Cargando…

Prospective Comparison of Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Swab Sampling for Mass Screening for COVID-19

Current testing for COVID-19 relies on reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction from a nasopharyngeal swab specimen. Saliva samples have advantages regarding ease and painlessness of collection, which does not require trained staff and may allow self-sampling. We enrolled 776 persons at vario...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nacher, Mathieu, Mergeay-Fabre, Mayka, Blanchet, Denis, Benoit, Orelie, Pozl, Tristan, Mesphoule, Pauline, Sainte-Rose, Vincent, Vialette, Véronique, Toulet, Bruno, Moua, Aurélie, Saout, Mona, Simon, Stéphane, Guidarelli, Manon, Galindo, Muriel, Biche, Barbara, Faurous, William, Chaizemartin, Laurie, Fahrasmane, Aniza, Rochemont, Devi, Vignier, Nicolas, Vabret, Astrid, Demar, Magalie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7940378/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33708779
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.621160
_version_ 1783661941095399424
author Nacher, Mathieu
Mergeay-Fabre, Mayka
Blanchet, Denis
Benoit, Orelie
Pozl, Tristan
Mesphoule, Pauline
Sainte-Rose, Vincent
Vialette, Véronique
Toulet, Bruno
Moua, Aurélie
Saout, Mona
Simon, Stéphane
Guidarelli, Manon
Galindo, Muriel
Biche, Barbara
Faurous, William
Chaizemartin, Laurie
Fahrasmane, Aniza
Rochemont, Devi
Vignier, Nicolas
Vabret, Astrid
Demar, Magalie
author_facet Nacher, Mathieu
Mergeay-Fabre, Mayka
Blanchet, Denis
Benoit, Orelie
Pozl, Tristan
Mesphoule, Pauline
Sainte-Rose, Vincent
Vialette, Véronique
Toulet, Bruno
Moua, Aurélie
Saout, Mona
Simon, Stéphane
Guidarelli, Manon
Galindo, Muriel
Biche, Barbara
Faurous, William
Chaizemartin, Laurie
Fahrasmane, Aniza
Rochemont, Devi
Vignier, Nicolas
Vabret, Astrid
Demar, Magalie
author_sort Nacher, Mathieu
collection PubMed
description Current testing for COVID-19 relies on reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction from a nasopharyngeal swab specimen. Saliva samples have advantages regarding ease and painlessness of collection, which does not require trained staff and may allow self-sampling. We enrolled 776 persons at various field-testing sites and collected nasopharyngeal and pooled saliva samples. One hundred sixty two had a positive COVID-19 RT-PCR, 61% were mildly symptomatic and 39% asymptomatic. The sensitivity of RT-PCR on saliva samples vs. nasopharygeal swabs varied depending on the patient groups considered or on Ct thresholds. There were 10 (6.2%) patients with a positive saliva sample and a negative nasopharyngeal swab, all of whom had Ct values <25 for three genes. For symptomatic patients for whom the interval between symptoms onset and sampling was <10 days sensitivity was 77% but when excluding persons with isolated N gene positivity (54/162), sensitivity was 90%. In asymptomatic patients, the sensitivity was only 24%. When we looked at patients with Cts <30, sensitivity was 83 or 88.9% when considering two genes. The relatively good performance for patients with low Cts suggests that Saliva testing could be a useful and acceptable tool to identify infectious persons in mass screening contexts, a strategically important task for contact tracing and isolation in the community.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7940378
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79403782021-03-10 Prospective Comparison of Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Swab Sampling for Mass Screening for COVID-19 Nacher, Mathieu Mergeay-Fabre, Mayka Blanchet, Denis Benoit, Orelie Pozl, Tristan Mesphoule, Pauline Sainte-Rose, Vincent Vialette, Véronique Toulet, Bruno Moua, Aurélie Saout, Mona Simon, Stéphane Guidarelli, Manon Galindo, Muriel Biche, Barbara Faurous, William Chaizemartin, Laurie Fahrasmane, Aniza Rochemont, Devi Vignier, Nicolas Vabret, Astrid Demar, Magalie Front Med (Lausanne) Medicine Current testing for COVID-19 relies on reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction from a nasopharyngeal swab specimen. Saliva samples have advantages regarding ease and painlessness of collection, which does not require trained staff and may allow self-sampling. We enrolled 776 persons at various field-testing sites and collected nasopharyngeal and pooled saliva samples. One hundred sixty two had a positive COVID-19 RT-PCR, 61% were mildly symptomatic and 39% asymptomatic. The sensitivity of RT-PCR on saliva samples vs. nasopharygeal swabs varied depending on the patient groups considered or on Ct thresholds. There were 10 (6.2%) patients with a positive saliva sample and a negative nasopharyngeal swab, all of whom had Ct values <25 for three genes. For symptomatic patients for whom the interval between symptoms onset and sampling was <10 days sensitivity was 77% but when excluding persons with isolated N gene positivity (54/162), sensitivity was 90%. In asymptomatic patients, the sensitivity was only 24%. When we looked at patients with Cts <30, sensitivity was 83 or 88.9% when considering two genes. The relatively good performance for patients with low Cts suggests that Saliva testing could be a useful and acceptable tool to identify infectious persons in mass screening contexts, a strategically important task for contact tracing and isolation in the community. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-02-23 /pmc/articles/PMC7940378/ /pubmed/33708779 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.621160 Text en Copyright © 2021 Nacher, Mergeay-Fabre, Blanchet, Benoit, Pozl, Mesphoule, Sainte-Rose, Vialette, Toulet, Moua, Saout, Simon, Guidarelli, Galindo, Biche, Faurous, Chaizemartin, Fahrasmane, Rochemont, Vignier, Vabret and Demar. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Medicine
Nacher, Mathieu
Mergeay-Fabre, Mayka
Blanchet, Denis
Benoit, Orelie
Pozl, Tristan
Mesphoule, Pauline
Sainte-Rose, Vincent
Vialette, Véronique
Toulet, Bruno
Moua, Aurélie
Saout, Mona
Simon, Stéphane
Guidarelli, Manon
Galindo, Muriel
Biche, Barbara
Faurous, William
Chaizemartin, Laurie
Fahrasmane, Aniza
Rochemont, Devi
Vignier, Nicolas
Vabret, Astrid
Demar, Magalie
Prospective Comparison of Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Swab Sampling for Mass Screening for COVID-19
title Prospective Comparison of Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Swab Sampling for Mass Screening for COVID-19
title_full Prospective Comparison of Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Swab Sampling for Mass Screening for COVID-19
title_fullStr Prospective Comparison of Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Swab Sampling for Mass Screening for COVID-19
title_full_unstemmed Prospective Comparison of Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Swab Sampling for Mass Screening for COVID-19
title_short Prospective Comparison of Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Swab Sampling for Mass Screening for COVID-19
title_sort prospective comparison of saliva and nasopharyngeal swab sampling for mass screening for covid-19
topic Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7940378/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33708779
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.621160
work_keys_str_mv AT nachermathieu prospectivecomparisonofsalivaandnasopharyngealswabsamplingformassscreeningforcovid19
AT mergeayfabremayka prospectivecomparisonofsalivaandnasopharyngealswabsamplingformassscreeningforcovid19
AT blanchetdenis prospectivecomparisonofsalivaandnasopharyngealswabsamplingformassscreeningforcovid19
AT benoitorelie prospectivecomparisonofsalivaandnasopharyngealswabsamplingformassscreeningforcovid19
AT pozltristan prospectivecomparisonofsalivaandnasopharyngealswabsamplingformassscreeningforcovid19
AT mesphoulepauline prospectivecomparisonofsalivaandnasopharyngealswabsamplingformassscreeningforcovid19
AT sainterosevincent prospectivecomparisonofsalivaandnasopharyngealswabsamplingformassscreeningforcovid19
AT vialetteveronique prospectivecomparisonofsalivaandnasopharyngealswabsamplingformassscreeningforcovid19
AT touletbruno prospectivecomparisonofsalivaandnasopharyngealswabsamplingformassscreeningforcovid19
AT mouaaurelie prospectivecomparisonofsalivaandnasopharyngealswabsamplingformassscreeningforcovid19
AT saoutmona prospectivecomparisonofsalivaandnasopharyngealswabsamplingformassscreeningforcovid19
AT simonstephane prospectivecomparisonofsalivaandnasopharyngealswabsamplingformassscreeningforcovid19
AT guidarellimanon prospectivecomparisonofsalivaandnasopharyngealswabsamplingformassscreeningforcovid19
AT galindomuriel prospectivecomparisonofsalivaandnasopharyngealswabsamplingformassscreeningforcovid19
AT bichebarbara prospectivecomparisonofsalivaandnasopharyngealswabsamplingformassscreeningforcovid19
AT faurouswilliam prospectivecomparisonofsalivaandnasopharyngealswabsamplingformassscreeningforcovid19
AT chaizemartinlaurie prospectivecomparisonofsalivaandnasopharyngealswabsamplingformassscreeningforcovid19
AT fahrasmaneaniza prospectivecomparisonofsalivaandnasopharyngealswabsamplingformassscreeningforcovid19
AT rochemontdevi prospectivecomparisonofsalivaandnasopharyngealswabsamplingformassscreeningforcovid19
AT vigniernicolas prospectivecomparisonofsalivaandnasopharyngealswabsamplingformassscreeningforcovid19
AT vabretastrid prospectivecomparisonofsalivaandnasopharyngealswabsamplingformassscreeningforcovid19
AT demarmagalie prospectivecomparisonofsalivaandnasopharyngealswabsamplingformassscreeningforcovid19