned with differences in personnel collecting the sample, the more skilled or experienced operator was considered the reference sample. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C checklists, tailored to this review. We present estimates of the difference in the sensitivity (reference sample (%) minus index sample sensitivity (%)) in a pair and as an average across studies for each index sampling method using forest plots and tables. We examined heterogeneity between studies according to population (age, symptom status) and index sample (time post-symptom onset, operator expertise, use of transport medium) characteristics.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 106 studies reporting 154 evaluations and 60,523 sample pair comparisons, of which 11,045 had SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ninety evaluations were of saliva samples, 37 nasal, seven oropharyngeal, six gargle, six oral and four combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples. Four evaluations were of the effect of operator expertise on the accuracy of three different sample types. The majority of included evaluations (146) used molecular tests, of which 140 used RT-PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction). Eight evaluations were of nasal samples used with Ag-RDTs (rapid antigen tests). The majority of studies were conducted in Europe (35/106, 33%) or the USA (27%) and conducted in dedicated COVID-19 testing clinics or in ambulatory hospital settings (53%). Targeted screening or contact tracing accounted for only 4% of evaluations. Where reported, the majority of evaluations were of adults (91/154, 59%), 28 (18%) were in mixed populations with only seven (4%) in children. The median prevalence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 was 23% (interquartile (IQR) 13%-40%). Risk of bias and applicability assessment were hampered by poor reporting in 77% and 65% of included studies, respectively. Risk of bias was low across all domains in only 3% of evaluations due to inappropriate inclusion or exclusion criteria, unclear recruitment, lack of blinding, nonrandomised sampling order or differences in testing kit within a sample pair. Sixty-eight percent of evaluation cohorts were judged as being at high or unclear applicability concern either due to inflation of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in study populations by selectively including individuals with confirmed PCR-positive samples or because there was insufficient detail to allow replication of sample collection. When used with RT-PCR • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between gargle and nasopharyngeal samples (on average -1 percentage points, 95% CI -5 to +2, based on 6 evaluations, 2138 sample pairs, of which 389 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between saliva collection from the deep throat and nasopharyngeal samples (on average +10 percentage points, 95% CI -1 to +21, based on 2192 sample pairs, of which 730 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was evidence that saliva collection using spitting, drooling or salivating was on average -12 percentage points less sensitive (95% CI -16 to -8, based on 27,253 sample pairs, of which 4636 had SARS-CoV-2) compared to nasopharyngeal samples. We did not find any evidence of a difference in the sensitivity of saliva collected using spitting, drooling or salivating (sensitivity difference: range from -13 percentage points (spit) to -21 percentage points (salivate)). • Nasal samples (anterior and mid-turbinate collection combined) were, on average, 12 percentage points less sensitive compared to nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -17 to -7), based on 9291 sample pairs, of which 1485 had SARS-CoV-2. We did not find any evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples collected from the mid-turbinates (3942 sample pairs) or from the anterior nares (8272 sample pairs). • There was evidence that oropharyngeal samples were, on average, 17 percentage points less sensitive than nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -29 to -5), based on seven evaluations, 2522 sample pairs, of which 511 had SARS-CoV-2. A much smaller volume of evidence was available for combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples and oral samples. Age, symptom status and use of transport media do not appear to affect the sensitivity of saliva samples and nasal samples. When used with Ag-RDTs • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples (sensitivity, on average, 0 percentage points -0.2 to +0.2, based on 3688 sample pairs, of which 535 had SARS-CoV-2).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When used with RT-PCR, there is no evidence for a difference in sensitivity of self-collected gargle or deep-throat saliva samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples collected by healthcare workers when used with RT-PCR. Use of these alternative, self-collected sample types has the potential to reduce cost and discomfort and improve the safety of sampling by reducing risk of transmission from aerosol spread which occurs as a result of coughing and gagging during the nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal sample collection procedure. This may, in turn, improve access to and uptake of testing. Other types of saliva, nasal, oral and oropharyngeal samples are, on average, less sensitive compared to healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples, and it is unlikely that sensitivities of this magnitude would be acceptable for confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection with RT-PCR. When used with Ag-RDTs, there is no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples and healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples for detecting SARS-CoV-2. The implications of this for self-testing are unclear as evaluations did not report whether nasal samples were self-collected or collected by healthcare workers. Further research is needed in asymptomatic individuals, children and in Ag-RDTs, and to investigate the effect of operator expertise on accuracy. Quality assessment of the evidence base underpinning these conclusions was restricted by poor reporting. There is a need for further high-quality studies, adhering to reporting standards for test accuracy studies.

Asymptomatic viruses detectable in saliva in the first year of life: a narrative review

Viral infections are common in children. Many can be asymptomatic or have delayed health consequences. In view of increasing availability of point-of-care viral detection technologies, with possible application in newborn screening, this review aimed to (1) identify potentially asymptomatic viruses detectable in infants under one year old, via saliva/nasopharyngeal swab, and (2) describe associations between viruses and long-term health conditions. We systematically searched Embase(Ovid), Medline(Ovid) and PubMed, then further searched the literature in a tiered approach. From the 143 articles included, 28 potentially asymptomatic viruses were identified. Our second search revealed associations with a range of delayed health conditions, with most related to the severity of initial symptoms. Many respiratory viruses were linked with development of recurrent wheeze or asthma. Of note, some potentially asymptomatic viruses are linked with later non-communicable diseases: adenovirus serotype 36 and obesity, Enterovirus-A71 associated Hand, Foot, Mouth Disease and Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Ebstein Barr Virus (EBV) and malignancy, EBV and multiple sclerosis, HHV-6 and epilepsy, HBoV-1 and lung fibrosis and Norovirus and functional gastrointestinal disorders. Our review identified many potentially asymptomatic viruses, detectable in early life with potential delayed health consequences, that could be important to screen for in the future using rapid point-of-care viral detection methods. IMPACT: Novel point-of-care viral detection technologies enable rapid detection of viruses, both old and emerging. In view of increasing capability to screen for viruses, this is the first review to explore which potentially asymptomatic viruses, that are detectable using saliva and/or nasopharyngeal swabs in infants less than one year of age, are associated with delayed adverse health conditions. Further research into detecting such viruses in early life and their delayed health outcomes may pave new ways to prevent non-communicable diseases in the future.

Association Between Cycle Threshold Value and Vaccination Status Among Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Omicron Variant Cases in Ontario, Canada, in December 2021

Background

Increased immune evasion by emerging severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants and occurrence of breakthrough infections raise questions about whether coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination status affects SARS-CoV-2 viral load among those infected. This study examined the relationship between cycle threshold (Ct) value, which is inversely associated with viral load, and vaccination status at the onset of the Omicron wave onset in Ontario, Canada.

Methods

Using linked provincial databases, we compared median Ct values across vaccination status among polymerase chain reaction-confirmed Omicron variant SARS-CoV-2 cases (sublineages B.1.1.529, BA.1, and BA.1.1) between 6 and 30 December 2021. Cases were presumed to be Omicron based on S-gene target failure. We estimated the relationship between vaccination status and Ct values using multiple linear regression, adjusting for age group, sex, and symptom status.

Results

Of the 27 029 presumed Omicron cases in Ontario, the majority were in individuals who had received a complete vaccine series (87.7%), followed by unvaccinated individuals (8.1%), and those who had received a booster dose (4.2%). The median Ct value for post-booster dose individuals (18.3 [interquartile range, 15.4-22.3]) was significantly higher than that for unvaccinated (17.9 [15.2-21.6]; P = .02) and post-vaccine series individuals (17.8 [15.3-21.5]; P = .005). Post-booster dose cases remained associated with a significantly higher median Ct value than cases in unvaccinated individuals (P ≤ .001), after adjustment for covariates. Compared with values in persons aged 18-29 years, Ct values were significantly lower among most age groups >50 years.

Conclusions

While slightly lower Ct values were observed among unvaccinated individuals infected with Omicron compared with post-booster dose cases, further research is required to determine whether a significant difference in secondary transmission exists between these groups.

Comparison of clinician diagnosis of COVID-19 with real time polymerase chain reaction in an adult-representative population in Sweden

BACKGROUND

Due to the high transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2, accurate diagnosis is essential for effective infection control, but the gold standard, real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), is costly, slow, and test capacity has at times been insufficient. We compared the accuracy of clinician diagnosis of COVID-19 against RT-PCR in a general adult population.

METHODS

COVID-19 diagnosis data by 30th September 2021 for participants in an ongoing population-based cohort study of adults in Western Sweden were retrieved from registers, based on positive RT-PCR and clinician diagnosis using recommended ICD-10 codes. We calculated accuracy measures of clinician diagnosis using RT-PCR as reference for all subjects and stratified by age, gender, BMI, and comorbidity collected pre-COVID-19.

RESULTS

Of 42,621 subjects, 3,936 (9.2%) and 5705 (13.4%) had had COVID-19 identified by RT-PCR and clinician diagnosis, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of clinician diagnosis against RT-PCR were 78% (95%CI 77-80%) and 93% (95%CI 93-93%), respectively. Positive predictive value (PPV) was 54% (95%CI 53-55%), while negative predictive value (NPV) was 98% (95%CI 98-98%) and Youden's index 71% (95%CI 70-72%). These estimates were similar between men and women, across age groups, BMI categories, and between patients with and without asthma. However, while specificity, NPV, and Youden's index were similar between patients with and without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), sensitivity was slightly higher in patients with (84% [95%CI 74-90%]) than those without (78% [95%CI 77-79%]) COPD.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of clinician diagnosis for COVID-19 is adequate, regardless of gender, age, BMI, and asthma, and thus can be used for screening purposes to supplement RT-PCR.