Are Posterior Oropharyngeal Saliva Specimens an Acceptable Alternative to Nasopharyngeal Sampling for the Monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 in Primary-Care Settings?

A randomized control trial employing infraorbital nerve stimulation as a neural distractor during nasopharyngeal swab

INTRODUCTION

With the global COVID-19 pandemic, nasopharyngeal swabbing has become commonplace and can occasionally cause discomfort, tearing, and anxiety.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether using a neural distraction device during nasopharyngeal swabbing can mitigate patient discomfort.

METHODS

Participants were randomized into nasal swab with vibration first (treatment-control or Tc) or nasal swab without vibration first (control-treatment or Ct). Then the swab was repeated with the opposite technique. The vibration device was used to stimulate the infraorbital nerve at the midpupillary line, while a nasopharyngeal swab was performed according to CDC protocol. After each swab, participants filled out a survey to assess pain, discomfort, and tearing. This procedure was replicated on the contralateral nostril for a total of 4 swabs and 4 surveys.

RESULTS

Thirty-four subjects were included in the analysis. In the Ct group, there was a median 1.0-point decrease in pain with the use of vibration (95% CI [-1.8, -0.3], P = 0.0117), 2.5-point decrease (95% CI [-3.0, -0.8], P = 00039) in discomfort, and a 1.0-point decrease (95% CI [-2.6, -0.2] P = 0.0303) in tearing when the vibratory device was used. In the Tc group, there was a median 2.0-point decrease in pain with vibration (95% CI [ -2.7, -1.1], P < 0.0001), 2.3-point decrease in discomfort (95% CI [-3.1, -1.5], P < 0.0001), and a 1.5-point decrease in tearing (95% CI [-2.5, -0.5], P = 0.0037) when vibration was used.

CONCLUSION

Vibratory stimulation of the infraorbital nerve is safe and effectively reduced pain, discomfort, and tearing during nasopharyngeal swab. Vibration is a reasonable option to minimize patient discomfort during COVID-19 or other microbiological testing.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Molecular Diagnostic Testing (December 2023)

Accurate molecular diagnostic tests are necessary for confirming a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and for identifying asymptomatic carriage of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The number of available SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection tests continues to increase as does the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. Thus, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed an evidence-based diagnostic guideline to assist clinicians, clinical laboratorians, patients, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests. In addition, we provide a conceptual framework for understanding molecular diagnostic test performance, discuss nuances of test result interpretation in a variety of practice settings, and highlight important unmet research needs related to COVID-19 diagnostic testing. IDSA convened a multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review to identify and prioritize clinical questions and outcomes related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. The panel agreed on 12 diagnostic recommendations. Access to accurate SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing is critical for patient care, hospital infection prevention, and the public health response to COVID-19 infection. Information on the clinical performance of available tests continues to grow, but the quality of evidence of the current literature to support this updated molecular diagnostic guideline remains moderate to very low. Recognizing these limitations, the IDSA panel weighed available diagnostic evidence and recommends nucleic acid testing for all symptomatic individuals suspected of having COVID-19. In addition, testing is suggested for asymptomatic individuals with known or suspected contact with a COVID-19 case when the results will impact isolation/quarantine/personal protective equipment (PPE) usage decisions. Evidence in support of rapid testing and testing of upper respiratory specimens other than nasopharyngeal swabs, which offer logistical advantages, is sufficient to warrant conditional recommendations in favor of these approaches.

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.

Reverse-Transcription Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Has High Accuracy for Detecting Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Saliva and Nasopharyngeal/Oropharyngeal Swabs from Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Individuals

Previous studies have described reverse-transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) for the rapid detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swab and saliva samples. This multisite clinical evaluation describes the validation of an improved sample preparation method for extraction-free RT-LAMP and reports clinical performance of four RT-LAMP assay formats for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Direct RT-LAMP was performed on 559 swabs and 86,760 saliva samples and RNA RT-LAMP on extracted RNA from 12,619 swabs and 12,521 saliva samples from asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals across health care and community settings. For direct RT-LAMP, overall diagnostic sensitivity (DSe) was 70.35% (95% CI, 63.48%-76.60%) on swabs and 84.62% (95% CI, 79.50%-88.88%) on saliva, with diagnostic specificity of 100% (95% CI, 98.98%-100.00%) on swabs and 100% (95% CI, 99.72%-100.00%) on saliva, compared with quantitative RT-PCR (RT-qPCR); analyzing samples with RT-qPCR ORF1ab CT values of ≤25 and ≤33, DSe values were 100% (95% CI, 96.34%-100%) and 77.78% (95% CI, 70.99%-83.62%) for swabs, and 99.01% (95% CI, 94.61%-99.97%) and 87.61% (95% CI, 82.69%-91.54%) for saliva, respectively. For RNA RT-LAMP, overall DSe and diagnostic specificity were 96.06% (95% CI, 92.88%-98.12%) and 99.99% (95% CI, 99.95%-100%) for swabs, and 80.65% (95% CI, 73.54%-86.54%) and 99.99% (95% CI, 99.95%-100%) for saliva, respectively. These findings demonstrate that RT-LAMP is applicable to a variety of use cases, including frequent, interval-based direct RT-LAMP of saliva from asymptomatic individuals who may otherwise be missed using symptomatic testing alone.

Is the Alpha Variant of SARS-CoV-2 Associated with a Higher Viral Load Than the Historical Strain in Saliva Samples in Patients with Mild to Moderate Symptoms?

During the COVID-19 pandemic, several generic variants emerged, including the Alpha variant, with increased transmissibility compared to historical strains. We aimed to compare the evolution of the viral load between patients infected with the Alpha variant and those infected with the historical SARS-CoV-2 strains, while taking into account the time interval between the onset of symptoms and samples. We used data collected from patients with an acute respiratory infection (mild to moderate symptoms) and seen in consultation in primary care, included in a prospective longitudinal study, COVID-A. Patients performed four salivary samples during the follow-up. All patients who had at least one of the saliva samples test positive for SARS-CoV-2 were included in the analysis. Overall, 118 patients were included: 89 infected by the historical strain and 29 infected by the Alpha variant. Even though we tended to observe a higher viral load in the Alpha variant group, we found no significant difference in the evolution of the viral load in saliva samples between patients infected with the Alpha variant of the SARS-CoV-2 and those infected by historical strains when controlling for the time interval between the onset of symptoms and sampling.