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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |