Evaluation of saliva as a complementary technique to the diagnosis of COVID-19: a systematic review

Performance of saliva compared with nasopharyngeal swab for diagnosis of COVID-19 by NAAT in cross-sectional studies: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) is the preferred method to diagnose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Saliva has been suggested as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), but previous systematic reviews were limited by the number and types of studies available. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the diagnostic performance of saliva compared with NPS for COVID-19. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases up to 24 April 2021 for studies that directly compared paired NPS and saliva specimens taken at the time of diagnosis. Meta-analysis was performed using an exact binomial rendition of the bivariate mixed-effects regression model. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Of 2683 records, we included 23 studies with 25 cohorts, comprising 11,582 paired specimens. A wide variety of NAAT assays and collection methods were used. Meta-analysis gave a pooled sensitivity of 87 % (95 % CI = 83-90 %) and specificity of 99 % (95 % CI = 98-99 %). Subgroup analyses showed the highest sensitivity when the suspected individual is tested in an outpatient setting and is symptomatic. Our results support the use of saliva NAAT as an alternative to NPS NAAT for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

Saliva as an alternative specimen to nasopharyngeal swabs for COVID-19 diagnosis: Review

Almost 2 years ago, the novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was discovered to be the causative agent of the disease COVID-19. Subsequently, SARS-CoV-2 has spread across the world infecting millions of people, resulting in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The current 'gold standard' for COVID-19 diagnosis involves obtaining a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) from the patient and testing for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the specimen using real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR). However, obtaining a NPS specimen is an uncomfortable and invasive procedure for the patient and is limited in its applicability to mass testing. Interest in saliva as an alternative diagnostic specimen is of increasing global research interest due to its malleability to mass testing, greater patient acceptability and overall ease of specimen collection. However, the current literature surrounding the sensitivity of saliva compared to NPS is conflicting. The aim of this review was to analyse the recent literature to assess the viability of saliva in COVID-19 diagnosis. We hypothesize that the discrepancies in the current literature are likely due to the variations in the saliva collection and processing protocols used between studies. The universal adaptation of an optimised protocol could alleviate these discrepancies and see saliva specimens be as sensitive, if not more, than NPS for COVID-19 diagnosis. Whilst saliva specimens are more complimentary to mass-testing, with the possibility of samples being collected from home, the RT-qPCR diagnostic process remains to be the rate-limiting step and therefore interest in salivary rapid antigen tests, which negate the wait-times of RT-qPCR with results available within 15-30 min, may be an answer to this.

Role of Saliva as a Non-Invasive Diagnostic Method for Detection of COVID-19

SARS coronavirus2 is the primary cause of new Coronavirus illness (COVID-19) (SARS- COV-2). Today, COVID-19 is a global epidemic. Coronavirus illness may be diagnosed using a variety of approaches. The gold standard is RT-PCR, which is used in all of these assays. Swabs from the nose, pharynx, or mouth are the most often used sampling methods for coronavirus detection. For COVID-19 testing, saliva may be utilized as an alternate sample. When compared to a nasopharyngeal swab, saliva samples have a number of advantages and disadvantages. Saliva has also been reviewed as a non-invasive diagnostic tool for the detection of COVID-19. The affordability of the salivary diagnostic process makes it an effective process for detecting the COVID-19 viruses. The researchers have found that salivary diagnostic processes have greater chances of success than other processes of Coronavirus detection. However, healthcare professionals need to make positive changes to their working processes to ensure the sustainability of the salivary diagnosis processes.

Is saliva collected passively without forceful coughing sensitive to detect SARS-CoV-2 in ambulatory cases? A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review was conducted to assess the sensitivity rate of SARS-CoV-2 detection in the saliva of ambulatory asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic patients, with saliva being collected passively without any forceful coughing.

STUDY DESIGN

A literature search was performed from January 2020 to July 2021. Prospective studies excluding letters to editors were included in our review only if saliva and nasopharyngeal samples were collected simultaneously and sensitivity was reported using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic ambulatory cases.

RESULTS

A total of 436 studies were assessed; 10 (4 cohorts and 6 cross-sectional) studies met our inclusion criteria. The sensitivity rate of saliva to detect SARS-CoV-2 varied from 85.7% to 98.6% in all except for 3 studies. Lower sensitivity levels were attributed to low viral load (51.9% and 63.8%) or lack of supervision while collecting saliva (66.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Passively collected saliva in the absence of coughing has a high sensitivity rate to detect SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic patients compared with nasopharyngeal swabs. Limitations of previous studies, such as lack of attention to the method of saliva collection, stages, and severity of the disease at the time of sample collection, can be researched in future investigations.

Isothermal amplification and fluorescent detection of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-2 variant virus in nasopharyngeal swabs

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 is a serious health threat causing worldwide morbidity and mortality. Real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR) is currently the standard for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Although various nucleic acid-based assays have been developed to aid the detection of SARS-CoV-2 from COVID-19 patient samples, the objective of this study was to develop a diagnostic test that can be completed in 30 minutes without having to isolate RNA from the samples. Here, we present an RNA amplification detection method performed using reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) reactions to achieve specific, rapid (30 min), and sensitive (<100 copies) fluorescent detection in real-time of SARS-CoV-2 directly from patient nasopharyngeal swab (NP) samples. When compared to RT-qPCR, positive NP swab samples assayed by fluorescent RT-LAMP had 98% (n = 41/42) concordance and negative NP swab samples assayed by fluorescent RT-LAMP had 87% (n = 59/68) concordance for the same samples. Importantly, the fluorescent RT-LAMP results were obtained without purification of RNA from the NP swab samples in contrast to RT-qPCR. We also show that the fluorescent RT-LAMP assay can specifically detect live virus directly from cultures of both SARS-CoV-2 wild type (WA1/2020), and a SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 (alpha) variant strain with equal sensitivity to RT-qPCR. RT-LAMP has several advantages over RT-qPCR including isothermal amplification, speed (<30 min), reduced costs, and similar sensitivity and specificity.

COVID-19 Seroprevalence and Active Infection in an Asymptomatic Population

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, immediate and scalable testing solutions are needed to direct return to full capacity planning in the general public and across the Department of Defense (DoD). To fully understand the extent to which a population has been affected by COVID-19, active monitoring approaches require an estimation of overall seroprevalence in addition to accurate, affordable, and rapid tests to detect current SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this study, researchers in the Air Force Research Laboratory's 711th Human Performance Wing, Airman Systems Directorate evaluated the performance of various testing methods for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and viral RNA in asymptomatic adults working at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and the surrounding area during the period of 23 July 2020-23 Oct 2020. Altogether, there was a seroprevalance of 3.09% and an active infection rate of 0.5% (determined via the testing of saliva samples) amongst individuals tested, both of which were comparable to local and national averages at the time. This work also presents technical and non-technical assessments of various testing strategies as compared to the gold standard approaches (e.g., lateral flow assays vs. ELISA and RT-LAMP vs. RT-PCR) in order to explore orthogonal supply chains and fieldability. Exploration and validation of multiple testing strategies will allow the DoD and other workforces to make informed responses to COVID-19 and future pandemics.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Gargle, Spit, and Sputum Specimens

The gold standard for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnosis is reverse transcription (RT)-PCR from a nasopharyngeal swab specimen (NPS). Its collection involves close contact between patients and health care workers, requiring a significant amount of workforce and putting them at risk of infection. We evaluated self-collection of alternative specimens and compared their sensitivity and cycle threshold (C_T) values to those of NPS. We visited acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outpatients to collect concomitant NPS and gargle specimens and had patients self-collect gargle and either sputum or spit specimens the next morning. We included 40 patients and collected 40 concomitant NPS and gargle specimens, as well as 40 gargle, 22 spit, and 16 sputum specimens the next day (2 patients could not produce sputum). All specimens were as sensitive as NPS. Gargle specimens had a sensitivity of 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.00), whether collected concomitantly with NPS or the next morning. Next-morning spit and sputum specimens showed sensitivities of 1.00 (95% CI, 1.00 to 1.00) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.00]), respectively. The gargle specimens had significantly higher mean C_T values of 29.89 (standard deviation [SD], 4.63; P < 0.001) and 29.25 (SD, 3.99; P < 0.001) when collected concomitantly and the next morning, respectively, compared to NPS (22.07 [SD, 4.63]). C_T values obtained with spit (23.51 [SD, 4.57]; P = 0.11) and sputum (25.82 [SD, 9.21]; P = 0.28) specimens were close to those of NPS. All alternative specimen collection methods were as sensitive as NPS, but spit collection appeared more promising, with a low C_T value and ease of collection. Our findings warrant further investigation.

IMPORTANCE Control of the COVID-19 pandemic relies heavily on a test-trace-isolate strategy. The most commonly used specimen for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is a nasopharyngeal swab. However, this method is quite uncomfortable for the patient, requires specific equipment (nose swabs and containers), and requires close proximity to health care workers, putting them at risk of infection. Developing alternative sampling strategies could decrease the burden for health care workers, help overcome potential shortages of equipment, and improve acceptability of testing by reducing patient discomfort.

Diagnostic performance of different sampling approaches for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The comparative performance of different clinical sampling methods for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-PCR among populations with suspected infection remains unclear. This meta-analysis aims to systematically compare the diagnostic performance of different clinical specimen collection methods.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, medRxiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, and Research Square from Jan 1, 2000, to Nov 16, 2020. We included original clinical studies that examined the performance of nasopharyngeal swabs and any additional respiratory specimens for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection among individuals presenting in ambulatory care. Studies without data on paired samples, or those that only examined different samples from confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases were not useful for examining diagnostic performance of a test and were excluded. Diagnostic performance, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, was examined using random effects models and double arcsine transformation.

FINDINGS

Of the 5577 studies identified in our search, 23 studies including 7973 participants with 16 762 respiratory samples were included. Respiratory specimens examined in these studies included 7973 nasopharyngeal swabs, 1622 nasal swabs, 6110 saliva samples, 338 throat swabs, and 719 pooled nasal and throat swabs. Using nasopharyngeal swabs as the gold standard, pooled nasal and throat swabs gave the highest sensitivity of 97% (95% CI 93-100), whereas lower sensitivities were achieved by saliva (85%, 75-93) and nasal swabs (86%, 77-93) and a much lower sensitivity by throat swabs (68%, 35-94). A comparably high positive predictive value was obtained by pooled nasal and throat (97%, 90-100) and nasal swabs (96%, 87-100) and a slightly lower positive predictive value by saliva (93%, 88-97). Throat swabs have the lowest positive predictive value of 75% (95% CI 45-96). Comparably high specificities (range 97-99%) and negative predictive value (range 95-99%) were observed among different clinical specimens. Comparison between health-care-worker collection and self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs showed comparable diagnostic performance. No significant heterogeneity was observed in the analysis of pooled nasal and throat swabs and throat swabs, whereas moderate to substantial heterogeneity (I2 ≥30%) was observed in studies on saliva and nasal swabs.

INTERPRETATION

Our review suggests that, compared with the gold standard of nasopharyngeal swabs, pooled nasal and throat swabs offered the best diagnostic performance of the alternative sampling approaches for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in ambulatory care. Saliva and nasal swabs gave comparable and very good diagnostic performance and are clinically acceptable alternative specimen collection methods. Throat swabs gave a much lower sensitivity and positive predictive value and should not be recommended. Self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs was not associated with any significant impairment of diagnostic accuracy. Our results also provide a useful reference framework for the proper interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 testing results using different clinical specimens.

FUNDING

Hong Kong Research Grants Council.

Diagnostic performance of different sampling approaches for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The comparative performance of different clinical sampling methods for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-PCR among populations with suspected infection remains unclear. This meta-analysis aims to systematically compare the diagnostic performance of different clinical specimen collection methods.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, medRxiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, and Research Square from Jan 1, 2000, to Nov 16, 2020. We included original clinical studies that examined the performance of nasopharyngeal swabs and any additional respiratory specimens for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection among individuals presenting in ambulatory care. Studies without data on paired samples, or those that only examined different samples from confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases were not useful for examining diagnostic performance of a test and were excluded. Diagnostic performance, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, was examined using random effects models and double arcsine transformation.

FINDINGS

Of the 5577 studies identified in our search, 23 studies including 7973 participants with 16 762 respiratory samples were included. Respiratory specimens examined in these studies included 7973 nasopharyngeal swabs, 1622 nasal swabs, 6110 saliva samples, 338 throat swabs, and 719 pooled nasal and throat swabs. Using nasopharyngeal swabs as the gold standard, pooled nasal and throat swabs gave the highest sensitivity of 97% (95% CI 93-100), whereas lower sensitivities were achieved by saliva (85%, 75-93) and nasal swabs (86%, 77-93) and a much lower sensitivity by throat swabs (68%, 35-94). A comparably high positive predictive value was obtained by pooled nasal and throat (97%, 90-100) and nasal swabs (96%, 87-100) and a slightly lower positive predictive value by saliva (93%, 88-97). Throat swabs have the lowest positive predictive value of 75% (95% CI 45-96). Comparably high specificities (range 97-99%) and negative predictive value (range 95-99%) were observed among different clinical specimens. Comparison between health-care-worker collection and self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs showed comparable diagnostic performance. No significant heterogeneity was observed in the analysis of pooled nasal and throat swabs and throat swabs, whereas moderate to substantial heterogeneity (I² ≥30%) was observed in studies on saliva and nasal swabs.

INTERPRETATION

Our review suggests that, compared with the gold standard of nasopharyngeal swabs, pooled nasal and throat swabs offered the best diagnostic performance of the alternative sampling approaches for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in ambulatory care. Saliva and nasal swabs gave comparable and very good diagnostic performance and are clinically acceptable alternative specimen collection methods. Throat swabs gave a much lower sensitivity and positive predictive value and should not be recommended. Self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs was not associated with any significant impairment of diagnostic accuracy. Our results also provide a useful reference framework for the proper interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 testing results using different clinical specimens.

FUNDING

Hong Kong Research Grants Council.