Cargando…
Direct comparison of clinical diagnostic sensitivity of saliva from buccal swabs versus combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 Omicron
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: While current guidelines recommend the use of respiratory tract specimens for the direct detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, saliva has recently been suggested as preferred sample type for the sensitive detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron). By comparing saliva collected usi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10207859/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37269606 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2023.105496 |
_version_ | 1785046547394723840 |
---|---|
author | Puyskens, Andreas Michel, Janine Stoliaroff-Pepin, Anna Bayram, Fatimanur Sesver, Akin Wichmann, Ole Harder, Thomas Schaade, Lars Nitsche, Andreas Peine, Caroline |
author_facet | Puyskens, Andreas Michel, Janine Stoliaroff-Pepin, Anna Bayram, Fatimanur Sesver, Akin Wichmann, Ole Harder, Thomas Schaade, Lars Nitsche, Andreas Peine, Caroline |
author_sort | Puyskens, Andreas |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: While current guidelines recommend the use of respiratory tract specimens for the direct detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, saliva has recently been suggested as preferred sample type for the sensitive detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron). By comparing saliva collected using buccal swabs and oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs from patients hospitalized due to COVID-19, we aimed at identifying potential differences in virus detection sensitivity between these sample types. METHODS: We compare the clinical diagnostic sensitivity of paired buccal swabs and combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs from hospitalized, symptomatic COVID-19 patients collected at median six days after symptom onset by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and antigen test. RESULTS: Of the tested SARS-CoV-2 positive sample pairs, 55.8% were identified as SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and 44.2% as Omicron BA.2. Real-time PCR from buccal swabs generated significantly higher quantification cycle (Cq) values compared to those from matched combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs and resulted in an increased number of false-negative PCR results. Reduced diagnostic sensitivity of buccal swabs by real-time PCR was observed already at day one after symptom onset. Similarly, antigen test detection rates were reduced in buccal swabs compared to combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest reduced clinical diagnostic sensitivity of saliva collected using buccal swabs when compared to combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron in symptomatic individuals. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10207859 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-102078592023-05-24 Direct comparison of clinical diagnostic sensitivity of saliva from buccal swabs versus combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 Omicron Puyskens, Andreas Michel, Janine Stoliaroff-Pepin, Anna Bayram, Fatimanur Sesver, Akin Wichmann, Ole Harder, Thomas Schaade, Lars Nitsche, Andreas Peine, Caroline J Clin Virol Article BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: While current guidelines recommend the use of respiratory tract specimens for the direct detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, saliva has recently been suggested as preferred sample type for the sensitive detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron). By comparing saliva collected using buccal swabs and oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs from patients hospitalized due to COVID-19, we aimed at identifying potential differences in virus detection sensitivity between these sample types. METHODS: We compare the clinical diagnostic sensitivity of paired buccal swabs and combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs from hospitalized, symptomatic COVID-19 patients collected at median six days after symptom onset by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and antigen test. RESULTS: Of the tested SARS-CoV-2 positive sample pairs, 55.8% were identified as SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and 44.2% as Omicron BA.2. Real-time PCR from buccal swabs generated significantly higher quantification cycle (Cq) values compared to those from matched combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs and resulted in an increased number of false-negative PCR results. Reduced diagnostic sensitivity of buccal swabs by real-time PCR was observed already at day one after symptom onset. Similarly, antigen test detection rates were reduced in buccal swabs compared to combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest reduced clinical diagnostic sensitivity of saliva collected using buccal swabs when compared to combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron in symptomatic individuals. The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. 2023-08 2023-05-24 /pmc/articles/PMC10207859/ /pubmed/37269606 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2023.105496 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. |
spellingShingle | Article Puyskens, Andreas Michel, Janine Stoliaroff-Pepin, Anna Bayram, Fatimanur Sesver, Akin Wichmann, Ole Harder, Thomas Schaade, Lars Nitsche, Andreas Peine, Caroline Direct comparison of clinical diagnostic sensitivity of saliva from buccal swabs versus combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 Omicron |
title | Direct comparison of clinical diagnostic sensitivity of saliva from buccal swabs versus combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 Omicron |
title_full | Direct comparison of clinical diagnostic sensitivity of saliva from buccal swabs versus combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 Omicron |
title_fullStr | Direct comparison of clinical diagnostic sensitivity of saliva from buccal swabs versus combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 Omicron |
title_full_unstemmed | Direct comparison of clinical diagnostic sensitivity of saliva from buccal swabs versus combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 Omicron |
title_short | Direct comparison of clinical diagnostic sensitivity of saliva from buccal swabs versus combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 Omicron |
title_sort | direct comparison of clinical diagnostic sensitivity of saliva from buccal swabs versus combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of sars-cov-2 b.1.1.529 omicron |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10207859/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37269606 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2023.105496 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT puyskensandreas directcomparisonofclinicaldiagnosticsensitivityofsalivafrombuccalswabsversuscombinedoronasopharyngealswabsinthedetectionofsarscov2b11529omicron AT micheljanine directcomparisonofclinicaldiagnosticsensitivityofsalivafrombuccalswabsversuscombinedoronasopharyngealswabsinthedetectionofsarscov2b11529omicron AT stoliaroffpepinanna directcomparisonofclinicaldiagnosticsensitivityofsalivafrombuccalswabsversuscombinedoronasopharyngealswabsinthedetectionofsarscov2b11529omicron AT bayramfatimanur directcomparisonofclinicaldiagnosticsensitivityofsalivafrombuccalswabsversuscombinedoronasopharyngealswabsinthedetectionofsarscov2b11529omicron AT sesverakin directcomparisonofclinicaldiagnosticsensitivityofsalivafrombuccalswabsversuscombinedoronasopharyngealswabsinthedetectionofsarscov2b11529omicron AT wichmannole directcomparisonofclinicaldiagnosticsensitivityofsalivafrombuccalswabsversuscombinedoronasopharyngealswabsinthedetectionofsarscov2b11529omicron AT harderthomas directcomparisonofclinicaldiagnosticsensitivityofsalivafrombuccalswabsversuscombinedoronasopharyngealswabsinthedetectionofsarscov2b11529omicron AT schaadelars directcomparisonofclinicaldiagnosticsensitivityofsalivafrombuccalswabsversuscombinedoronasopharyngealswabsinthedetectionofsarscov2b11529omicron AT nitscheandreas directcomparisonofclinicaldiagnosticsensitivityofsalivafrombuccalswabsversuscombinedoronasopharyngealswabsinthedetectionofsarscov2b11529omicron AT peinecaroline directcomparisonofclinicaldiagnosticsensitivityofsalivafrombuccalswabsversuscombinedoronasopharyngealswabsinthedetectionofsarscov2b11529omicron |