Cargando…
Salivette, a relevant saliva sampling device for SARS-CoV-2 detection
Background: The gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis relies on quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase-chain reaction (RT-qPCR) from nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens, but NPSs present several limitations. The simplicity, low invasive and possibility of self-collection of saliva imposed thes...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Taylor & Francis
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8098750/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33986939 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20002297.2021.1920226 |
_version_ | 1783688470278963200 |
---|---|
author | Melo Costa, Monique Benoit, Nicolas Dormoi, Jerome Amalvict, Remy Gomez, Nicolas Tissot-Dupont, Hervé Million, Matthieu Pradines, Bruno Granjeaud, Samuel Almeras, Lionel |
author_facet | Melo Costa, Monique Benoit, Nicolas Dormoi, Jerome Amalvict, Remy Gomez, Nicolas Tissot-Dupont, Hervé Million, Matthieu Pradines, Bruno Granjeaud, Samuel Almeras, Lionel |
author_sort | Melo Costa, Monique |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background: The gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis relies on quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase-chain reaction (RT-qPCR) from nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens, but NPSs present several limitations. The simplicity, low invasive and possibility of self-collection of saliva imposed these specimens as a relevant alternative for SARS-CoV-2 detection. However, the discrepancy of saliva test results compared to NPSs made of its use controversial. Here, we assessed Salivettes®, as a standardized saliva collection device, and compared SARS-CoV-2 positivity on paired NPS and saliva specimens. Methods: A total of 303 individuals randomly selected among those investigated for SARS-CoV-2 were enrolled, including 30 (9.9%) patients previously positively tested using NPS (follow-up group), 90 (29.7%) mildly symptomatic and 183 (60.4%) asymptomatic. Results: The RT-qPCR revealed a positive rate of 11.6% (n = 35) and 17.2% (n = 52) for NPSs and saliva samples, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of saliva samples were 82.9% and 91.4%, respectively, using NPS as reference. The highest proportion of discordant results concerned the follow-up group (33.3%). Although the agreement exceeded 90.0% in the symptomatic and asymptomatic groups, 17 individuals were detected positive only in saliva samples, with consistent medical arguments. Conclusion Saliva collected with Salivette® was more sensitive for detecting symptomatic and pre-symptomatic infections. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8098750 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Taylor & Francis |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80987502021-05-10 Salivette, a relevant saliva sampling device for SARS-CoV-2 detection Melo Costa, Monique Benoit, Nicolas Dormoi, Jerome Amalvict, Remy Gomez, Nicolas Tissot-Dupont, Hervé Million, Matthieu Pradines, Bruno Granjeaud, Samuel Almeras, Lionel J Oral Microbiol Review Article Background: The gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis relies on quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase-chain reaction (RT-qPCR) from nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens, but NPSs present several limitations. The simplicity, low invasive and possibility of self-collection of saliva imposed these specimens as a relevant alternative for SARS-CoV-2 detection. However, the discrepancy of saliva test results compared to NPSs made of its use controversial. Here, we assessed Salivettes®, as a standardized saliva collection device, and compared SARS-CoV-2 positivity on paired NPS and saliva specimens. Methods: A total of 303 individuals randomly selected among those investigated for SARS-CoV-2 were enrolled, including 30 (9.9%) patients previously positively tested using NPS (follow-up group), 90 (29.7%) mildly symptomatic and 183 (60.4%) asymptomatic. Results: The RT-qPCR revealed a positive rate of 11.6% (n = 35) and 17.2% (n = 52) for NPSs and saliva samples, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of saliva samples were 82.9% and 91.4%, respectively, using NPS as reference. The highest proportion of discordant results concerned the follow-up group (33.3%). Although the agreement exceeded 90.0% in the symptomatic and asymptomatic groups, 17 individuals were detected positive only in saliva samples, with consistent medical arguments. Conclusion Saliva collected with Salivette® was more sensitive for detecting symptomatic and pre-symptomatic infections. Taylor & Francis 2021-04-30 /pmc/articles/PMC8098750/ /pubmed/33986939 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20002297.2021.1920226 Text en © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Review Article Melo Costa, Monique Benoit, Nicolas Dormoi, Jerome Amalvict, Remy Gomez, Nicolas Tissot-Dupont, Hervé Million, Matthieu Pradines, Bruno Granjeaud, Samuel Almeras, Lionel Salivette, a relevant saliva sampling device for SARS-CoV-2 detection |
title | Salivette, a relevant saliva sampling device for SARS-CoV-2 detection |
title_full | Salivette, a relevant saliva sampling device for SARS-CoV-2 detection |
title_fullStr | Salivette, a relevant saliva sampling device for SARS-CoV-2 detection |
title_full_unstemmed | Salivette, a relevant saliva sampling device for SARS-CoV-2 detection |
title_short | Salivette, a relevant saliva sampling device for SARS-CoV-2 detection |
title_sort | salivette, a relevant saliva sampling device for sars-cov-2 detection |
topic | Review Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8098750/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33986939 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20002297.2021.1920226 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT melocostamonique salivettearelevantsalivasamplingdeviceforsarscov2detection AT benoitnicolas salivettearelevantsalivasamplingdeviceforsarscov2detection AT dormoijerome salivettearelevantsalivasamplingdeviceforsarscov2detection AT amalvictremy salivettearelevantsalivasamplingdeviceforsarscov2detection AT gomeznicolas salivettearelevantsalivasamplingdeviceforsarscov2detection AT tissotdupontherve salivettearelevantsalivasamplingdeviceforsarscov2detection AT millionmatthieu salivettearelevantsalivasamplingdeviceforsarscov2detection AT pradinesbruno salivettearelevantsalivasamplingdeviceforsarscov2detection AT granjeaudsamuel salivettearelevantsalivasamplingdeviceforsarscov2detection AT almeraslionel salivettearelevantsalivasamplingdeviceforsarscov2detection |