Sensitivity of the Molecular Test in Saliva for Detection of COVID-19 in Pediatric Patients With Concurrent Conditions

Epidemiology and clinical features of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children and adolescents in the pre-Omicron era: A global systematic review and meta-analysis

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, CINAHL, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, CQvip, and the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 global literature databases for primary studies recruiting children aged ≤18 years with a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed either by molecular or antigen tests. We used the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools to appraise the study quality and conducted meta-analyses using the random effects model for all outcomes except for race/ethnicity as risk factors of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Results

We included 237 studies, each reporting at least one of the study outcomes. Based on data from 117 studies, the pooled SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate was 9.30% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 7.15-11.73). Having a comorbidity was identified as a risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 infection (risk ratio (RR) = 1.33; 95% CI = 1.04-1.71) based on data from 49 studies. Most cases in this review presented with mild disease (n = 50; 52.47% (95% CI = 44.03-60.84)). However, 20.70% of paediatric SARS-CoV-2 infections were hospitalised (67 studies), 7.19% required oxygen support (57 studies), 4.26% required intensive care (93 studies), and 2.92% required assisted ventilation (63 studies). The case fatality ratio (n = 119) was 0.87% (95% CI = 0.54-1.28), which included in-hospital and out-of-hospital deaths.

Conclusions

Our data showed that children were at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infections and severe outcomes in the pre-Omicron era. These findings underscore the need for effective vaccination strategies for the paediatric population to protect against the acute and long-term sequelae of COVID-19.

Registration

PROSPERO: CRD42022327680.

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.

COVID-19 diagnostics: Molecular biology to nanomaterials

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has claimed around 6.4 million lives worldwide. The disease symptoms range from mild flu-like infection to life-threatening complications. The widespread infection demands rapid, simple, and accurate diagnosis. Currently used methods include molecular biology-based approaches that consist of conventional amplification by RT-PCR, isothermal amplification-based techniques such as RT-LAMP, and gene editing tools like CRISPR-Cas. Other methods include immunological detection including ELISA, lateral flow immunoassay, chemiluminescence, etc. Radiological-based approaches are also being used. Despite good analytical performance of these current methods, there is an unmet need for less costly and simpler tests that may be performed at point of care. Accordingly, nanomaterial-based testing has been extensively pursued. In this review, we discuss the currently used diagnostic techniques for SARS-CoV-2, their usefulness, and limitations. In addition, nanoparticle-based approaches have been highlighted as another potential means of detection. The review provides a deep insight into the current diagnostic methods and future trends to combat this deadly menace.

#Stayathome If You Have a Cold: High SARS-CoV-2 Salivary Viral Loads in Pediatric Patients with Nasopharyngeal Symptoms

The choice of the best SARS-CoV-2 detection approach is crucial to predict which children with SARS-CoV-2 are at high risk of spreading the virus in order to manage public health measures and policies. In this prospective observational study of 35 children admitted to the Pediatric Emergency Departments of two tertiary hospitals in Northern Italy who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by standard RT-PCR in nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), we evaluated their presenting symptoms according to their salivary viral load (SVL) determined by droplet digital PCR (ddPCR). Despite an overall low concordance between SARS-CoV-2 detected by salivary ddPCR and NPS RT-PCR (54.3%), when only patients with nasopharyngeal symptoms were analyzed, the sensitivity of ddPCR in saliva specimens increased to 71.4%, and over half of these patients had high SVL (>105 copies/mL), which was significantly more frequent than in children without nasopharyngeal symptoms (57.1% vs. 14.3%, OR = 8, CI 95% 1.28−50.03, p = 0.03). All asymptomatic children had low SVL values. Our findings support the hypothesis that children with nasopharyngeal symptoms are at higher risk of spreading SARS-CoV-2 due to their high SVL and, conversely, asymptomatic children are unlikely to spread the virus due to their low SVL, regardless of their NPS positivity.

Oral saliva swab reverse transcription PCR for Covid-19 in the paediatric population

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the performance of oral saliva swab (OSS) reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) compared with RT-PCR and antigen rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) on nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) for SARS-CoV-2 in children.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional multicentre diagnostic study.

SETTING

Study nested in a prospective, observational cohort (EPICO-AEP) performed between February and March 2021 including 10 hospitals in Spain.

PATIENTS

Children from 0 to 18 years with symptoms compatible with Covid-19 of ≤5 days of duration were included. Two NPS samples (Ag-RDT and RT-PCR) and one OSS sample for RT-PCR were collected.

MAIN OUTCOME

Performance of Ag-RDT and RT-PCR on NPS and RT-PCR on OSS sample for SARS-CoV-2.

RESULTS

1174 children were included, aged 3.8 years (IQR 1.7-9.0); 73/1174 (6.2%) patients tested positive by at least one of the techniques. Sensitivity and specificity of OSS RT-PCR were 72.1% (95% CI 59.7 to 81.9) and 99.6% (95% CI 99 to 99.9), respectively, versus 61.8% (95% CI 49.1 to 73) and 99.9% (95% CI 99.4 to 100) for the Ag-RDT. Kappa index was 0.79 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.88) for OSS RT-PCR and 0.74 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.84) for Ag-RDT versus NPS RT-PCR.

CONCLUSIONS

RT-PCR on the OSS sample is an accurate option for SARS-CoV-2 testing in children. A less intrusive technique for younger patients, who usually are tested frequently, might increase the number of patients tested.

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.

Saliva sample for detection of SARS-CoV-2: A possible alternative for mass testing

Molecular diagnostic testing has played a critical role in the global response to the novel Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, since its first outbreak in late 2019. At the inception of the COVID-19 pandemic, nasopharyngeal swab sample analysis for COVID-19 diagnosis using the real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) technique was the most widely used. However, due to the high cost and difficulty of sample collection, the number of available sample types for COVID-19 diagnosis is rapidly increasing, as is the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. The use of nasal swabs, saliva, and oral fluids as viable sample options for the effective detection of SARS-CoV-2 has been implemented successfully in different settings since 2020. These alternative sample type provides a plethora of advantages including decreasing the high exposure risk to frontline workers, enhancing the chances of home self-sampling, reducing the cost, and significantly increasing testing capacity. This study sought to ascertain the effectiveness of Saliva samples as an alternative for COVID-19 diagnosis in Nigeria. Demographic data, paired samples of Nasopharyngeal Swab and Drooling Saliva were obtained from 309 consenting individuals aged 8-83 years presenting for COVID-19 testing. All samples were simultaneously assayed for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RdRp, N, and E genes using the GeneFinder™ COVID-19 Plus RT-PCR test kit. Out of 309 participants, only 299 with valid RT-PCR results comprising 159 (53.2%) males and 140 (46.8%) females were analyzed in this study using the R Statistical package. Among the 299 samples analyzed, 39 (13.0%) had SARS-CoV-2 detected in at least one specimen type. Both swabs and saliva were positive in 20 (51.3%) participants. Ten participants (25.6%) had swab positive/saliva-negative results and 9 participants (23.1%) had saliva positive/swab-negative results. The percentage of positive and negative agreement of the saliva samples with the nasopharyngeal swab were 67% and 97% respectively with positive and negative predictive values as 69% and 96% respectively. The findings indicate that drooling saliva samples have good and comparable diagnostic accuracy to the nasopharyngeal swabs with moderate sensitivities and high specificities.

Evaluation of RT-qPCR of mouthwash and buccal swabs for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in children and adults

Background

The use of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs as a specimen collection method to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection is frequently perceived as uncomfortable by patients and requires trained personnel. In this study, detection rate of SARS-CoV-2 in mouthwash samples and buccal swabs were compared in both children and adults.

Material and methods

In patients admitted to hospital with confirmed COVID-19 within the previous 72 hours, NP and buccal swabs as well as mouthwash samples were collected. RT-qPCR was performed on all samples.

Results

In total, 170 samples were collected from 155 patients (137 adults and 18 children). Approximately 91.7% of the collected NP swabs were positive in RT-PCR compared to 63.1% of mouthwash samples and 42.4% of buccal swabs. Compared to NP swabs, the sensitivity of using mouthwash was 96.3% and 65.4% for buccal swabs in NP swab samples with a CT value <25. With increasing CT values, sensitivity decreased in both mouthwash and buccal swabs. The virus load was highest during the first week of infection, with a continuous decline observed in all three collection methods over time.

Discussion

Mouthwash presents an alternative collection method for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in the case of unfeasible NP swab sampling. Buccal swabs should not be used due to their low sensitivity.

Swab and Sputum SARS-CoV-2 RNA-Negative, CT-Positive, Symptomatic Contacts of COVID-19 Cases: A Hypothesis-Generating Prospective Population-Based Cohort Study of Eight Clusters

Background: While some contacts of COVID-19 cases become symptomatic and radiographically abnormal, their SARS-CoV-2 RNA tests remain negative throughout the disease course. This prospective population-based cohort study aimed to explore their characteristics and significances. Methods: From January 22, 2020, when the first COVID-19 case was identified in Hefei, China, until July 3, a total of 14,839 people in Feidong, Hefei, with a population of ~1,081,000 underwent SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing, where 36 cases (0.2%) with confirmed COVID-19 infection (Group 1) and 27 close contacts (0.2%) testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA but having both positive COVID-19 exposure histories and CT findings (Group 2) from eight clusters were prospectively identified. Another 62 non-COVID-19 pneumonia cases without any exposure history (Group 3) were enrolled, and characteristics of the three groups were described and compared. We further described a cluster with an unusual transmission pattern. Results: Fever was more common in Group 2 than Groups 1 and 3. Frequency of diarrhea in Group 1 was higher than in Groups 2 and 3. Median leucocyte, neutrophil, monocyte, and eosinophil counts were all lower in Groups 1 and 2 than in Group 3. Median D-dimer level was lower in Group 1 than in Groups 2 and 3. Total protein and albumin levels were higher in Groups 1 and 2 than in Group 3. C-reactive protein level was lower and erythrocyte sedimentation rate slower in Groups 1 and 2 than in Group 3. Combination antibacterial therapy and levofloxacin were more often used in Group 3 than in Groups 1 and 2. Lopinavir/ritonavir was more often administered in Groups 1 and 2 than in Group 3. Group 1 received more often corticosteroids than Groups 2 and 3. Group 2 received less often oxygen therapy than Groups 1 and 3. Median duration from illness onset to discharge was longer in Group 1 (27 d) than Groups 2 and 3 (both 17 d). Among contacts of a confirmed COVID-19 patient, only one had a positive virus RNA test but remained asymptomatic and had negative CT findings, and three had negative virus RNA tests but had symptoms and positive CT findings, one of whom transmitted COVID-19 to another asymptomatic laboratory-confirmed patient who had no other exposures. Conclusions: Among close contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases, some present with positive symptoms and CT findings but test negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA using common respiratory (throat swab and sputum) specimens; they have features more similar to confirmed COVID-19 cases than non-COVID-19 pneumonia cases and might have transmitted SARS-CoV-2 to others. Such cases might add to the complexity and difficulty of COVID-19 control. Our hypothesis-generating study might suggest that SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing by rRT-PCR assays of common respiratory (throat swab and sputum) specimens alone, the widely accepted "golden standard" for diagnosing COVID-19, might be sometimes insufficient, and that further studies with some further procedures (e.g., testing via bronchoalveolar lavage or specific antibodies) would be warranted for Group 2-like patients, namely, the SARS-CoV-2 RNA-negative (tested using common respiratory specimens), radiographically positive, symptomatic contacts of COVID-19 cases, to further reveal their nature.